View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Thermate Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006 Posts: 445
|
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
andyb wrote: | I'm afraid these theories will be seen as nonsense. |
Why go to the trouble of faking planes when its far easier to just use real planes?
Why use an orbital cannon (if it even exists) when thermate+c4 can do the job just fine and your brother runs the building security?
I have to question the motives of anyone falling for these two "theories" and cannot take any of them seriously. _________________ Make love, not money. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ian neal Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 3140 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:47 am Post subject: A campaign perspective |
|
|
I think at times like this it is good to restate that this forum's disclaimer
Quote: | The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the British 9/11 Truth Campaign |
and from the about us section
Quote: | The campaign recognises that there is a diverse range of opinion amongst 9/11 truth campaigners. We aim to unite opinion from Michael Meacher MP to David Icke. The campaign does not endorse any one presentation of the evidence or individual. |
As supporters of the campaign (that I assume we all are) we are all united around the demand to reopen 9/11. Let us remember this.
From the above it should clear that the campaign takes no position with regard to the controversial theories (planes, tv fakery and exotic weapons). In many ways as grassroots campaigners, when we are campaigning, we have no need to hold an opinion on any of the most controversial theories since the more mainstream areas of evidence are more than enough to make the case.
To me this is less about the rights and wrongs of the evidence and more about how as a movement we work together, cooperate and tolerate the differences there are amongst us. I'm sure it's the nature of the allegations, but the 9/11 truth movement has been infested with claims and counter claims of shill and spook all its life. In this particular drama, I find most of the claims from either 'side' that such and such a person is shill to have little substance. I think it's likely that most campaigners/actors in both 'camps' are genuine.
My advice is unless you wish to make this an issue over which 'we' divide over I would avoid taking a strong categorical position over this. At the end of the day it is over the rights and wrongs of a relatively new (in terms of public debate) theory that is still at the margins of the overall 9/11 truth case and core message: reopen 9/11 and not IMO worth falling out over |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John White Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
|
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's increasingly clear to me that the biggest single enemy of 9/11 Truth is ourselves, and what a familiar human tragedy that is _________________ Free your Self and Free the World |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CDbeliever New Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't realize that Steven Jones resigned from St911.org. Steven Jones seems to have alot of respect for James Fetzer and vice versa after listening to Fetzer's second last show on "Non Random Thoughts". I think the conflict was/is between Jones and Woods because of the color of melted aluminum in certain conditions. Both scientists kind of got in between a rock and a hard place when their independent research contradicted with the other's research. Neither could really back down as a scientist, and that ruptured their previous good relationship. I don't feel Steven Jones needs to prove the color of his melting aluminum for the strength of his total argument on controlled demolion. His paper on http://www.journalof911studies.com/ is very well done. He has so many points that indicate that the buildings had to been done via controlled demolition. I listened to Steven Jones talk to Leslie Robertson on a radio show, and Jones asked Robertson about the NIST tests that were done on steel. Jones was wondering why the steel didn't fail with maximum load and heat applied for over 2 hours. Leslie Robertson said that the steel was fireproofed as far as he understood it. But Leslie was careful to say he wasn't there to witness it. Leslie told Jones, that's what he'd expect with the fireproofing.... that the floors wouldn't sag or fail.
So, we need to know if the steel that was tested by Nist was fireproofed and then , if it was, what would happen if it wasn't? Leslie Robertson said he'd expect different results.... Hmmmm....
I wish Jones would've asked him about all the sulfur remnants that were found on all the steel. How come so much sulfur was found? The FEMA report stated that there is no clear understanding as to the origin of the sulfur. So, maybe Leslie R. or anyone representing or speakinig for NIST can tell us what they found in their "very thorough report". Tell us about the origin of the sulfur, or at least tell us about what this comprehensive NIST report analysed on this. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't trust Leslie Robertson's word one little bit.
He was WTC designer John Skilling's junior partner, and was signed up as an adviser by the FEMA-BPAT/NIST cover-up team.
Skilling showed - after his revolutionary new design was challenged back in the early 1960's by a rival developer - that the towers were able to absorb a 600mph impact by an aircraft in the B707 - DC -8 class, knowing that the fuel would cause horrendous fires, but outside of the impact zone, the buildings and occupants would survive.
Robertson - after Skilling was safely long dead - is the source of the 'airliner at low speed, lost in the fog on a landing pattern' myth (based on the B-25 Empire State Building collision in the 1940's) and added for good measure 'as far as he knew, they forgot to allow for the fuel'.
Quite amazing, when he was the engineer Skilling delegated to investigate that very point. A journalist who tried to query that very point with Robertson never had his calls returned.
I would also surmise that the location of the missing WTC drawings and calculations are not unknown to him, though that's purely my personal speculation.
Listening to Robertson now, you'd get the impression that Skilling was some kind of elderly figurehead only good for making the coffee and fetching snacks, rather than an internationally recognised award winning designer while he, Super-Robertson was the real brains of the outfit.
Skilling must be rotating at high rpm in his grave, and one hopes there is a special circle in hell for people such as Robertson. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CDbeliever New Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I concur. I find it strange that Leslie Robertson was on "Why the Towers Fell", a PBS documentary by Nova back in early 2002. The Fema report came out in May 2002 with their "truss failure theory" which basically led to the pancake collapse. In that video and "Anatomy of the Collapse", you can see Leslie Robertson holding up those floor assemblies and indicating that they(the truss to column connectors) were responsible for the failure of the buildings. But now in this latest interview where he was the special guest for the official theory and Steven Jones was the special guest for the controlled demolition theory, Robertson said he agrees with NIST's conclusions. This means he agrees that the columns failed. That contradicts what he was saying in those videos, where he believed it was the connectors that failed. I guess I have a hard time understanding how a person can come to one conclusion stating that the connectors were too weak, which caused the floors to collapse, and then change on the dime, and agree with the theory that states the connectors were so strong that it must've been column instability that led to complete column failure and then collapse initiation where global collapse ensued.
Leslie, and all the Nist engineers need to explain why the 180 degree turn in their thinking from the Fema report to the Nist report. They don't say why they changed their conclusions or why their conclusions from the Fema report were so different. I think they should explain this since some of them were on both reports and that the Fema report was considered the official theory for a while.
Leslie R. says he wants all this demoliton talk to go away because it's not helping the families bring closure to this very painful part of their lives. I think Steven Jones and others are all for closure, but just to end a topic and say it's closed, may not be the best choice. I think the families want truth to the closure even though it may not feel that pleasant. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|