9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Were explosives in the twin towers for years?

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Were explosives in the twin towers for years?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject:

I'm not going to be able to tackle this all in one go. But I'll start things off as best I can. Perhaps some of my fellow shills can address some of the other points.

blackcat wrote:

Something like this...

Omissions:

The Report fails to mention the total collapse of 47-story steel-framed skyscraper Building 7 at 5:20 on the day of the attack.

The Report also failed to mention the total obliteration of WTC 3 by the collapse of 1 & 2, for the same reason: The focus of the Report was the attacks, not the collateral damage they caused.

blackcat wrote:

The Report contains no mention of the interview in which the owner of Building 7 states that he and the Fire Department decided to "pull" Building 7 -- an apparent admission of a conspiracy to destroy the building and its contents.

It was nothing of the sort, and there's absolutely no reason why the Report should have included it. IMO, this is the most ridiculous piece of "evidence" offered by the Truth Movement. You're going to have to provide some kind of corroboration if you're going to assert that this is an admission as claimed.

blackcat wrote:

The Report fails to mention the rapid removal and recycling of the structural steel from the collapsed World Trade Center buildings, even to make excuses for it.

There was nothing rapid about it. It took eight months to clean up Ground Zero. FEMA and NIST had access to any samples they wanted before the steel was recycled. NIST collected what they felt to be an adequate sampling.

blackcat wrote:

The Report makes no mention of a statement by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to Peter Jennings indicating he had foreknowledge of the collapses: "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."

I would like to see this quote in context. I don't quite know what to make of it. Given that he says the tower collapsed before they could get out of the building leads me to believe that the collapse was imminent--within minutes or less. I would like to know who reported this to Giuliani, and what information they were working from. It appears as though the tower's collapse was not entirely unexpected--at least not just before it collapsed. I recall reading a quote (from a firefighter, I believe) stating that if they had any more explosions, they're not sure the building would be able to remain standing. Which brings us to...

blackcat wrote:

The Report contains no mentions of eyewitness accounts of explosions preceding the collapse of South Towers.

Most people are not surprised that there were explosions prior to the towers' collapses. Explosions and events that sound like explosions are common in building fires. That people immediately conclude that explosions in a burning building that has been severely damaged by a jumbo jet must be bombs strikes me as evidence that they've spent more time in movie theaters than classrooms. That said, the Report should have included reports of these explosions, IMO.

blackcat wrote:

The Report fails to mention that George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principals in the company that had the contract to provide security for the World Trade Center, Stratesec, nor does it mention the company.

Relevance? Only after the evidence weighs heavily towards a bombing would you have to start looking at who had the means, motive and opportunity. Even assuming the evidence did point to bombing, the case for means and opportunity are extremely weak (as for motive, I guess that depends on your other assumptions--but you can't convict on motive alone, else we'd all be locked up for one thing or another). Stratesec did not have THE contract for security, it had A contract, along with other companies. Bush left the company in 2000 (not sure about Walker). Why in the world would the Report mention these things?

blackcat wrote:

The Report repeats the list of 19 suspects identified by the FBI within days of the attack, while failing to mention that six of them reported themselves alive after the attack.

These reports surfaced within two weeks of the attacks. They were quickly cleared up as cases of people with the same names, mistaken identities, etc. Inside Job proponents always mention those initial reports, but they fail to mention the follow-ups. And where are these men now?

I have to get back to work. Perhaps someone else can pick up where I left off. Else I'll pick it up myself another time.

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The Report also failed to mention the total obliteration of WTC 3 by the collapse of 1 & 2, for the same reason: The focus of the Report was the attacks, not the collateral damage they caused.

Collateral damage!!! A 47 storey building fell to the ground and other buildings nearer with much worse damage did not. You are having a laugh. Don't bother responding to the points I posted - I can read the official fairy tale if I want to know what you "think".

MarkyX
Minor Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 21

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject:

blackcat wrote:

Quote:

The Report also failed to mention the total obliteration of WTC 3 by the collapse of 1 & 2, for the same reason: The focus of the Report was the attacks, not the collateral damage they caused.

But I thought WTC7 wasn't hit by terrorists...you guys bring that up often.
_________________
- Mark Iradian
Writer of Chronicles of Garas (A dark tech fantasy webcomic)
The b****** behind Screw Loose Change video

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject:

blackcat wrote:

Quote:

The Report also failed to mention the total obliteration of WTC 3 by the collapse of 1 & 2, for the same reason: The focus of the Report was the attacks, not the collateral damage they caused.

"...other buildings nearer with much worse damage..."

Hey, just a minute there bub....I've read the CT....if WTC 1 and 2 were CD'd and fell at "free-fall speed into their own foot-prints" then what damaged all those buildings??

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

kbo234
Validated Poster

Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject:

These dopey trolls or their masters must think that it is websites like this that are doing the damage. Wrong yet again!

Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: The official conspiracy theory.

Quote:

Well...that's the first intelligent question I've seen raised here. I'd say that this forum's collective IQ should indeed be a subject of investigation.

When I refer to the official conspiracy theory Jay, I think you and I both know that were refferring to that touted by a man who told us he saw the first plane crash into the first tower and thought it was pilot error.

I mean, you do have to question the sanity of a man who claims to have seen something he hasnt seen. But then again, for a man who was told by God to strike Iraq, that can only have the darkest sinister meaning, proving that he is indeed insane.

The guy who told us that Iraq had WMDs.

The guy who claims to be doing in the Middle East what Hitler was claiming to be doing in Europe - "liberating it" - Spreading the flames of democracy.

Ive seen the flames of democracy burning long into the night sky.

Its the people of this kind of mentality who most definitely require either certifying or sending to the Hague War Crimes tribunal.

Those leaders who Tout the official conspiracy theory.

What is your proof for the official conspiracy theory, other than the words of an out and out liar and inbred psycopath ?

Newspeak International
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject:

MarkyX wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Quote:

The Report also failed to mention the total obliteration of WTC 3 by the collapse of 1 & 2, for the same reason: The focus of the Report was the attacks, not the collateral damage they caused.

But I thought WTC7 wasn't hit by terrorists...you guys bring that up often.

It's brought up often due to it's collapse in around 7.5 seconds,which is quite amazing considering fire alone was supposed to have caused 7's
destruction, and for the collapse to appear as though it were brought down by explosives.

Remarkable!

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Hey, just a minute there bub....I've read the CT....if WTC 1 and 2 were CD'd and fell at "free-fall speed into their own foot-prints" then what damaged all those buildings??

All the nonsense being blown out by the explosives. The steel wasn't reduced to dust and there was thousands of tons of it!! Although almost all of the concrete WAS reduced to dust, totally contrary to the official line of a "pancake theory" but very appropriate to the use of explosives. Haven't you seen the pictures of the buildings exploding and seen the steel girders being thrown a hundred feet and more away from the WTC 1 & 2? The main point of describing it as "falling into its own footprint" is to describe how little toppled sideways like a domino. It does not mean that it would be so neat it would cause no damage to buildings nearby. But then you already know that don't you!!? Why do those like you bother posting here? You have to be stupid or evil to believe the official version. What do you think you gain from talking the garbage we are all fed by the government?

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: The Kean commission whitewash.

Abandoned Ego wrote:

Quote:

How can you say that you are seeking answers and seeking the truth and yet refuse to read (note that I do not say "accept") the Commission Report? That's ludicrous. Whatever flaws it has, a tremendous amount of work went into it, and more importantly into the source materials referred to in the endnotes.

When I read about the background of the commissioners, along with their multiple vested interests in an invasion of Afghanistan, along with the consequences for holding anything approaching a serious inquiry then I can quickly recognise its just about the closest thing to foxes guarding the Chicken coop that I can find.

Its called a conflict of interests for the unaware. Yet another example of dollarocracy in action.

How I, you or anyone else can take that report anything close to seriously is beyond me.

"It reads like a novel, a mystery". Indeed.

How would you know if you haven't read it? It's extensively sourced. Like I said, you can argue with the conclusions and blame it on profit/power motives and other conflict of interest, but don't throw away the baby with the bath water. I don't see how you can completely disregard all the sourced material the Report is based on.

Abandoned Ego wrote:

Quote:

As for Bush's quote, I can't very well speak for him, and I won't defend him. I don't follow what the quote is supposed to reveal, though, and how it supposedly contradicts the official version of the events.

Because my friend, this "official" lie is being uttered by the man who is also expecting us to believe that 19 Arabs with boxcutters took his govnt by surprise and pulled off the mass murder of the century.

You might be capable of taking a man like that seriously. I cant. I suppose if youre used to hearing a pathological liar plying his art with the murderous consequences they have had and feel no sense of shame, then I really think you need to be addressing more urgent priorities than defending such a psycopath on here.

Do you think I accept the official version essentially as-is because BUSH said it was the official version?!? I don't trust that man at his word any further than I can spit. He's been saying "Were makin' good progress" about Iraq ever since the "end of major combat operations" despite failure upon failure. Since before his first day in office, when he was running for his first term, every time I hear him speak, I find myself yelling at my radio. Almost nothing he says rings true for me. Do you really think I rely on HIM for information???

Fact is, Bush and his cronies tried to hinder the investigation. They interfered with the FBI, the CIA, FEMA, and the Kean Commission. If anyone would have a grudge against the Bush gang, it would be these folks. And they're the ones who carried out the work. They're the ones who investigated. They're the ones who presented the official version of that day. They're the ones I trust. Not Bush, for godsake.

Abandoned Ego wrote:

Quote:

I also can't very well speak for the secret service. We've all seen the tape of Bush sitting there like an idiot while the sky is falling. What we haven't seen is anything that was going on behind the scenes. I expect that the secret service was deeply entrenched at the school and had the place well-secured.

You expect me to take that as a SERIOUS answer. "They had the place well secured?"

Like the Pentagon you mean ?

Huh? The secret service is charged with protecting the President, not the Pentagon.

Abandoned Ego wrote:

Quote:

I also expect that they were getting regular updates on the situation and that if any planes had gone missing anywhere near Florida, that Bush would have been whisked out in an instant. As it was, it could well be that he was in the most secure place he could be. Why risk bringing him out into the open when you have him safely surrounded by one of the best security details in the world? Ask any security expert--security on the move is vastly more difficult than stationary security.

If they were getting regular updates on the situation, then I can only hope they were better than those updating security on the status of the Pentagon "Airplane".

Speaking of which, dont you find it strange that a man who cant fly a biplane properly ( Hani hanjour) could allegedly pilot a Jet liner through a descent of 7000 feet in less than 4 minutes, culminating in a 270 degree turn at 500 mph a mere 5 feet off the ground ?

Dont you find the official conspiracy theory of those events hard to figure out ?

Dont you also find it strange, that having planned this whole thing for however many years the "official version" said they had planned it, Mr Hanjour then takes it upon himself as a completely useless pilot to fly directly over Mr Rumsfelds office which was the easiest path, choosing instead to finish with an aeranautical triple sukhahara which even the most skilled of jet pilots would have difficulty accomplishing ?

Does the official conspiracy theory of that add up in your mind ?

I have little doubt based upon those 3 facts alone that the official conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs is by far the most ridiculous story ever told.

Those aren't facts, they're questions. Questions are not evidence.
What I find most strange is that Inside Jobbers suppose that some alternative explanation would better explain these supposedly near-impossible aeronautical feats.

Abandoned Ego wrote:

Meanwhile If all of You official conspiracy theorists wish to have a less demeaning association, preffering the title coincidence theorists instead, then you might familiarise yourselves with how you can easily switch labels on this forum, by reading the link I posted previously.

Labels don't bother me. Label me how you like. Just don't substitute labelling for debate.

alwun
Moderate Poster

Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 282
Location: london

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject:

I'm always encouraged, in a perverse kind of way,when the shills show up, especially in numbers. As usual it serves to absolutely confirm that knowledge and intelligence is on 'our' side. They are scrabbling for and clutching at straws. Go shills - go! Let's hear it from the spawn of darkness.

brian
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject:

I post this only for the benefit of those not familiar with all of the facts. chipmunk tells us - "FEMA and NIST had access to any samples they wanted before the steel was recycled. NIST collected what they felt to be an adequate sampling." Without going into the indecent and criminal way the evidence at the crime scene was treated it is informative to learn from the NIST report that NO steel was found to have been exposed to temperatures which reached above 600 ºC. "NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.) " http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html Note carefully what NIST is saying here - it is NOT saying there was evidence of steel having reached 600 ºC but that it had not reached temperatures above that. Therefore the temperatures determined from the samples could have been ANYTHING BELOW 600 ºC. So the huge central core and the perimeter walls all gave way at the same time all the way down with little or no resistance at a speed approaching freefall and it was nothing to do with the briefly burning fire. We are left with the question well what cased these buildings to collapse in the manner of controlled demolition. If we employ Ocamms razor - Never in history have such structures collapsed in the manner they did - absent controlled demolition. Video evidence suggests controlled demolition. Visual evidence suggests controlled demolition. Eyewitness evidence more than suggests controlled demolition Audio evidence suggests controlled demolition. Andrew Johnston has shown how the speed of collapse means an input of energy is required to explain it - controlled demolition? When it walks talks and acts like a duck it is most unlikely to be anything other than a duck - well maybe to a chipmunk but not to most cognitive beings.

realitybites
New Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 9

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject:

brian wrote:

Video evidence suggests controlled demolition.

Visual evidence suggests controlled demolition.

Eyewitness evidence more than suggests controlled demolition

Audio evidence suggests controlled demolition.

Andrew Johnston has shown how the speed of collapse means an input of energy is required to explain it - controlled demolition?

It's a shame structural engineers and those who work in controlled demolition don't suggest controlled demolition.

Otherwise, your armchair investigation aided by Google Video might be on to something.

Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: with respect.

Chipmunk Stew wrote;

Quote:

With respect Stew, the aeronautical impossibility of hanjours feat, along with the flight path of "flight 77" are part of the baggage of the official conspiracy theory.

That is to say that if the official conspiracy theory is to be believed, then we have to believe the above assertions.

Now any logical mind who can accept the above assertions without believing that any of the above isnt stretching the bounds of credibility beyond reasonable limits are to my mind the real conspiracy theorists.

Anyone who can accept the above is my definition of a real conspiracy theorist.

Three things spring to mind when searching for the culprits of a crime.

Means, motive and opportunity.

I would suggest that "Al quaeda" might easily satisfy the motive element.

But to somehow accept that a rag tag loosely affiliated bunch of Islamic extremists, DESPITE BEING TRAINED FUNDED etc largely via Uncle Sam, possessed neither the means nor the opportunity to pull of the mass murder they did against the most technologically sophisticated nation on earth simply defies logical cogitation.

How did they manage to achieve the complete standdown of the worlds most sophisticated superpower ?

How did they manage to elude capture, despite being trailed meticulously throughout the build up to 9/11 ?

How did they manage to convince Dave Frasca to issue a memorandum suggesting that field agents place a yellow post it sticker over the face of Mohammed Atta - in other words, just ignore this man - courtesy of Operation Able Danger ? - An accomplishment, incidentally that earned Mr Frasca a promotion.

The whole official conspiracy theory doesnt add up whichever way you look at it. Meanwhile, Halliburton Raytheon, and the military industrial complex, along with the Neocon faction have got everything they wanted - From their much sought after New pearl harbour, to the billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars for a war without end.

Who benefitted from 9/11 most ? Thats something I would look very closely at in my search for the suspects.

milesalpha
New Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Nova Scotia

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject:

brian wrote:

I post this only for the benefit of those not familiar with all of the facts.

chipmunk tells us -

"FEMA and NIST had access to any samples they wanted before the steel was recycled. NIST collected what they felt to be an adequate sampling."

Without going into the indecent and criminal way the evidence at the crime scene was treated it is informative to learn from the NIST report that NO steel was found to have been exposed to temperatures which reached above 600 ºC.

"NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.) "

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Note carefully what NIST is saying here - it is NOT saying there was evidence of steel having reached 600 ºC but that it had not reached temperatures above that. Therefore the temperatures determined from the samples could have been ANYTHING BELOW 600 ºC.

So the huge central core and the perimeter walls all gave way at the same time all the way down with little or no resistance at a speed approaching freefall and it was nothing to do with the briefly burning fire. We are left with the question well what cased these buildings to collapse in the manner of controlled demolition.

If we employ Ocamms razor -

Never in history have such structures collapsed in the manner they did - absent controlled demolition.

Video evidence suggests controlled demolition.

Visual evidence suggests controlled demolition.

Eyewitness evidence more than suggests controlled demolition

Audio evidence suggests controlled demolition.

Andrew Johnston has shown how the speed of collapse means an input of energy is required to explain it - controlled demolition?

When it walks talks and acts like a duck it is most unlikely to be anything other than a duck - well maybe to a chipmunk but not to most cognitive beings.

You'd best avoid that last argument, it's a very poor one. The old "you can't judge a book by the cover" is a simplistic response but also doesn't prove anything.

Just curious though, you cite the Jones paper. Does it not bother you that there are no scientists in the appropriate fields that support it? Or that Jones lied repeatedly by claiming it was peer reviewed? If it is so good, why has he not submitted it for peer review? Why do the scientists, particularly the engineers, at his own university reject the paper? Why does Jones not have to do what every other scholar in the world has to do to support a theory?

Further, re your statements that video evidence suggests, audio evidence suggests, etc. May I ask according to who? I have tried to find some expert I could believe (you know, an appropriate scientist, an experienced CD expert with a significant firm, or even a minor firm) but I haven't found any thus far. Is this simply your personal vision? If so, can I ask you for your credentials in the subject. Forgiove me if I look for reliable expert testimony but my own degrees are in history, and given the amount of misinformation dispensed about the Reichstag fire in these discussions, by both sides, I am reluctant to believe anyone who can't actually back up their views.

dodgy
Minor Poster

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject:

milesalpha wrote:

Just curious though, you cite the Jones paper. Does it not bother you that there are no scientists in the appropriate fields that support it? Or that Jones lied repeatedly by claiming it was peer reviewed? If it is so good, why has he not submitted it for peer review? Why do the scientists, particularly the engineers, at his own university reject the paper? Why does Jones not have to do what every other scholar in the world has to do to support a theory?

You, sir, are mistaken.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12696#12696

Otherwise please provide proof of these allegations, or see your friend's post above.

Jay Ref wrote:

This is an example of "poisoning the well". It is a logical fallacy known as Ad-hominum. Usually used by those who cannot attack the facts, and so attack instead the person(s) who supply said facts.

Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject:

Brian forgot to mention seismic evidence suggests controlled demolition as well.

Newspeak International
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject:

There is the small matter of the hotspots in the rumble weeks after the event. Hotspots in the sub levels of wtc1, 2 and 7!

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject:

Quote:

You, sir, are mistaken.

Milesalpha is NOT mistaken. He is LYING!!!

milesalpha
New Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Nova Scotia

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject:

dodgy wrote:

milesalpha wrote:

You, sir, are mistaken.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12696#12696

Otherwise please provide proof of these allegations, or see your friend's post above.

Jay Ref wrote:

This is an example of "poisoning the well". It is a logical fallacy known as Ad-hominum. Usually used by those who cannot attack the facts, and so attack instead the person(s) who supply said facts.

Hmmm exactly which part is mistaken? All of it? Guess I'll have to go bit by bit.
The wikipedia (and yeesh, no better source?) article did not provide a single name of any scientist in a related field that agreed with Jones. Hmm it cannot be that one. Indeed, the other engineers mentioned in your source make it very clear what they think of his work.

Jones is publishing the paper in a 9/11 CT book...that really doesn't sound like peer review. Drop by any university and ask a professor there. His lone supporter is a linguistics professor who claims it was peer reviewed...by anonymous experts, in an anonymous publication. Still doesn't sound like peer review. As far as I can see the letter is the only supporter that it was peer reviewed (I have never seen Jones even claim this, he mentions the upcoming 9/11 book). The change in the web page may have been exactly that, a change (it was months after the fact after all). I found no statement from the engineering department withdrawing the statement. So to counter the linguistics professor, I wll reply with a structural engineer, mentioned in your evidence, who clearly says the paper is unpublished.

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e

Note it was written after the linguistics professor letter, by a structural engineer with considerable experience, who is a member of the BYU staff.

My question on why has he not submitted it for real peer review in a science journal still stands. No evidence suggests otherwise, anonymous experts notwithstanding. If it is as strong as is suggested, why not? You aren't going to convince anyone by putting it in a CT book after all.

You own article also supports my statement that the engineering department at his university does not support it. So I guess there's enough said there.

Finally on the idea of ad-hom attacks, you don't quite have the right idea. I never claimed that Jones was not an expert in his field, that he was a baby murderer, that his degree was a fraud or anything like that. I have pointed out, as so many have, that he has not followed the normal academic procedure. If I want to make a point in my field (history) I have to submit my article to a historical journal, not People Magazine. Jones could end all these arguments quite easily by publishing in a science journal, but he doesn't, why? Why would he only publish to the easiest possible audience (no argument that the CTs would fit this description I hope). After all, according to the Zogby polls CT supporters tend toward the less successful and less educated. (Please note!!! I am not describing anyone on this forum, I am merely repeating information from the 9/11 Zogby polls, commissioned and created by 9/11 groups)

http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZogbyPollFinalReport.htm

P.S. I will not argue his work, I am not qualified, and I imagine few here are. As I would expect a structural engineer to rely on me for history, I will rely on them in their field

Pete J
Minor Poster

Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject: Who else then ?

milesalpha wrote:

Does it not bother you that there are no scientists in the appropriate fields that support it? Or that Jones lied repeatedly by claiming it was peer reviewed? If it is so good, why has he not submitted it for peer review? Why do the scientists, particularly the engineers, at his own university reject the paper?

It's difficult to know what milesalpha and MarkyX are actually arguing for in this discusison. I noticed at one point that MarkyX made this remark "The fact that you are willing to take the terrorist's word over the US government, I find it very disturbing".

I'm not taking anybody's word for anything ! Smile

- I'm trying to come to my own conclusions about the situation. Also, I don't beleive that western governments are incorruptible as you seem to. For example, I think that people are too quick to accept that passengers of scheduled airliners can just walk into the cockpit, take the plane over, fly it over 200 miles unhindered by US air defence and all this with almost no experience flying airliners (x 4).

I also think that it's naive to assume that because it's the 'US Government' they are somehow beyond corruptability or accountability.

You guys are the ones who should be on 'on the spot' here because you seem to be going out of your way to defend the 'official line' while not being in a position to do so. If you don't think that any questions need to be asked or all the questions surrounding 9/11 have been answered to your satisfaction then fine, but what are you doing here ?

People from diverse backrounds have legitimate questions of their own. I certainly do. I worked as a a flying instructor for 6 years. I also have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and this background is what started me off being alarmed because many aspects of the 'official story' just started to look very ridiculous. I didn't immediately think it was an inside job, but as time went on, the US captialised on 9/11 so comprehensively that it was unavoidable to consider the possibility.

I don't feel the need to defend my right to have these questions answered but judging from the views expressed by posters such as MarkyX and Milesalpha, there are people who think I do. Why, I don't know but I won't venture any further in speculating as to your own motives. You seem to have a problem with the fact that these questions are asked by a minority rather than a majority. This point forms the background to almost every post you make. I also asked that question at the time but the simple fact is that most people are not 'activists' and unless they are in life threatning danger do not feel the need to start what might be a lifelong campaign against the mainstream view. Secondly, this 'mainstream view' has not come about by virtue of merit or public consensus. It was handed to us bu the US government a couple of days after the event and generally accepted unquestioningly by a compliant press. If you're goin to ask this question ("why do more professional not speak up") you need to also consider the converse - i.e. how many of them would go out of their way, risking their careers, friendships, relationships and (possible) lives to defend the "official" story.

Many people need more of a 'comfort factor' before they can accept the possibility of such fundamental corruption on their own 'doorstep' but it doesn't mean that you can make an acceptable argument out of it. You should also respect the fact that most of the case for questioning the events of 9/11 is made in good faith by reluctant participants, contrary to what is 'portayed' in most of the 'mainstream' media. The debate and the unanswered questions have persisted and developed depth simply because so many aspects of the official account are conclusively irreconcileable. On the other hand, comments like this one . . .

MarkyX wrote:

"You think NORAD scrambles jets just for kicks and giggles or when a plane goes slightly off-course?"

. . . do not display much depth and look like someone has just 'stumbled' across this debate and decided to get involved "just for kicks".

If you guys are genuinely interested then I suggest you do some research of your own as everyone else has done. If you've already made up your mind as to what happened then I hope you've got some answers since your view seems to be what's underwriting the current onset of pre-emptive wars, unbridled civilian massacre and general 'piss on everybody including your own citizens' politics.

milesalpha
New Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Nova Scotia

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:11 am Post subject: Re: Who else then ?

Pete J wrote:

milesalpha wrote:

MarkyX wrote:

"You think NORAD scrambles jets just for kicks and giggles or when a plane goes slightly off-course?"

Uhm, I thought I was pretty clear. I don't think you should use the Jones paper as part of your evidence because it is very unreliable scholastically. Has he followed the normal scholastic method for proof in your field?

Since I never argued the reliability of any government I must assume that is directed at Mark (I don't know his views, I do post a bit at JREF but not on the same aspects as he or Gravy). For my part, I have been arguing that Bush is an idiot for much longer than he has been president. If you want a quick synopsis of what I believe I'll run it down...

I believe a few nutty Muslim terrorists plunged planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. I think Bush and his chicken hawk cowboys used this event to pursue an agenda that he was dying to get to (much as Hitler did when Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag) but didn't have the support for. I was generally behind the action against Afghanistan, thinking that it would lead to action against terrorists in every nation, stupid me. Instead Bush, inexplicably (well not really, but I'll get to that) used 9/11 mania to invade Iraq, despite the lack of evidence and reason to do so. He did so before the Afghanistan situation was stabilized and so managed to create two immediate messes because he lacked the ability to see the strategic chaos he was creating. Not to mention he was doing nothing in the war on terrorism.
Why did he do this? I am left with 2 options. One, that Bush is just as stupid as I have always claimed he was. That he really bought into the jingoism of his sycophants that "we Americans can do any damn thing we want, we are the only superpower". As usual, they thought dropping a few bombs would solve things and when it didn't, they are at a loss how to explain why, and what to do next.
As time wears on I am growing more cynical. So option 2 emerged. Bush owes an enormous debt to his oil buddies, and has Cheney pulling his strings as well. The opportunity to destabilize the Middle East and drive oil prices sky high was a chance to pay back that debt. The oil companies have enjoyed record profits, and Bush has had no interest in putting a stop to it. It's funny, in Canada gas retailers claim they can't make money with the prices they charge, but figure the public should make up the difference, not their suppliers who appear to be overcharging for the product.
I have found virtually no experts (structural engineers, architects, aviation experts, appropriate science organizations) who support the CT theory. I respect the work of these people, and just don't buy into the idea that all of them, in every nation, could be so easily silenced. Moreover, the vastness of such a conspiracy just defies imagination. They couldnt keep the CIA prisons secret, or Abu Grhaib (sp?), but 9/11, which would have to involve thousands, has the cone of silence on it.

Lastly, I do love to debate. I generally prefer history threads, arguing with holocaust revisionists but I was directed to Loose Change in one of these forums a few months ago and couldn't believe anyone took it seriously I really do consider their evidence extremely weak). It is a fascinating subject, as is the culture that has grown up around it. I also believe that the movement is damaging what should be the first goal right now, getting Bush out of office. I make an effort to keep this impersonal. I will not call anyone names, I simply want to debate the evidence. But I am a hard core debater, its what I do, so my style may seem a bit harsh to some, too tenacious if you will, but its nothing personal to me. I also enjoy debating creationists, pseudoscientists (psychics, dowsers, astrologers), right wingers, various aspects of history (naval history, history and effect of slavery, North American settlement, WWII in general) and soccer fans (boring game! jk). England is home to the scholar I admire the most, Dr. Ian Kershaw.

If you really don't want to debate or don't want me here, just say so, I can move on with no hard feelings

realitybites
New Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 9

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:20 am Post subject:

Leiff wrote:

Brian forgot to mention seismic evidence suggests controlled demolition as well.

The seismic evidence also suggests that WTC7 took twice as long to collapse as did the towers. So I wouldn't be too quick to reference seismic evidence.

dodgy
Minor Poster

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:29 am Post subject:

Quote:

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

If he had addressed any of the points in Jones's paper, and not omitted any mention of the core columns etc (just saying that the design was a tube) I may have taken that as a refutation, instead it means nothing.

I have no idea why he is choosing to publish it the way he is, and that is entirely for him to decide & respond to. And I have no wish to respond to your taunts regarding demographics, except to say that those riding the gravy train tend not to want to disembark.

milesalpha wrote:

Or that Jones lied repeatedly by claiming it was peer reviewed?

This is the comment that you made that I have issue with (and I did have the right idea), then you state this:

milesalpha wrote:

As far as I can see the letter is the only supporter that it was peer reviewed (I have never seen Jones even claim this, he mentions the upcoming 9/11 book)

So if you have never seen Jones claim anything about his paper being peer reviewed, how can you say he has lied repeatedly by claiming it was peer reviewed?

blackcat wrote:

Milesalpha is NOT mistaken. He is LYING!!!

I was trying to be polite to the trolls, but unless they can respond without any personal attacks, I'm tempted not to.

Last edited by dodgy on Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:41 am; edited 1 time in total

MarkyX
Minor Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 21

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:34 am Post subject:

Quote:

Tell me, do you believe in Osama Bin Laden's first time denial or not?

Quote:

I'm trying to come to my own conclusions about the situation. Also, I don't beleive that western governments are incorruptible as you seem to.

Don't twist my words. When did not agreeing with 9/11 being a coverup became a yardstick for someone to be a "gumberment luver" ?

Quote:

For example, I think that people are too quick to accept that passengers of scheduled airliners can just walk into the cockpit, take the plane over, fly it over 200 miles unhindered by US air defence and all this with almost no experience flying airliners

No experienced flying pilots?

For one, Atta was actually above-average and all of the pilots have spent some time on a simulator. Getting a pilot license requires numerous hours of training and flying is perhaps the easiest thing you do when flying.

If you don't think their skills weren't adequate or I'm lying about their skills, I have three places for you.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr - I uploaded a History Channel document on the Hamburg Cell (the one Atta lead). They spoke with the flight instructor and a fellow student of the flight schools where they attended. Also at part 5 on YouTube, you hear Atta's voice.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np .html - Ask a pilot on Salon.com, talking about the 9/11 theories

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf - And another pilot

Quote:

You guys are the ones who should be on 'on the spot' here because you seem to be going out of your way to defend the 'official line' while not being in a position to do so.

I'm going out of the way mainly because I care about evidence, not assumptions. Not only that, but I have been threatened several times by the Theorist's wannabe pressgangs and I ain't going to puss out because of it.

Quote:

I didn't immediately think it was an inside job, but as time went on, the US captialised on 9/11 so comprehensively that it was unavoidable to consider the possibility.

Yes you are talking about possibilities here. What really annoys me is people believe possibilities are indisputable evidence.

Quote:

how many of them would go out of their way, risking their careers, friendships, relationships and (possible) lives to defend the "official" story.

The United States does not have a monopoly on Structual Engineers, Materials Engineers, and other needed experts for a situation like 9/11. You think an Iranian engineer would step up even

Laughing

_________________
- Mark Iradian
Writer of Chronicles of Garas (A dark tech fantasy webcomic)
The b****** behind Screw Loose Change video

Last edited by MarkyX on Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:40 am; edited 1 time in total

dodgy
Minor Poster

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:37 am Post subject: Re: Who else then ?

milesalpha wrote:

They couldnt keep the CIA prisons secret, or Abu Grhaib (sp?), but 9/11, which would have to involve thousands, has the cone of silence on it.

Not necessarily so, see http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html for a hypothetical scenario

milesalpha
New Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Nova Scotia

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:02 am Post subject:

dodgy wrote:

Quote:

milesalpha wrote:

Or that Jones lied repeatedly by claiming it was peer reviewed?

This is the comment that you made that I have issue with (and I did have the right idea), then you state this:
[quote"milesalpha"]As far as I can see the letter is the only supporter that it was peer reviewed (I have never seen Jones even claim this, he mentions the upcoming 9/11 book)

So if you have never seen Jones claim anything about his paper being peer reviewed, how can you say he has lied repeatedly by claiming it was peer reviewed?

blackcat wrote:

Milesalpha is NOT mistaken. He is LYING!!!

I was trying to be polite to the trolls, but after seeing the lies about lies above, I'm tempted not to.[/quote]

Ok, I will try and make it clearer. Jones has frequently claimed it was peer reviewed. He has never claimed it was done by anonymous experts for an anonymous publication. He has claimed it was reviewed in an economic journal. Interestingly enough, it is the only paper of its type ever reviewed in the arts journal. The journal is what could be described as a radical marxist publication. It's current annual issue is completely devoted to 9/11 CTs. In case you want to read it.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/

The only review I could find of the publication

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060623132647406

Sorry I thought you might be more aware of a paper you put so much stock in.

Although I am still waiting to hear exactly who is behind the video evidence suggests, the audio evidence suggests, it doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Apparently that poster enjoys a much lower evidence requirement than the other side requires.

A little hint, I didn't hand you anything difficult to consider, and you generally responded with personal attacks. If you wish for the mainstream to embrace your views, you'd best learn how to deal with these questions in a bit more of a (struggling to find a neutral word here) civilized fashion.

I'm off, I'll try and delete the account, any admins can feel free to do so. Sorry if I frightened anyone.

dodgy
Minor Poster

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:00 am Post subject:

milesalpha wrote:

Ok, I will try and make it clearer. Jones has frequently claimed it was peer reviewed. He has never claimed it was done by anonymous experts for an anonymous publication. He has claimed it was reviewed in an economic journal. Interestingly enough, it is the only paper of its type ever reviewed in the arts journal. The journal is what could be described as a radical marxist publication. It's current annual issue is completely devoted to 9/11 CTs. In case you want to read it.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/

The only review I could find of the publication

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060623132647406

Sorry I thought you might be more aware of a paper you put so much stock in.

Why do you automatically assume that I am putting a lot of stock into Jones's paper? Laughing

I've just been sitting here pointing out flaws in your arguments regarding Steven Jones, I don't think even once that I have mentioned my opinion on it.

You and your friends have came to this forum, assuming that everyone here believes everything they have heard from Steven Jones, Scholars for 911 Truth, & Loose Change. As far as I can tell from my short time here, most have different beliefs regarding what really happened on 9/11 (it is quite hard to form a definitive opinion in a solid evidence vacuum), except from the fact that the official 'Conspiracy Theory' is a lie, and that certain people within the US Government almost certainly organised the entire event.

The same people who have willingly let 2,512 of their own soldiers (only 300-odd less than 9/11 so far, but add on the 308 in Afghanistan & it's practically there) die in Iraq in a war/occupation that's purpose was to expand the "American Empire" and gain control of the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world, and make a killing (excuse the pun) out of it. And the reasons that they gave for the war in Iraq - WMD's and al-Qaeda - another lie.

And of course, not to mention the ~40,000 (or ~200,000 depending on who's doing the counting...) Iraqi body count, but who gives a monkeys about them...? Or the ~12,000 dead in Afghanistan. And who knows how much more blood is going to be shed on all sides? It certainly isn't going to be those fattening themselves losing their own blood. Only the "less successful and less educated" as you kindly put it...

The same people that are happily spying on yourselves (and ourselves too), condoning torture, stripping away your civil liberties, rigging elections, and making themselves fat from the profits of fear.

Even here in the UK, where political and corporate corruption is just part and parcel of the British way of life, things looked rosy until Bliar et al suddenly had an excuse to start stripping away our freedoms and begin removing the last shreds of government accountability.

And the very same people who are giving the impression, just slightly mind, to the rest of the world that das vierte Reich has arrived.

The events on 9/11 and how they have been used by those people for their own ends is having terrible consequences for the majority of people that live on this planet - endless war, no end to (rather an acceleration towards) poverty and hunger in the third world (even poverty in our own countries...), with fascism sneaking in through the back door again and not bringing his own bottle to the party.

And you think that nobody has the right to be in the least bit suspicious of what those people have told us is their justification for what they are doing?

I would give a clearer picture, but I'm tired, bored, and feeling like I'm trying to paint many colours on a monochrome image.

milesalpha wrote:

A little hint, I didn't hand you anything difficult to consider, and you generally responded with personal attacks. If you wish for the mainstream to embrace your views, you'd best learn how to deal with these questions in a bit more of a (struggling to find a neutral word here) civilized fashion.

Ditto to you. If you wish to be taken seriously, don't brandish someone a liar on a whim, and don't make assumptions/insinuations about the person you are speaking to.

You'll find people are much friendlier when you don't treat them as if they are morons.

MarkyX
Minor Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 21

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:32 am Post subject:

Quote:

"American Empire" and gain control of the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGG

I hate it when people mention this, because you are simply lying or very, very, very ignorant!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company _level_imports/current/import.html - Where is Iraq? Where is Canada?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/06/29/oilsands-tour.html - Ralph Klein (Alberta Government) meets with the vile black hearted Dick Cheney!
_________________
- Mark Iradian
Writer of Chronicles of Garas (A dark tech fantasy webcomic)
The b****** behind Screw Loose Change video

Gravy
Minor Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:06 am Post subject:

Leiff wrote:

Brian forgot to mention seismic evidence suggests controlled demolition as well.

Just a brief point here regarding seismic evidence.

Quote:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

– Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty seismic center, Palisades, New York.

kbo234
Validated Poster

Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:28 am Post subject:

MarkyX wrote:

Quote:

"American Empire" and gain control of the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGG
I hate it when people mention this, because you are simply lying or very, very, very ignorant!

Oh yea?

Perhaps you would like to read the work of someone who has spent years researching these matters? See Brian Bogart's article on the thread: WAR ON TERROR EXPOSED: SINS OF STATECRAFT

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 2 of 9

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum