911myths.com discuss

ian neal · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:48 am Post subject: 911myths.com discuss

http://www.911myths.com/html/investigations__more.html

I've just come across this site

UK site run by Mike Williams

First serious site I've seen claiming to challenge some of the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement. Interesting development. I've yet to take a proper look round. But clearly this is a professional job and presents original material

There is an interesting exchange going on at indymediauk and elsewhere where S Jones paper on the tower collapse is being challenged by skyking@scientist.com referring to scientific papers posted on 911myths

We should welcome this added interest in 9/11 and accept the challenge to debate the evidenece. I've found previous efforts to debunk the 9/11 truth movement such as popular mechanics and the statedept site wholly unconvincing and they certainly aren't independent. This site is claiming to be independent and without agenda and unlike the other sites has alot of material to check out.

Let's do a bit of research and come back with considered opinions.

skadseye · Minor Poster Joined: 02 Dec 2005 Posts: 12

I was surprised by the lack of science-related scholars on st911.org. I also would like to see some discussion of the ideas at http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm which offer theories about how the aluminium in the wtc exterior (as well as the planes) became molten and could have caused the explosions, etc.

Pikey · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject:

Good thread Ian, yes, totally agree we must maintain an open minded outlook if our mission is to secure the truth of 911.

Pity the thread has been ruined by Skadseye. That list of who the scholars are could have been simply been referred to in a link ,Skadseye and posted on thread headed "Scholars for truth: those behind it". Lets try to keep our forum as user friendly for everyone folks!

Justin · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject:

I would love to know a little more about 'Mike Williams' but unfortunately there is no information about him on his site that I could find, or who 'they are' who have 'our take' on things. I am so far not impressed with what his site has to offer but I do welcome debate with those who disagree with us. Perhaps Mike could make direct contact with us and let a proper debate begin. That can only be good for what we are all doing.

A Sharp Major · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject:

Sober and dispassionate. I'm impressed.

It looks like Mike Williams has already answered any points you may like to debate Justin. His site doesn't impress you (yet) why should he? He's clearly spent a lot of time on his research (with the help of others-hence 'our take') and site and I'd be surprised if he is moved to repeat himself.

Justin · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject:

Welcome A Sharp Major to our site - just a pity you don't say too much about yourself in your membership profile. Three emails in one day - for a new member you are fast off the blocks. Your eagerness to support Mike William's site is fine but your last sentence

A Sharp Major · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject:

Thank you for the welcome Justin. Predictable that you'd suspect I am MW or one of his team.

Regarding the Windsor hotel, yours is the first time I've seen anyone with a view contrary to the official one (if I may make so bold) admitting it even partially collapsed. I suspect that the picture is new to you and others. And it wasn't hit by a plane first. The frequently trundled out comparison to the twin towers 'the first and only collapse due to fire alone' is so disengenuous as to beggar belief. The planes. Mention the planes!

As for debate, I'm not interested in spending any time on direct engagement because our respective minds are made up. I may occasionally draw attention to an absurdity that may make someone review their opinion or raise an uncomfortable home truth but debate? Over a pint in a pub is one thing, on the Internet, no.

Just as a surgeon doesn't debate human physiology with a first aider, a chartered structural engineer won't debate engineering science with someone who played with lego as a kid and cracked no more than a GCSE in Physics. I'm staggered that professionals are rubbished by people ill equipped to do so. If I read the threads correctly even victims of 9/11 and 7/7 (if they are who they say they are and the truthseekers here seem to think they are) are rubbished if their account or analysis is at odds with the site's raison d'etre. What chance has the truth got?

Pikey · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject:

Justin · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject:

Hello again,

You are having a busy day with us. It may well be that our minds are made up and we are on opposite sides. But I would like to ask you again. How do you feel about our call for a new independent enquiry into 9/11 or are you satisfied with the Kean Commission and its findings? Is there anything in the official story that you are suspicious of or are you completely happy with the official US Government line on 9/11? I really would appreciate a proper answer to these questions. Thanks.

Pikey · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject:

A Sharp Major states:-

ian neal · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:32 am Post subject:

The recent arrival of a sharp major and rachel raises interesting questions for how this site and forum are moderated. Rachel's contribution is more complicated, relates to 7/7 and I'm not discussing on this thread.

The purpose of this forum is to provide a space for the 9/11 truth community in Britain and further afield to meet. This forum is intended for people who support the call for a further investigation to come together, share, discuss and plan action. We have our areas of agreement and disagreement but we are united in the call for a further inquiry. There are plenty of places on the internet for engagement with our critics.

I suggest that there is a need for us to establish a forum where we invite those who see no need for a further investigation (such as a sharp major) to engage with us. One possibility is a forum jointly moderated by representatives of this network and 9/11myths. This needs further discussion but I suggest this isn't the place for a sharp major to post.

In discussing 9/11 we should not have any sacred cows or theories. We should accept that in the final analysis some of the evidence cited by 9/11 truth campaigners will be open to challenge or not demonstrate that which it is claimed to do. I believe that when taken in totality the evidence will support the conclusion "9/11 was an inside job" but more than anything I would welcome an open evidence based debate. As the saying goes first they ignore you.... so I suggest engagement yes it is to be welcomed, but in a different forum.

PM me your thoughts

PM with your thoughts

paul wright · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:24 am Post subject:

ian neal · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:25 am Post subject:

Followers of this thread may want to watch this thread on indymedia.org.uk

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332076.html?c=all

ian neal · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:43 am Post subject:

Hi dh

Firstly the structure of the site needs improving, no argument from me.

Can I just check what you are suggesting? Who are the latter groups that need a place to go? 'Negative disrupters' and 'those that have their doubts' or those seeing wider connections.

If it is our critics we are seeking to have a separate space where campaign supporters engage with them, that is in essense what I'm suggesting and such a space could in theory be an extension of this forum.

If it is those seeing and wishing to discuss the wider connections of 9/11, hopefully that is all of us. We may disagree what those wider connections are (although I expect we would find surprising degrees of agreement) but there is no denying 9/11 has wider connections and 9/11 truth campaigners should discuss those and not feel the need to find consensus.

I just reckon there's value in having a space for campaign supporters and another for debate between the campaign's supporters and its critics and that requires either 2 forums or 2 sections to this forum. That's my suggestion. Is it yours?

BW

Ian

paul wright · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:51 am Post subject:

Yep - I probably agree wholeheartedly with you Ian
Just to note the increasing volume of input, which must be healthy, and a desire not to stop those or piss them off who may have good intent, and they may need a while to be sussed out, even if they have a different priority agenda

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:47 am Post subject:

I think it is pointless people such as "A Sharp Major" posting much to our list.

All of us who are posting here are totally unconvinced by the official story - which is why this site was set up in the 1st place!!

So why is anyone trying to convince us of the validity of sites like 911 myths? Just look at their hand-waving explanation about WTC 7 - which references nothing other than the NIST and FEMA reports and has a few nice graphics...

So why are these carefully worded, neatly structured posts appearing on our board telling us (in not so many words) "we are misguided fools".

I do wonder sometimes. Hey! I know- let's bring on the insults shall we? Always a good way of settling a scientific debate!

("Clearly, Andrew - you have no understanding of the issue..." and "you should be ashamed of yourself....")

Ho hum. Sad

Pikey · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:04 am Post subject:

Super member Andrew states:-

ian neal · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:30 am Post subject:

I just reckon that we need a space where it is just us (ie supporters of the campaign statement) and that in this space we acknowledge that we don't all agree about everything and that's fine. That is how we will build a unified approach.

At the same time we do want to engage our critics and appear to be open to having all angles of the evidence explored and a forum that either we moderate or jointly moderate will provide this space. To refuse engagement will seriously damage our credibility and appeal in the eyes of the public, but let's look at establishing a separate linked forum for this purpose.

In both forums, personal abuse and intentional disruption should be avoided by all

skadseye · Minor Poster Joined: 02 Dec 2005 Posts: 12

Having spent a good proportion of the day looking at 911myths i have to agree that some of the evidence which is being used by the 911truth movement is not conclusive. It also appears that many quotations have been taken out of context and used selectively. Even Professor Steven E Jones is guilty of that.

I think people should take the time to find out exactly which points of 911myths they agree/disagree with and take each point separately.

I also agree that all discussions must be mature and respectful. Regardless of the truth about 911, there are a million other reasons to be suspicious of our great leaders and this should never be forgotten.

A Sharp Major · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject:

I admit that the lack of wreckage in front of the Pentagon looks spooky but I’ll it is not sinister. It is easily explained and has been. It’s fairly elementary.

There is nothing sinister about local CCTV footage being seized by the FBI. It’s what they do. Collect evidence. Why should the tapes/disks be released? Who wants to see people being murdered?

Your other points have already been addressed. I hate repeating myself.

Establishment trained? Me? Wrong.

James C · Major Poster Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1046

Corn4Texture · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject:

Most of the government dweebs that come onto these message boards to sell their snake oil are simply trying to cause confusion, and derail sensible people from the concept that what we saw on 9/11 made no logical sense at all.

Period.

So, be careful which cover-up theories you buy into, since a lot of them were planted there just so these disgusting hacks can have something to debunk. And when they start posting up their structural physics equations to prove how a building can fall straight down at warp speed with no help, tell them to piss up a rope.

Bottom line: the 'official story' is a steamy pile of what I leave in the front yard.

Justin · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject:

What's all this about....

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject:

It really puzzles me why A Sharp Major is posting the material he is.

People join this message board voluntarily - it costs nothing. As a whole, we don't have all the answers to the 9-11 issue - but we have enough answers to say "no" to the official story. What part of this is difficult to understand?

As I see it, it's a bit like going on to a site specially dedicated to Guinea Pigs and telling them they should be posting pictures of Goldfish. It's a pointless exercise.

"A Sharp Major" e-mailed me off list with a list of questions re WTC etc. Even though I had already directed him to a Physics thread which discussed the evidence and views I had of that evidence (shown below).

He is obviously an intelligent person, so his reasons for posing questions for which most of have seen the evidence for - and decided what we think of it - must be questioned.

Whoever you are, you may waste some of our time, but we still have time left to copy disks, print leaflets and send e-mails - and your actions are educating people as to the way these issues are debated on message boards.

I might be wrong, but I just think you are dealing with "more positive forces" here than you might think.

Enjoy!

====
Hello,

Justin Walker Fwd'd your e-mail to me. Rather than repeat and re-type pages of text, please see the discussion I started on Physics Forum:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=f917a4506b240a0b6c698e09470a981e& showforum=12

There are plenty of calculations posted on there - some "for" some "against" the CD reality.

I stick with the freefall calculations because I understand them and they can be applied best to WTC 7 - which was not hit by a plane. They can also be applied to WTC 1 & 2. In summary, it is not possible for material to fall through steel and concrete as it is through the air - whether it be heated/buckled/softened/plasticised etc. Freefall means free fall which means COMPLETE structural failure, not partial.

It took me 3 years to realise this. I have seen a great many arguments against the free-fall collapse and none of them add up properly - most of them, for example, do not explain the molten metal in the basement. This metal was molten weeks after the event. Where did that heating energy come from? Where did the Sulifdation of steel come from?

If we do get to the point of building a legal case, then we will call on better skills than mine to prove our case - and produce alternative reports with sufficiently detailed calculations to be used in court. Bet on that.

I have been in correspondence with Professor Steve Jones and tried to offer my technical support in disseminating copies of his Presentation to the world. I have posted it in various formats here.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/

If you would like a DVD, please mail me with your postal address and I will gladly send one.

I do not wish to spend time debating the validity of the official story because, though I am undecided about some details, I have studied it enough to say categorically "jets and fuel did not bring down WTC 1 & 2 and there is no disclosed reason that accurately accounts for the 6.6 second collapse of WTC 7".

I know that something is terribly, terribly wrong with the political system, the media and the dominance and corrupting influence of corporate interests in Western Society - and what's more President Eisenhower warned us about this phenomenon about 45 years ago.

Regards and Best Wishes

Andrew

paul wright · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject:

Corn4Texture · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:47 am Post subject:

skadseye · Minor Poster Joined: 02 Dec 2005 Posts: 12

Just to make things clear.. i am a very serious researcher and historian. I'm very unsure about the official story in all kinds of ways, and going from the evidence of history i think it is quite plausible that figures like the cia had foreknowledge and even assisted the events of 911.

However, i do not think this 911 truth movement will ever succeed unless it accepts logical criticism (without shouting 'spook!').

There is a video on 911myths which shows the wtc7 burning like hell, yet the mantra is that the fires were insignificant. We are then told the pictures must be fake, etc. I know the details and why we have reason to be suspicious, but combined with the rest of the information on this page on 911myths, the issue must at least be addressed.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Now, believe me, I have wrestled with what really happened on 911 ever since then, but some of the information on 911myths must be integrated within the 911truth movement otherwise it can't be credible. I hope everyone commenting on this thread has read it thoroughly. I'm not happy with every aspect of it no, but it is obvious that some parts need to be addressed, such as the way that quotations have been recontextualised to support arguments.

I do not believe in the 'official' story and would like to see a real enquiry. But i also want to be believed when i say that our leaders are corrupt. This won't happen if we ignore credible refutation of these theories.

As suggested, i think this website needs to be properly addressed so we can eliminate shaky evidence. A real group is emerging here which can be helpful in producing real social and political change in this country and abroad, however, we must be taken seriously and we must have gain support through intelligent discussion of these difficult-to-prove theories.

Corn4Texture · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject:

ian neal · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject:

skadseye · Minor Poster Joined: 02 Dec 2005 Posts: 12

It's true, the video could show fire rebounding off the building. it's not conclusive, nor long enough for a real judgement, but i definitely think these are the beginnings of a real analysis of the site.

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