I have to commend Lee on finding a mistake in my video in that Thermite IS (sort of) mentioned in Jones' RFC - the word is in a link to his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"
and I had indeed missed this (it wasn't a deliberate error on my part) . It goes to show that everyone should indeed, "check the evidence" to find errors. I provided links on the YouTube video to enable people to do just that.
Having said that, does this mean that Thermite destroyed the WTC? What does Lee Woudberg think? (I posted 2 or 3 comments on his video).
I have posted further thoughts on this blog, some of which are included below.
e.g. Thermite Paper has a disclaimer and was updated in Jan 2007. "The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author." Amazing. Does that imply that the co-submitters on the RFC DO NOT support Jones' connclusions?
So come on folks, what turned those cars upside down and levitated those people etc etc - what's YOUR explanation. Can Lee do us a video EXPLAINING WHAT DID IT? Thanks!
Again, thanks to Lee for checking the evidence and allowing me to find further points on interest in Jones' "paper". _________________ Andrew
Whilst thermite does not cut it, neither does DEW. Debris crashing to the ground would push air out of the way, sucking in strong draughts of surrounding air that might tilt a car over. Ever notice the strong draught left by trains once they have past the platform?
Rather than exotic physics levitating people (actually, people were blown off their feet - not quite the same thing), I think draughts created by both high-explosives expelling heated air and material dropping down from a great height and displacing air at ground level would all be enough to cause this.
Whilst thermite does not cut it, neither does DEW. Debris crashing to the ground would push air out of the way, sucking in strong draughts of surrounding air that might tilt a car over. Ever notice the strong draught left by trains once they have past the platform?
Rather than exotic physics levitating people (actually, people were blown off their feet - not quite the same thing), I think draughts created by both high-explosives expelling heated air and material dropping down from a great height and displacing air at ground level would all be enough to cause this.
Strong drafts ay... check the evidence... leaves are still on the trees. One witness got a vehicle "pushed off" from over him, but he remained on the ground. He did not report feeling a strong wind.
Looks like you haven't checked all the evidence - ask Lee for some tips! _________________ Andrew
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:00 am Post subject:
Although the topic title of this thread would cause many to assume it
belongs in the "9/11 Controversies" section of this forum, I believe
that on further analysis of the evidence presented we will conclude
that it really does belong in 9/11 Truth News because of the following
reasons...
A) It pertains to an integral part of 9/11 Truth research by Stephen E.
Jones which has been wrongly condemned by other alternative 9/11
"researchers" as possibly bogus and sets the record straight once and
for all.
B) It casts a serious shadow of doubt on the integrity of these
alternative 9/11 Truth "researchers" by questioning the level of
competence in their own research especially when considering their own
claims to be "always checking the evidence".
Put this in controversies if you must, but please view this evidence
very carefully before deciding.
Thank You.
I would also like to say that never, in the history of posting videos to my youtube channel have I received such quick responses, all of which I might add are all aggressively against my simple pointing out of the fact that Johnson has misled his followers.
I did not "promote" this video anywhere. I simply uploaded it and went about my day. And yet it seems that the very person it references has almost instantly left a comment on it as well as many other minions.
Check the comments on the video for yourself and see how many folks have crawled out from the woodwork.
Considering Johnson claims to have "a background in software engineering" and "software development" should we treat Johnson's claim of "innocent mistake" with more or less suspicion.? _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject:
Surely 'Controversies' or 'Dustbin' material?
As for burnt and overturned cars: explosive pressures through sewers and underground utilitly tunnels (from explosives used in basements (William Rodriguez) and pressures due to structural materials falling into basements, expelling air at such force as to turn over cars, and flying thermite/thermate and super-heated molten steel should be a serious contender for burnt cars.
Incidentally, as a fair indication of where DEW propounders are at, at the recent public meeting in SOAS addressed by Niels Harrit someone was giving out DVD's titled 'Is the 9/11 Truth Movement redirecting reasearch away from DEW?' (or something similar; I did not get one myself, but I know someone who did, and I shall check it out.
At such an important meeting, with the Danish expert who had earlier in the day addressed the meeting in the House of Commons, showing slides of the molten steel spheres created by the thermite/thermate, and before an audience that was virtually all 'new blood' to 9/11 Truth (at least, unrecognised by me) and many attracted by the Inde ad, a DEW agent should be there (already!) to muddy the waters.
The audience did, however, look intelligent on the whole, so they would hopefully not be driven astray by Judy Wood and co.'s disinfo. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
DEW is a bonkers argument. Even it such technology does exist (which I doubt) there is no way that anyone would use it effectively "for the first time" in such a sensitive area - only a Dr Evil would do such a thing! As we know, assuming the Inside Job premise, WTC 1, 2 and 7 (and 6 even), and the pentagon side, were surgically taken out to remove particular buildings, particular organisations and even particular DATA! (Fraud files (WTC7), CIA files (WTC6 & 7), Pentagon budget files and insider trading records (WTC 1,2)) etc
Why use a make-believe technology when an alternative tried and tested method was available. Nanothermetic materials (as found by Dr Harrit) are not exactly well known but there is a ton of science knocking around on the subject! These materials also have huge production facility build for their production at the US Navy Indian Head facility (just a few miles outside of Washington).
Anybody that truly believes in DEW is in some form of massive denial in the same manner as the general population are in except flipped the other way off the paranoia map.
btw, I am all for investigating and documenting all the evidence, but when it comes to seizing the "shoe" or the "gord" or "DEW" as the explanation then we know the plot has been lost.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:08 pm Post subject:
On the "Levitated cars" issue, in a couple of the photographs there is actually mechanical equipment in the background. On one picture a crane is behind an upturned burnt police vehicle and another picture what looks like a bulldozer or jcb type equipment. I know this does not explain the positions some of the tipped up vehicles are in but its possible, given the level of debris scattered across streets ,(including police vehicles and other cars that may have been used to cordon off areas prior to the collapse) that they had to be removed quickly to one side to allow rescue vehicles in after the collapses .
Examples of big "coventional" explosions the last guy tells of being lifted off his feet by the shock wave
Link _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Guys working hard here to say it wasn't HE related stuff.
So what was it?
Put into a paper and submit it to a legal process of some kind.
Thanks.
The effects you describe only partly explain what was seen when you take into account ALL the evidence - witness testimony AND photos and video. That's why the majority of it has been put in a legal case. _________________ Andrew
Whilst thermite does not cut it, neither does DEW. Debris crashing to the ground would push air out of the way, sucking in strong draughts of surrounding air that might tilt a car over. Ever notice the strong draught left by trains once they have past the platform?
Rather than exotic physics levitating people (actually, people were blown off their feet - not quite the same thing), I think draughts created by both high-explosives expelling heated air and material dropping down from a great height and displacing air at ground level would all be enough to cause this.
Strong drafts ay... check the evidence... leaves are still on the trees. One witness got a vehicle "pushed off" from over him, but he remained on the ground. He did not report feeling a strong wind.
Looks like you haven't checked all the evidence - ask Lee for some tips!
Yes, I have. I just don't need to go to your extremes to explain this evidence. Swirling, storm- or hurricane-strength blasts of air, caused by air rushing into the partial vacuum created by all the explosions in the tower, that blew people off their legs or turned over already damaged cars would not strip trees of their leaves. Even hurricanes lasting hours don't achieve that. And someone pinned down by a car close to the ground need not have felt a sudden blast of air because all that metal would have shielded his body.
Lack of scientific imagination is a poor excuse for far-fetched explanations.
Yes, I have. I just don't need to go to your extremes to explain this evidence. Swirling, storm- or hurricane-strength blasts of air, caused by air rushing into the partial vacuum created by all the explosions in the tower, that blew people off their legs or turned over already damaged cars would not strip trees of their leaves. Even hurricanes lasting hours don't achieve that. And someone pinned down by a car close to the ground need not have felt a sudden blast of air because all that metal would have shielded his body.
Lack of scientific imagination is a poor excuse for far-fetched explanations.
Website? Legal documents? Ridicule and all-negative criticism only convince a few people in my experience - and even less when the poster is anonymous too. Why would the majority want to remain anonymous I wonder? _________________ Andrew
You see the whole point is to get to an explanation - one which covers all the evidence. There are only 3 other explanations apart from Hutchison Effect and Field Effects related to the Hurricane which just so happened to be closest to NYC at 8am in the morning on 911. To summarise, the 3 available:
Official Story (gravity collapse)
Thermite
Nukes/Mininukes
The first one is ruled out on this forum (isn't it?). The 2nd has several flavours (paint on, carried in in loads, thermate, nano etc etc). Third also has several flavours and variants and does not explain the survival of people in the immediate vicinity of the WTC - simple, basic stuff that is not explained.
So, I say again, all WHAT IS *YOUR* EXPLANATION. Criticising the available research is NOT in of itself AN EXPLANATION. Is that clear yet? _________________ Andrew
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:12 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
So, I say again, all WHAT IS *YOUR* EXPLANATION. Criticising the available research is NOT in of itself AN EXPLANATION. Is that clear yet?
Unfortunately Andrew, it would seem that you're contradicting your own advice...
Remember this from your own talk....?
Andrew Johnson wrote:
The importance of establishing what DID NOT happen
By studying the evidence carefully , we can have a better chance of saying with certainty what did NOT happeneven if we cant always say exactly what DID happen
You see the whole point is to get to an explanation - one which covers all the evidence. There are only 3 other explanations apart from Hutchison Effect and Field Effects related to the Hurricane which just so happened to be closest to NYC at 8am in the morning on 911. To summarise, the 3 available:
Official Story (gravity collapse)
Thermite
Nukes/Mininukes
The first one is ruled out on this forum (isn't it?). The 2nd has several flavours (paint on, carried in in loads, thermate, nano etc etc). Third also has several flavours and variants and does not explain the survival of people in the immediate vicinity of the WTC - simple, basic stuff that is not explained.
So, I say again, all WHAT IS *YOUR* EXPLANATION. Criticising the available research is NOT in of itself AN EXPLANATION. Is that clear yet?
Er, tons of high-explosives? That's the explanation you conveniently omitted from your list in the desperate attempt to give your sci-fi option more credibility.
So, I say again, all WHAT IS *YOUR* EXPLANATION. Criticising the available research is NOT in of itself AN EXPLANATION. Is that clear yet?
Er, tons of high-explosives? That's the explanation you conveniently omitted from your list in the desperate attempt to give your sci-fi option more credibility.
Tons of silent, flash-free high explosives could explain a lot. But they don't exist, by definition. Nukes - similar problem.
This is why some look to therm?te variants, but they suffer from terminal faults of their own as demolition agents.
The problem is that most here are beginning with a conclusion - deliberate demolition - and looking for a theory to explain it. When none of these theories works, isn't it time to wonder whether the conclusion was wrong all along?
How about structural damage and fire as the cause of the collapses? _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject:
Groan! Just check out 985 architects and engineers (http://www.ae911truth.org/); got anything to match that, AJ? No, oddly enough, I thought not. 'Course, you have a 'magician' (Senor 'Hutch' with his 'magical' effects (and, unfortunately, no 'peer reviews' - surprise! surprise!).
The only 'Erin' worth a mention is Erin Brockovich.
No amount of disinfo will sink our quest for the Truth to be propagated.
!A Luta Continua! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:06 am Post subject:
sam wrote:
Micpsi wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
So, I say again, all WHAT IS *YOUR* EXPLANATION. Criticising the available research is NOT in of itself AN EXPLANATION. Is that clear yet?
Er, tons of high-explosives? That's the explanation you conveniently omitted from your list in the desperate attempt to give your sci-fi option more credibility.
Tons of silent, flash-free high explosives could explain a lot. But they don't exist, by definition. Nukes - similar problem.
This is why some look to therm?te variants, but they suffer from terminal faults of their own as demolition agents.
The problem is that most here are beginning with a conclusion - deliberate demolition - and looking for a theory to explain it. When none of these theories works, isn't it time to wonder whether the conclusion was wrong all along?
How about structural damage and fire as the cause of the collapses?
Well that could be true if the collapse was asymetric and a lot slower than the observed freefall,similar for building 7 not hit by an airplane therefore no huge jet fuelled fire type scenario.
Didn't anyone already explain the obvious to you Sam?
Outsider,Andrew isn't disinfo, it's an alternative explanation for our consideration.As said previously,IMO I very much doubt technological
advances in military hardware against humanity have remained stationary for the last 60 odd years. _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:08 am Post subject:
A primary principal in accepting scientific experiments is that they be carefully recorded, and that they are reproducible by anyone following the recorded steps.
Just who has reproduced Hutchison's 'effect'? Just where is the experimental record? (Just like the computer simulation showing progressive collapse of Towers; the Authorities refused to release the data input to the program).
By contrast, our people will readily provide the thermite and thermate experimental record, and anyone who follows the recorded steps will get the same results. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:24 am Post subject:
It's an awful long time since I was in school, so I've made heavy weather of explaining the 'scientific method' which should be used by Wood, Hutch et al.
Try this for size:
Chemistry.How to Do a Science Fair Project
Design a Project & Collect Data
By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D., About.com Guide
.Once you have an idea, turn it into a reality with a well-designed experiment.
Christopher Furlong, Getty ImagesOkay, you have a subject and you have at least one testable question. If you haven't done so already, make sure you understand the steps of the scientific method1. Try to write down your question in the form of a hypothesis. Your initial question may be like my example in which I wanted to determine the concentration required for salt to be tasted in water. Really, in the scientific method, this research would fall under the category of making observations. Once I had some data, I could go on to formulate a hypothesis, such as: "There will be no difference between the concentration at which all members of my family will detect salt in water." For elementary school science fair projects and possibly high school projects, the initial research may be an excellent project in itself. However, the project will be much more meaningful if you can form a hypothesis, test it, and then determine whether or not the hypothesis was supported.
Write Down Everything
Whether you decide on a project with a formal hypothesis or not, when you perform your project (take data), there are steps you can take to make the most of your project. First, write everything down. Gather your materials and list them, as specifically as you can. In the scientific world, it is important to be able to duplicate an experiment, especially if surprising results are obtained. In addition to writing down data, you should note any factors that could affect your project. In my salt example, it is possible that the temperature could affect my results (alter solubility of salt, change the body's rate of excretion, and other factors I might not consciously consider). Other factors I might note could include relative humidity, age of participants in my study, a list of medications (if anyone is taking them), etc. Basically, write down anything of note or potential interest. This information could lead your study in new directions once you start taking data. The information you take down at this point could make for a fascinating summary or discussion of future research directions for your paper or presentation.
Don't Discard Data
Perform your project and record your data. When you form a hypothesis or seek the answer to a question, you probably have a preconceived idea of the answer. Don't let this preconception influence the data you record! If you see a data point that looks 'off', don't throw it out, no matter how strong the temptation. If you are aware of some unusual event that occurred when the data was being taken, feel free to make a note of it, but don't discard the data.
Repeat the Experiment
If I want to determine the level at which I taste salt in water, I can keep adding salt to water until I have a detectable level, record the value, and move on. However, that single data point will have very little scientific significance. It is necessary to repeat the experiment, perhaps several times, to get a significant value. Keep notes on the conditions surrounding a duplication of an experiment. If I duplicate my salt experiment, perhaps I would get different results if I kept tasting salt solutions over and over than if I performed the test once a day over a span of several days. If your data takes the form of a survey, multiple data points might consist of many responses to the survey. If the same survey is resubmitted to the same group of people in a short time span, would their answers change? Would it matter if the same survey was given to a different, yet seemingly similar group of people? Think about questions like this and take care in repeating a project. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
How about structural damage and fire as the cause of the collapses?
Well that could be true if the collapse was asymetric and a lot slower than the observed freefall,similar for building 7 not hit by an airplane therefore no huge jet fuelled fire type scenario.
Didn't anyone already explain the obvious to you Sam?
There was no 'freefall' in the primary collapse zones at WTC1+2. The only freefall happening was from sections detached in the early stages, for example :
If you're getting your figures from NIST, you need to appreciate that the fastest impact timings relate to these free-falling sections, not the main collapse. They are explicit on this. All this was well established in forums such as this some years ago. Keep up, Frank Freedom ! _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:16 pm Post subject:
sam wrote:
Frank Freedom wrote:
sam wrote:
How about structural damage and fire as the cause of the collapses?
Well that could be true if the collapse was asymetric and a lot slower than the observed freefall,similar for building 7 not hit by an airplane therefore no huge jet fuelled fire type scenario.
Didn't anyone already explain the obvious to you Sam?
There was no 'freefall' in the primary collapse zones at WTC1+2. The only freefall happening was from sections detached in the early stages, for example :
If you're getting your figures from NIST, you need to appreciate that the fastest impact timings relate to these free-falling sections, not the main collapse. They are explicit on this. All this was well established in forums such as this some years ago. Keep up, Frank Freedom !
The obvious being the "collapse" of all 3 buildings is around freefall speed,including any debris falling before the main "collapse".How you can deny those facts Sam?
Does anyone else back Sam's point that this forum agrees that the freefall speeds relate only to the pre-"collapse" debris?
Meanwhile it is probably a good idea to get a stop watch and time the "collapses" for yourself from the multitude of available footage. _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
The obvious being the "collapse" of all 3 buildings is around freefall speed,including any debris falling before the main "collapse".How you can deny those facts Sam?
Because the 'loose' debris - some of which is massive - precedes the main collapse zone by a considerable margin, as shown above. And the fall of that debris did not precede the onset of global collapse, it was a product of it. _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject:
All of the info, videos and print, that I have come across claim the Towers came down at virtually free-fall speed.
Pity 'Hutch' doesn't present us with a total record of his 'demonstrations', including all the info on his 'beam' generator, so some of us can prduce the 'burning' running around the toy ship.
I wonder if he can saw people in half, as well? (No, I am not volunteering as the 'victim'!). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:16 pm Post subject:
sam wrote:
outsider wrote:
All of the info, videos and print, that I have come across claim the Towers came down at virtually free-fall speed.
Have you looked outside CT websites?
Or, for that matter, could you explain the photo I posted above?
I left an opening for someone else to fill,but I guess due to the pace of this forum I'll have to fill in the gap.
Could it be the debris we see in the photo's has been blown off the towers
by explosives (or some other method) that accellerates it's fall to earth?
That would make it faster than freefall.Do you think that could be a possibility Sam? _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:37 pm Post subject:
outsider wrote:
All of the info, videos and print, that I have come across claim the Towers came down at virtually free-fall speed.
Pity 'Hutch' doesn't present us with a total record of his 'demonstrations', including all the info on his 'beam' generator, so some of us can produce the 'burning' running around the toy ship.
I wonder if he can saw people in half, as well? (No, I am not volunteering as the 'victim'!).
_________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Last edited by outsider on Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject:
outsider wrote:
outsider wrote:
All of the info, videos and print, that I have come across claim the Towers came down at virtually free-fall speed.
Pity 'Hutch' doesn't present us with a total record of his 'demonstrations', including all the info on his 'beam' generator, so some of us can prduce the 'burning' running around the toy ship.
I wonder if he can saw people in half, as well? (No, I am not volunteering as the 'victim'!).
I see what you mean sorry for the of topic distraction outsider,maybe Sam should post in another thread elsewhere as per the rules for a truth critic. _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
All of the info, videos and print, that I have come across claim the Towers came down at virtually free-fall speed.
I see what you mean sorry for the of topic distraction outsider,maybe Sam should post in another thread elsewhere as per the rules for a truth critic.
If you have an interest in the truth then you won't mind where it comes from. For my own part it's a major hassle trying to transfer perfectly reasonable debate to the CC ghetto purely in order to stay within arbitrary rules. Whatever.
Note that the corner of the building is very clear and only obscured by falling debris at the 10.0 second mark. Meanwhile the collapse zone is well above here. Plenty of debris in real 'free fall' outside the footprint is visible well ahead of the collapse zone. Large amounts of 'new' debris are seen to begin their fall from the exterior at 12 secs, still well above the ground.
Frank Freedom - have you ever put some routine 9/11 keywords into Google but with +debunk tacked on the end? It really is healthy to seek out dissenting views sometimes. Give it a try. _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
