9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[scott3x]

enough, you bastards!

Gustav, don't do the personal attacks thing; I know that Kenny and others here seem to get away with it with impunity, but you never know when a moderator will take someone to task and besides this, I don't think it's productive anyway.

If you wish to talk of conspiracy theories, I suggest you try out the following forum:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

I just made myself an account and may post there soon.

[Ophiolite]

Would you agree that there could be something in a person's psychological make up that would pre-dispose them to a belief in conspiracies?

[Gustav]

Would you agree that there could be something in a person's psychological make up that would pre-dispose them to engage in conspiracies?

such as
such as

9/11?

eh stryder?
eh james?

[scott3x]

Would you agree that there could be something in a person's psychological make up that would pre-dispose them to a belief in conspiracies?

Look, no one is disputing that 9/11 involved a conspiracy. The only issue is whether it was an exlusively foreign forces thing or if it was an inside job; this doesn't mean that foreign forces weren't involved; it only means that certain government officials were involved in making the 9/11 events occur (even if only by allowing it to happen, although I believe it was far more than that).

[Gustav]

....although I believe it was far more than that).

thank you

[Ophiolite]

Look, no one is disputing that 9/11 involved a conspiracy. I wouldn't have called an act of terrorism a conspiracy. I was restricting it to what you are describing as an internal conspiracy. These are just different definitions, neither one right or wrong just different.

Now that I understand your use of the term let me ask the question again.


Would you agree that there could be something in a person's psychological make up that would pre-dispose them to a belief in internal conspiracies? i.e. conspiracies involving people or groups supposedly there to prevent such events.

[KennyJC]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I can agree that you are living in la-la land.

Or atleast that's what you believe. I agree that the official story doesn't agree; it's changed quite a bit as one theory after another that it's used has turn out to be so much fluff, but if I and many others are right, the high ups in charge of the official story will sprinkle us with much more fluff because they're the guilty ones.

What specifically are you talking about? What of the "official story" keeps changing?

And the "high ups" don't control the "story". That's just your tin hat speaking for you. The "story" comes from the witnesses, and those in the clean up operation who were not working for the government, they come from the passengers of the planes themselves when they made calls to people on the ground, they come from the fire department, they come from the media.

Well, that's what you believe anyway. I found another forum that I believe is even better then the one I mentioned previously:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

HAHA!

Yes... I agree you will feel very much at home there.

You will note how they separate different parts of the 9/11 theory. Perhaps one day the admins here will see the light, but I'm not holding my breath.

You will note how that place is full of morons.

I recommend this webpage:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

If you were an honest person, you would read that and realise that is no conspiracy and that Loose Change is simply nothing but hot air.

[scott3x]

I wouldn't have called an act of terrorism a conspiracy.

An act of terrorism can also be a conspiracy.

From Wikipedia:
A conspiracy theory attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations.

The official story says that Al Quaeda was behind 9/11, even if Osama Bin Laden has denied it 3 times and in the video where he did supposedly admit it, many people believe that the man shown in the video was a darker individual who was not him. In any case, while I believe that Al Quaeda has nowhere near the capability that dark elements of the U.S. government has, I don't think anyone is denying that it is a powerful organization.


I was restricting it to what you are describing as an internal conspiracy. These are just different definitions, neither one right or wrong just different.

Ok; now we can disagree fine :-). While I believe that foreign elements were involved, I don't think that it was exclusively a foreign conspiracy.


Now that I understand your use of the term let me ask the question again.


Would you agree that there could be something in a person's psychological make up that would pre-dispose them to a belief in internal conspiracies? i.e. conspiracies involving people or groups supposedly there to prevent such events.

You mean, like how a baby generally avoids what appear to be heights? I think the concept of a conspiracy is a bit advanced for such things; however, I think that once one knows a fair amount of the U.S.'s history with false flag operations, it's hardly all that surprising to see another.

[moementum7]

I often wonder that myself...about the psycholgical makeup of the different positions on this subject.
It must strike at a very deep belief, perhaps on ones own identity itself.
If one identifies his worth very strongly to the actions and character of his country then it may be very difficult to even remotely accept that the heads of their character could kill their very own citizens or other human life for anything but honourable intentions.
I myself know that the leaders of the US in particular have in fact killed many innocent citizens at home and abroad for nothing more than profit...see just one example here of the inhumane, dare I say evil acts our government/Big Business moguls are capable of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs

Knowing that these types of events conspire I find it an acceptable notion that Gov/Big Business would act in a way directly proportional to this same anihilation of innocent life for the purpose of profit again...the bigger the potential profit, the more acceptable the murder of human casualties.
It's just business.

This is why I myself find the notion of our Gov/Big Business able to kill innocents for profit not only possible but entirely probable.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
This topic probly deserves it's own thread.

I know that an argument for those of us who are labeled as "wanting" to believe in something bigger (like a 9/11 conspiracy) to make up for some boredom in our lives is fairly popular.

[moementum7]

I recently saw someone say-
"Clinton can't hide a blowjob, but Bush can blow up a bunch of buildings without anyone coming forward. So who's dumber, conspiracy theorists or Democrats?"

Who says Bush was directly in charge of anything?
An issue of being somewhat selective in your conspiracy theory approach to meet your own agenda perhaps?
Who says there are brain dead overweight(or bigfat) ditzy women involved at the highest levels of such decisions if they were to be made?

Just how much do you know about what goes on behind the scenes to make such adamant conclusions about who should know what?


Seems to me that the people behind the scenes, particularly the MIC(Military Industrial Complex) is raping you guys financially but no one seems to notice that 2 million dollars of your tax money goes "missing" every 10 minutes and that was 7 years ago, who knows what it is at now.
That's approx 288 million dollars a day!!!!!! that just goes missing yet how aware are you or anyone else of this??

That's $105,120,000,000 ($105 BILLION)a year and that was before the incredible increase in Military spending back before 9/11.

This and the Bayer incident, as well as all of the intertwining relationships between Military and Big Business(Haliburton)...I don't know how some of you guys can be so faithful that those in charge are such angels and are'nt quite capable of doing whatever the heck they want at the exspense of whoever they want.

The "bigger the lie the easier it is to believe" carries a lot of weight whether it is the so called gov/official story or a citizen/conspiracy story.
Anyways, I don't know how anyone can come to a conclusion one way or the other...only degrees of probability one way or the other.
To argue over probability is ...at best frustrating I would think.
The more "right" anyone thinks they are on this issue the more delusional or wishful thinking they have to be.

[Ophiolite]

You are addressing motivation. I don't wholly dispute your arguments there. I reject the application of internal conspiracy on 9/11 because there is no convincing evidence (or even lightweight evidence) to support it.

[moementum7]

I understand and respect your position.

[scott3x]

What specifically are you talking about? What of the "official story" keeps changing?

A lot of things. Google this:
"changing story" 9/11

And yes, I'm aware that they say William Rodriguez has changed his story as well, but I've already discredited that in this thread (good luck finding where though).

Personally, I like this story, although it's related to the anthrax attacks, not 9/11:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8622


And the "high ups" don't control the "story".

I only argued that they control the official story. Clearly, there are other stories out there.

The "story" comes from the witnesses, and those in the clean up operation who were not working for the government, they come from the passengers of the planes themselves when they made calls to people on the ground, they come from the fire department, they come from the media.

Indeed. But a lot of those people aren't telling the official story:
http://www.911docs.net/911_chronicles_1_truth_rising.php


I recommend this webpage:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

I may check it out later..

If you were an honest person, you would read that and realize that is no conspiracy and that Loose Change is simply nothing but hot air.

I sincerely doubt it. But as I said, I may check it out.

I will admit to one thing. In many ways, I liked debating in sciforums. Why? Because in forums that go for the official story, or forums that go for the inside job approach, most people are on side; the debating is generally tepid. In this forum, it seems we had a strong dose of both sides, even though, due to the fact that the moderators don't seem to take the 9/11 inside job idea seriously, it's clearly slanted the other way.

However, I must admit that in the loose change forums, the amount of headway made is, I believe, considerably stronger. I believe this is in large part due to the way it separates different topics. I am not saying that this phenomenon is exclusive to inside jobers; in the debunker site that you showed me, I also saw that they organized different parts of 9/11 seperately.

It's for this reason that I find it unfortunate to find a place where there were strong views from both sides, but it was all shoved into a 'mighty tangle'.

[Read-Only]

It's for this reason that I find it unfortunate to find a place where there were strong views from both sides, but it was all shoved into a 'mighty tangle'.

Well, at least here you will strong views from one side - they come from the more experienced people who have actually studied some of the principles involved in the failure of the buildings.

Seriously - why not do yourself (and some of us) a big favor? Go an pick up a couple of books on structural design and the WTC in particular. Ones that were written PRIOR!! to 9/11 and therfore won't contain any bias at all toward anyone's version of what happened. That's the only way you'll ever be able to reach a sound conclusion.

Besides learning a LOT about this particular issue, you'll also find a good deal of other interesting things as well. :)

[KennyJC]

A lot of things. Google this:
"changing story" 9/11

I want to hear it from you... I don't want to browse truther websites to find what you may be talking about.

I only argued that they control the official story. Clearly, there are other stories out there.

They wouldn't be so successful if their "story" was indeed a lie. Demolition teams and engineers worldwide would refute it. They don't. Thus the findings of NIST and non-government experts alike, stand strong.

Indeed. But a lot of those people aren't telling the official story:
http://www.911docs.net/911_chronicles_1_truth_rising.php

Are you not capable of giving me a summary of your sources?

I sincerely doubt it. But as I said, I may check it out.

I sincerely doubt it also. You are dishonest. Nothing will change your mind.

Answer me this though... because when I watched Loose Change, amongst other things, this was the one thing that caught my attention with regards to showing how dishonest truthers are. They always showed the same picture of the Pentagon damage, they deliberately chose a picture were the damage was obscured by a fire truck and gallons of spraying water, then Avery says "Where is the damage?"

Why didn't they use any other the dozens of pictures were the damage wasn't obscructed by by trucks and spraying water?

[scott3x]

Well, at least here you will strong views from one side - they come from the more experienced people who have actually studied some of the principles involved in the failure of the buildings.

Actually, I think it may be more that the loose change forums have so much info that whether or not it was an inside job is no longer much of a debate there; they're busy figuring out the inside job details.

[TW Scott]

I could swear that I remember statements on that date that building 7 was deliberately demolished. I cannot see how it is physically possible for that building to have fallen into its own footprint the way that it obviously did without someone having spent a lot of hours installing the explosives the way that they need to be installed. To have three buildings collapse as neatly as they did in one day seems incredibly unlikely. Of course, a lot of the people who talk about it would rather have me believe the physically impossible because of course Bush "would never do that." But he continues close business ties with people who he knows financed it and wastes thousands of American lives attacking a country that he knows very well didn't do it. On what basis do I place hypothetical limits on Bush's behavior?

Actually as unlikely as it sounds once a building of certain construction methods gets to a certain size there is only one way it collapses, in';t own footprint. Several groups have done countless simulations and everytime the building collapsed in on themselves.

[Read-Only]

Actually, I think it may be more that the loose change forums have so much info that whether or not it was an inside job is no longer much of a debate there; they're busy figuring out the inside job details.

And so you choose to completely ignore and not even comment on my suggestion that you read some REAL engineering textbooks in order to better understand the truth?????

Wow - you just dropped DOZENS of levels in my opinion of you!!!!! To borrow a phrase, "You can't handle the truth!" You are much, much more happier believing rumors and some outright lies.

Pity - what a waste of a human mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KennyJC]

Actually, I think it may be more that the loose change forums have so much info that whether or not it was an inside job is no longer much of a debate there; they're busy figuring out the inside job details.

That is without doubt, the most dumbfuck thing you have ever said on these forums.

The experts on the Loose Change forum have proven that all of science, all demolition and civil engineering experts got it wrong?

[Read-Only]

That is without doubt, the most dumbfuck thing you have ever said on these forums.

The experts on the Loose Change forum have proven that all of science, all demolition and civil engineering experts got it wrong?

I've given up on him, Kenny, and suggest you do the same. It's just not worth the effort of typing to try and change the mind of an individual who prefers the lies and fantasies of others over the truth. What a waste!!:bugeye:

[Ganymede]

I've given up on him, Kenny, and suggest you do the same. It's just not worth the effort of typing to try and change the mind of an individual who prefers the lies and fantasies of others over the truth. What a waste!!:bugeye:

Kenny is a spook, he will pontificate the official story until infinity and beyond.

[Ganymede]

. Several groups have done countless simulations and everytime the building collapsed in on themselves.

Source please, thank you in advance.

[JDawg]

People are going to search for conspiracies every time something controversial happens. From JFK to 9/11, you are going to have your "kooks" that claim to see an inside job no matter what. What is most ironic about them is that they will dismiss evidences contrary to their beliefs, no matter the source! So we get to a point with these people where, using 9/11 as an example, they would not believe that the buildings collapsed due to the planes even if the most respected engineer in the world told them so.

Here is what Truthers need to know.

1) The wreckage from the sites was studied by independent groups, not simply governmental "spooks". They came to the same conclusion as the government did.

2) The Loose Change folks have demonstrated their fundamental lack of knowledge on the technical issues of 9/11. One of their biggest "Gotcha!" plays was how one of the major airlines added cellphone "towers" to their planes. The LC people claimed that this was roundabout proof that the phone calls made on 9/11 from the planes to the ground were not possible. Unfortunately, they didn't do any research into the field before making this claim, because cellphones have always worked during flights, and the addition of the towers was so the signal was more reliable, not to make calls possible.

3) Just because there were safeguards in the elevator systems does not mean they were perfect, and none of them were built to maintain their safeguards following such a catastrophic impact. The elevator shafts were destroyed on multiple floors, so a fireball making its way from the impact site to the basement is not a stretch. Also, it fits in perfectly with what was reported by folks in the basement.

4) Just because the buildings were built to withstand the direct impact of Boeing 727, it does not mean that they actually would. Also worth noting is that the planes that hit the towers were much larger, taking the tower's safeguarding again out of the picture.

5) Who and How? Those are the two questions you must ask yourself if you honestly believe that the towers (including 7) were dropped by planted explosives. There is only one account of a building being shut down for the weekend prior to 9/11, and despite how the Truthers have spun it, the shutdown was only for the top half (or maybe it was a third) of one building. There simply was no time for any crews to plant explosives in the building. Second, Who? Who the hell would have done this work? You can't get government operatives to do this kind of work--it requires skilled craftsmen. Who, exactly, would have done such a thing?

6) Conspiracies are hard to keep secret. Let's assume that it all was a government set-up, OK? How in the name of God did this manage to remain a secret? Like I just said, the demolition would have required hours of preparation by a demolition crew, so we're talking about a [i]lot of people here...how did they all keep it such a well-guarded secret? Truth is, they didn't. Because there is no secret. You're actually willing to believe that dozens--maybe hundreds--of people managed to stay silent on what would be the biggest crime in the history of the nation...? C'mon. Someone would have gotten a case of the Guilties, and confessed. People rob a bank, they can't help but tell somebody; people commit a murder, they can't help but tell somebody. And yet here, in what you are proposing to be the biggest cover-up in history, nobody's talking?

If there was a crime of 9/11, it was that our government ignored the warnings, failed to sure-up our defenses, and failed to act in a timely manner when we knew there were more hijacked planes in the air. The fact that we never took the threat of terrorism seriously is the crime.

[Ophiolite]

If there was a crime of 9/11, it was that our government ignored the warnings, failed to sure-up our defenses, and failed to act in a timely manner when we knew there were more hijacked planes in the air. The fact that we never took the threat of terrorism seriously is the crime.This is the central and most important point of 911. scott3x and others do their nation and the world a great disservice by pretending anything else.

[Ganymede]

This is the central and most important point of 911. scott3x and others do their nation and the world a great disservice by pretending anything else.

Wow, you're not looking at the facts objectively. Norad executed 67 intercepts in the year of 2001 prior to 911. To say they were unprepared or incompetent isn't consistent with the facts.

[Ganymede]

Here is what Truthers need to know.

1) The wreckage from the sites was studied by independent groups, not simply governmental "spooks". They came to the same conclusion as the government did.

What a crock of shit, please provide the source of these independent investigations done on the wreckage.

2) The Loose Change folks have demonstrated their fundamental lack of knowledge on the technical issues of 9/11. One of their biggest "Gotcha!" plays was how one of the major airlines added cellphone "towers" to their planes. The LC people claimed that this was roundabout proof that the phone calls made on 9/11 from the planes to the ground were not possible. Unfortunately, they didn't do any research into the field before making this claim, because cellphones have always worked during flights, and the addition of the towers was so the signal was more reliable, not to make calls possible.


Obviously you haven't, if you did, you know that American Airlines has invested millions of dollars into in-flight cellphone technology. 3 years after 911.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2004-07-19-aircells_x.htm :rolleyes:

Also, can you please explain why the former Solicitor General Ted Olsen lied about receiving call from his wife Barabara Olson. Here's the official record of all phone calls that were made from Flight 93.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html :rolleyes:


Just because there were safeguards in the elevator systems does not mean they were perfect, and none of them were built to maintain their safeguards following such a catastrophic impact. The elevator shafts were destroyed on multiple floors, so a fireball making its way from the impact site to the basement is not a stretch. Also, it fits in perfectly with what was reported by folks in the basement.

The basement workers said they heard the explosions before the plane hit. Please learn the facts before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762

4) Just because the buildings were built to withstand the direct impact of Boeing 727, it does not mean that they actually [i]would. Also worth noting is that the planes that hit the towers were much larger, taking the tower's safeguarding again out of the picture.

Wrong again, a 727 would of hit the the WTC with more kenetic force then a 757 by it being lighter and traveling faster.



6Conspiracies are hard to keep secret. Let's assume that it all was a government set-up, OK? How in the name of God did this manage to remain a secret?

It's easy to keep a secret actually. If it wasn't, then every other competing country would have the same Military weapon systems that America has.




If there was a crime of 9/11, it was that our government ignored the warnings, failed to sure-up our defenses, and failed to act in a timely manner when we knew there were more hijacked planes in the air. The fact that we never took the threat of terrorism seriously is the crime.


"Five months before the September 11 attacks, US military planners suggested a war game to practise a response to a terrorist attack using a commercial airliner flown into the Pentagon, but senior officers rejected the scenario as "too unrealistic".

http://tinyurl.com/6cptaf :rolleyes:

[Ophiolite]

Wow, you're not looking at the facts objectively. Norad executed 67 intercepts in the year of 2001 prior to 911. To say they were unprepared or incompetent isn't consistent with the facts.Based upon the information I have available in the public domain and upon analyses by parties in whom I have a high level of confidence in I believe I bring a good level of objectivity to the issue.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean to convey by your second sentence. I know of no word 'executed', the word 'executed' does not sit well in the context, so perhaps you would like to clarify.
Moreover, NORAD could have got a nice big Gold Star for their work and it would have damn all to do with my charge of US government incompetence. I am talking of a three way failure: of succesive administrations to recognise the importance of human intel; of a failure of the intelligence agencies to properly collect and assess available intelligence; of a failure of the government to act properly on such intelligence as was available.

[KennyJC]

The basement workers said they heard the explosions before the plane hit. Please learn the facts before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762

When Rodriguez is your main source for this false claim, you are in trouble. Rodriguez only started making the claim that bombs were used in the basement since 2005. Four years after the fact.

Rodriguez has exploited 9/11 and been able to earn a living out of it, and the only way he has been able to do so is because he changed his story and lied.

Here is a list of Rodriguez's lies as detailed by Mark Roberts:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2675200&postcount=76

Wrong again, a 727 would of hit the the WTC with more kenetic force then a 757 by it being lighter and traveling faster.

Haven't we already discussed your cartoon physics before? If it is lighter, even if it travels a little bit faster, how does that increase it's kinetic energy? A 767 has a slightly lower top speed but is significantly larger and heavier. So if anything the 767 would have more kinetic energy, or much the same.

This is not the first time you state 757's hit the WTC when it was in fact two 767's. I don't know if this is an honest mistake on your part, or yet more deliberate deception.

It's easy to keep a secret actually. If it wasn't, then every other competing country would have the same Military weapon systems that America has.

Probably because they are in top secret facilities. To carry out demolition operations in 267 floors of busy public office space is a completely different story.

"Five months before the September 11 attacks, US military planners suggested a war game to practise a response to a terrorist attack using a commercial airliner flown into the Pentagon, but senior officers rejected the scenario as "too unrealistic".

http://tinyurl.com/6cptaf :rolleyes:

Wow, you never tire of being a deceitful prick, do you?

An accidental plane crash was just one of many drills carried out. Why would they need a drill for an accidental plane crash in or near the Pentagon? Simple... because the Pentagon is in the flightpath of the Reagan National Airport which is less than a mile away. And I'm pretty sure it was 11 months prior to 9/11 rather than 5 months.

[Ganymede]

Based upon the information I have available in the public domain and upon analyses by parties in whom I have a high level of confidence in I believe I bring a good level of objectivity to the issue.

No, you just said that the only explanation you'll accept is incompetence. Like I said, zero objectivity.

[Ganymede]

And so you choose to completely ignore and not even comment on my suggestion that you read some REAL engineering textbooks in order to better understand the truth?????

Wow - you just dropped DOZENS of levels in my opinion of you!!!!! To borrow a phrase, "You can't handle the truth!" You are much, much more happier believing rumors and some outright lies.

Pity - what a waste of a human mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's an disputable fact about you official story subscribers. You can't allow the evidence to make you insults for you, you have to use everything but the evidence to insult someone. When I'm debating, I allow the evidence to insult people. Example: what proof do you have that Ted Olson received a call from his wife Barbara, besides his omission? You're on the clock, this should be easy for you to prove with the phone records that are available. :p

[Ophiolite]

No, you just said that the only explanation you'll accept is incompetence. Like I said, zero objectivity.Ganymede, try not to make yourself look keven more foolish. My starting point was to have no opinion on the cause(s) of 911. After reviewing the data, then I reached my conclusion. That is how it works. You don't maintain a belief in something that is contrary to the evidence. You move on.
Here's an disputable fact about you official story subscribers. You can't allow the evidence to make you insults for you, you have to use everything but the evidence to insult someone. When I'm debating, I allow the evidence to insult people. Example: what proof do you have that Ted Olson received a call from his wife Barbara, besides his omission? You're on the clock, this should be easy for you to prove with the phone records that are available. :pDo you also write in English?

[Ganymede]

Ganymede, try not to make yourself look keven more foolish. My starting point was to have no opinion on the cause(s) of 911. After reviewing the data, then I reached my conclusion. That is how it works. You don't maintain a belief in something that is contrary to the evidence. You move on.
Do you also write in English?

Thank you for proving my point. As I've stated, you rely on insults to make your case instead of the material evidence.

[Ophiolite]

You have shown yourself incapable of recognising, evaluating andinterpreting material evidence. All that is left is insults. (Or I could just ignore you completely, but you would find it less satisfying.)

[JDawg]

Seriously, Ganymede, I'd reply, but everyone here has already completely debunked you. I mean, look at you. You've been reduced to petty insults.

You truthers only care about exposing some bogus conspiracy, and that's the problem.

Here are the other problems.

1) Claims of controlled demolition by people that have no experience in the field.

2) Claims of Hani Hanjour making an "impossible maneuver" by people that have never flown in their lives.

3) Claims about the "faulty physics" of the entire event by people whose last experience in the field was their high school physics class.

Laymen are making claims about expert fields, and it's ridiculous. They claim that squibs were going off in the WTC, but the sum total of their knowledge on controlled demolitions comes from news reel footage; they bitch about steel not being able to melt at temperatures as low as the fires in the WTC, but they completely forget that steel does not have to melt in order to fail; they point to the cell phone additions to the airliners after 9/11 as proof that making a cell phone call from the air was impossible on 9/11, to which I say, have you ever flown in an airplane? Making a cell phone call was absolutely possible on and before 9/11.

Duh.

[scott3x]

Seriously, Ganymede, I'd reply, but everyone here has already completely debunked you. I mean, look at you. You've been reduced to petty insults.

You truthers only care about exposing some bogus conspiracy, and that's the problem.

Well that's what you believe anyway.


Here are the other problems.

1) Claims of controlled demolition by people that have no experience in the field.

Actually, experts have testified that the government's story is seriously messed and if this thread hadn't gobbled up all the others I'd be able to show you links proving it. But the admins prefer a mighty tangle...


2) Claims of Hani Hanjour making an "impossible maneuver" by people that have never flown in their lives.

I'm not up on this story, but may be soon enough.

3) Claims about the "faulty physics" of the entire event by people whose last experience in the field was their high school physics class.

Hardly. Stephen Jones was a physics professor at BYU university:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Here's a sampling of his critiques on NIST:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html#paper

[KennyJC]

They claim that squibs were going off in the WTC, but the sum total of their knowledge on controlled demolitions comes from news reel footage

Ha! That's a good one. I think from the footage the "squibs" were going at 30-40mph leaving debunkers to call it "squelching squibs". I believe squibs from explosives go much faster than that and disappear as quickly as they appeared.

[scott3x]

Laymen are making claims about expert fields, and it's ridiculous.

Layman are basing their arguments from the work of experts who have preceeded them:

Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Patriots for Truth:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
http://911scholars.org/

[Stryder]

pity there wasn't a :
http://www.911bullshit.org

I mean just because a website has 911 in it, it must be credible.:bugeye:

[scott3x]

pity there wasn't a :
http://www.911bullshit.org

I mean just because a website has 911 in it, it must be credible.:bugeye:

You might try reading some of the material. You'll never be persuaded that the official story might not be true if you can't be bothered to do something as simple as that. You might start to ask questions in a forum that understands that it's easier for people to address issues if you separate different 9/11 elements of 9/11 into separate spaces. There are a bunch, but here are my favourites so far:

http://forum.911movement.org/

http://letsrollforums.com/index.php

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

[camilus]

Loose change is the truth!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218920724339766288&hl=en

[Read-Only]

This entire thread is bordering on insanity!

The people who buy into this nonsense obviously have impaired logical-thinking abilities which, in itself, is a very mild form of near-insanity. They are unable to distinguish between fact and fiction - and have a preference for fiction because it's more exciting!

And to attempt to educate them is also a mild form of insanity. It's like trying to teach a dog to work mathematical problems - the dog is not equipped to understand the principles involved and neither are these conspiracy theorists.

The lack the ability for critical thinking, are grossly under-educated in physics and readily accept nonsense as fact.

One cannot teach a dog algebra and neither can one teach an idiot to think when the idiot does NOT wish to learn. It's just that simple.

The people who want to believe in this garbage are no different than those who wish to believe in ET UFOs, Bigfoot, Nessie and dozens of other ridiculous things. No amount of facts or evidence will ever change the mind of an individual who doesn't have much of a mind to begin with.

To continue to parry and thrust with them is pointless and a fool's errand. I will have nothing more to do with any of it.

For those who DO want to continue, I wish you all Happy Insanity!:D

[shaman_]

Layman are basing their arguments from the work of experts who have preceeded them:

Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/ I can’t get into the list of members but a quick scan of the website sees the same arguments we’ve seen before...

Squibs, quote mining for the word ‘explosion’, claims of a perfect symmetrical collapse, reliance of Steven Jones and the appeals such as “High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed” .

Same old nonsense wrapped up in an appeal to authority.


Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
http://911scholars.org/Ah the scholars. Still linking to that one? Yes ignore the opinion of the majority of structural engineers and take the word of experts in ‘French language and culture’ and English literature or a crackpot who thinks jesus visited America and lost his job for writing paper's outside his field which embarrassed his university.

[KennyJC]

Layman are basing their arguments from the work of experts who have preceeded them:

Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Patriots for Truth:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
http://911scholars.org/

Has their evidence been submitted for peer review in the relevant journals?

I already know that Steven Jones has made no effort, I'm just curious about the rest of them.

As for Richard Gage, he seems to think that comparing the WTC to two small cardboard boxes is a scientific thing to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=supBPWOYm78

In that one demonstration, Richard Gage quickly proved that he is an absolute idiot.

Remember when you were a kid and you would smash two toy cars together in a head-on collision and no damage was done? You can't compare toys to the real deal.

[scott3x]

Has their evidence been submitted for peer review in the relevant journals?

The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. The official story is full of holes but if you don't want to see that, logic alone simply won't do. Steven Jones was put on administrative leave from BYU for questioning the official story. Kevin Ryan was fired. Tell me, are you a republican? I'm just curious, because it would fit in with something I could easily imagine; I mean, who would want to believe that part of their party could be part of such a heinous act? Far easier to believe that the truth isn't truth because it hasn't been peer reviewed in the 'relevant' journals. I have already posted many examples of experts who have been condemned by the authorities for daring to disagree with them. I think the most important thing is to not authority figures usurp one's power to use one's own mind to search for the truth. I'm not even an 'expert' but with a little research I came to easily see the holes of the official story and I was pointing them out in a few threads before they were all tangled together in this 'mighty tangle'. No one responded to the weak spots of the official story, but instead started questioning the credentials of those who questioned things. If the authorities are the ones trying to hide things, experts sanctioned by the authorities would be the last people to tell you the truth.

-They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth..
rather then truth, as the authority
- G. Massey, Egyptologist

[scott3x]

As for Richard Gage, he seems to think that comparing the WTC to two small cardboard boxes is a scientific thing to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=supBPWOYm78

In that one demonstration, Richard Gage quickly proved that he is an absolute idiot.

Remember when you were a kid and you would smash two toy cars together in a head-on collision and no damage was done? You can't compare toys to the real deal.

Sure you can. Look, this guy could probably give you a much more detailed analysis of why the towers shouldn't have collapsed due to some small fires, but you can't do that in a quick demonstration. He can give you an outline but if you want the details, you'll have to sleuth through the heavy stuff. I've already posted such heavy stuff here but it seems that in that, most of the official story believers simply aren't interested. Anyway, if you now feel inclined to do some heavy lifting, you can take a look at a very good article by Steven Jones criticizing a NIST report:

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

[scott3x]

Loose change is the truth!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218920724339766288&hl=en

One of the admins in the loose change forums wanted me to show you the following link (I'm guessing because it has higher resolution :-)):
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8510748876310097541&hl=en-GB

[KennyJC]

The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. The official story is full of holes but if you don't want to see that, logic alone simply won't do. Steven Jones was put on administrative leave from BYU for questioning the official story. Kevin Ryan was fired. Tell me, are you a republican? I'm just curious, because it would fit in with something I could easily imagine; I mean, who would want to believe that part of their party could be part of such a heinous act? Far easier to believe that the truth isn't truth because it hasn't been peer reviewed in the 'relevant' journals. I have already posted many examples of experts who have been condemned by the authorities for daring to disagree with them. I think the most important thing is to not authority figures usurp one's power to use one's own mind to search for the truth. I'm not even an 'expert' but with a little research I came to easily see the holes of the official story and I was pointing them out in a few threads before they were all tangled together in this 'mighty tangle'. No one responded to the weak spots of the official story, but instead started questioning the credentials of those who questioned things. If the authorities are the ones trying to hide things, experts sanctioned by the authorities would be the last people to tell you the truth.

I don't know why Steven Jones was put on leave, perhaps you could link me to a non-conspiracy theory website so I can find out this information. I do know that Kevin Ryan was fired as he represented his views as the views of the company. He didn't even have any expertise in steel as his position was in water treatment.

As for me, I'm not a republican. I hate the republicans, I hate Bush, I hate Sarah Palin, and the South is full of fucking retards. I'm not keen on Obama either, but I guess you have to pick the best of a bad bunch.

Can you accept that it was wrong of Richard Gage to compare the WTC to a cardboard box?

[John99]

One of the admins in the loose change forums wanted me to show you the following link (I'm guessing because it has higher resolution :-)):


Why dont you try thinking for yourself or are things getting slow at imanimbecile.com?

[shaman_]

The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. The official story is full of holes but if you don't want to see that, logic alone simply won't do. Steven Jones was put on administrative leave from BYU for questioning the official story.

From wiki -
The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department.[30]


Kevin Ryan was fired. Tell me, are you a republican? I'm just curious, because it would fit in with something I could easily imagine; I mean, who would want to believe that part of their party could be part of such a heinous act? The psychology behind people’s desires for conspiracies is interesting. Perhaps people just want their monotonous lives to be more interesting. Yes even if that means that they may not be as safe, at least life is more exciting and it gives them a mission.


Far easier to believe that the truth isn't truth because it hasn't been peer reviewed in the 'relevant' journals. If this evidence is so strong it will stand up to the scrutiny. Clearly it does not.

It’s not like there hasn’t been time either.


I have already posted many examples of experts who have been condemned by the authorities for daring to disagree with them. I think the most important thing is to not authority figures usurp one's power to use one's own mind to search for the truth. I'm not even an 'expert' but with a little research I came to easily see the holes of the official story and I was pointing them out in a few threads before they were all tangled together in this 'mighty tangle'. No one responded to the weak spots of the official story, but instead started questioning the credentials of those who questioned things. That is not true and you know it scott.


If the authorities are the ones trying to hide things, experts sanctioned by the authorities would be the last people to tell you the truth.

I've already posted such heavy stuff here but it seems that in that, most of the official story believers simply aren't interested.
No one has been dodging your posts scott. Have you had a look at http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
?

[Ganymede]

Seriously, Ganymede, I'd reply, but everyone here has already completely debunked you. I mean, look at you. You've been reduced to petty insults.

Please tell me you're kidding? KennyJC, Shaman, Sockpuppy, and many others have attacked my character in each and everyone of their rebuttals.
So please, direct your unbiased vitriol towards them!


You truthers only care about exposing some bogus conspiracy, and that's the problem.

The material evidence indicates otherwise.

Here are the other problems.

1) Claims of controlled demolition by people that have no experience in the field.

Actually that's incorrect, please reread my posts. I've provided evidence from many experts, from all fields. Please re-read my post.


2) Claims of Hani Hanjour making an "impossible maneuver" by people that have never flown in their lives.

Actually, A Retired US Pilot who flew the very planes on 911 explains in verifiable terms why those maneuvers were impossible. I can't wait to hear your rebuttal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDgEA-OQMS8&feature=related


3) Claims about the "faulty physics" of the entire event by people whose last experience in the field was their high school physics class.

Now you're resorting to unadulterated distortion.

Laymen are making claims about expert fields, and it's ridiculous. They claim that squibs were going off in the WTC, but the sum total of their knowledge on controlled demolitions comes from news reel footage; they bitch about steel not being able to melt at temperatures as low as the fires in the WTC, but they completely forget that steel does not have to melt in order to fail; they point to the cell phone additions to the airliners after 9/11 as proof that making a cell phone call from the air was impossible on 9/11, to which I say, have you ever flown in an airplane? Making a cell phone call was absolutely possible on and before 9/11.

I proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ted Olsen the former Solicitor General, lied about receiving a call from his wife Barbara. The official records submitted in the Moussuai trial showed that Barbara's phonecalls to the DOJ never connected. Why we would he lie about something like that?

[scott3x]

I don't know why Steven Jones was put on leave, perhaps you could link me to a non-conspiracy theory website so I can find out this information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

I do know that Kevin Ryan was fired as he represented his views as the views of the company.

No, he didn't. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 54:
Although Ryan made it clear that he was speaking only for himself, not his company, his employers' reaction was decisive. On November 22, 2004, the South Bend Tribune carried this headline, "South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe." UL officials denied any testing of the WTC steel and said Ryan was terminated because his letter was written "without UL's knowledge or authorization."


He didn't even have any expertise in steel as his position was in water treatment.

The guy was a director/manager in the lab that tested the steel used in the WTC buildings. I don't know how much he knew initially, but he did have this to say:
"You may know that there are a number of current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth..."
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

In other words, he may not have known enough when things started, but by the time he wrote the letters, it seems like he definitely did. And he's gone much further since:
WTC Collapse: The Science
Scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan have combined efforts to produce the most in-depth analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings yet accomplished! This unique video consists of two complete, fully edited presentations on one DVD!

Dr. Steven E. Jones, professor of physics at BYU, thoroughly and definitively debunks the FEMA and NIST reports promoted by the U.S. government. His analysis of the collapse of World Trade Center leads to only one conclusion -- all three buildings were demolished with thermite and explosives. Jones discusses building 7 in detail, since over half the population of America does not know that it too collapsed on 9/11.

Kevin Ryan, former lab manager and scientist at Underwriters Labs, the company that tested the steel used in the World Trade Center buildings, was fired by UL when he went public with information about the cover-up. He explains in detail why the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the World Trade Center collapses is false.

As for me, I'm not a republican. I hate the republicans, I hate Bush, I hate Sarah Palin, and the South is full of fucking retards. I'm not keen on Obama either, but I guess you have to pick the best of a bad bunch.

I've heard that Obama could use a few improvements myself, but I like to think that he'll be a fairly good president. Ofcourse, I think that Bill Clinton was a fairly good president. And no, I don't think he should have lied to his family or his wife about 'that woman', but there were no colossal terrorist attacks or wars during his watch; a botched WTC basement bombing and a brief Somali conflict was about as far as it got.


Can you accept that it was wrong of Richard Gage to compare the WTC to a cardboard box?

No, because I don't think it was wrong. I sincerely believe that a steel columned building would be a little more resistant then cardboard, so if anything, I think his model should have been made of sturdier stuff. I think anyone could agree that cardboard building could have easily burnt down to the ground, although it wouldn't have done so without a whole lot more fire then was observed on 9/11. But the WTC buildings were made out of steel and concrete and this type of thing clearly didn't happen. Anyway, if you want to technical arguments as to why it was essentially impossible for the WTC buildings to collapse due to fire, you need look no further then the link I have consistently posted here on that, namely this one:
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

If you've only got the patience for a cardboard box demonstration, however.. well, it's a good start I guess.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Since 9/11 Conspiracist's have been over killing the forum.....


So why not simply delete all the stupid conspiracy posts and permaban the idiot conspiracy theorists?

[scott3x]

From wiki -
The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department.[30]

Look, a university is hardly a place that would want to rock the boat with high up government officials. All that government funding.. just wouldn't do to be accusing organizations like NIST of doing shoddy work. So sure, they'll say that he didn't publish in 'appropriate' venues and turn a blind eye that those venues are probably the same ones that would have turned down his work without thinking much about it because hey, they're probably sponsored by corporate and or government interests as well...


The psychology behind people’s desires for conspiracies is interesting. Perhaps people just want their monotonous lives to be more interesting. Yes even if that means that they may not be as safe, at least life is more exciting and it gives them a mission.

Yeah, it's real exciting believing that the government of the most powerful nation in the world played a part in killing its own people. Then again, it does explain its callousness in foreign countries for commodities such as oil (if this is what they do to their own...)

I could say that the psychology behind someone's desire for the official story to be true is understandable; people want to feel safe and believing that the government played any part in what happened on 9/11 doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the safety of one's country.


If this evidence is so strong it will stand up to the scrutiny. It’s not like there hasn’t been time either.

It does, but people have to seriously look at it. And for that to happen.. people still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. It may take a very long time...

Originally Posted by scott3x
I have already posted many examples of experts who have been condemned by the authorities for daring to disagree with them. I think the most important thing is to not authority figures usurp one's power to use one's own mind to search for the truth. I'm not even an 'expert' but with a little research I came to easily see the holes of the official story and I was pointing them out in a few threads before they were all tangled together in this 'mighty tangle'. No one responded to the weak spots of the official story, but instead started questioning the credentials of those who questioned things.

That is not true and you know it scott.

No one has been dodging your posts scott.

More like dodging certain points within them.


Have you had a look at http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
?

Yes, and I even commented on the fact that it was thoroughly confusing. But I don't blame you for not seeing that in this 'mighty tangle'.

[scott3x]

So why not simply delete all the stupid conspiracy posts and permaban the idiot conspiracy theorists?

Well I can certainly agree that there's nothing like censorship to silence people who don't agree with you.

Personally, I go more for the following:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I don't believe you eradicate bad ideas by censoring them but rather by showing their logical flaws. Clearly we're on different sides as to which arguments are flawed, but I believe this reasoning should hold regardless of who's right here.

[shaman_]

Look, a university is hardly a place that would want to rock the boat with high up government officials. All that government funding.. just wouldn't do to be accusing organizations like NIST of doing shoddy work. So sure, they'll say that he didn't publish in 'appropriate' venues and turn a blind eye that those venues are probably the same ones that would have turned down his work without thinking much about it because hey, they're probably sponsored by corporate and or government interests as well...


Yeah, it's real exciting believing that the government of the most powerful nation in the world played a part in killing its own people. Then again, it does explain its callousness in foreign countries for commodities such as oil (if this is what they do to their own...)

I could say that the psychology behind someone's desire for the official story to be true is understandable; people want to feel safe and believing that the government played any part in what happened on 9/11 doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the safety of one's country. No, believing the official story doesn’t make you feel safer. Then you would believe that it is possible for religious extremists to be able to slip though the security measures so easily. That was the real problem here. The US government with all their resources had an indication that this could happen and did not do enough. However this all gets overlooked in the nonsense about free fall and invisible bombs in the basement that don’t do anything.

It does, but people have to seriously look at it. Are you seriously looking at it?

When every point is debunked you just bring up another one. When this happens for long enough you then pause and then say that it is obvious that there was a conspiracy.


More like dodging certain points within them.


Yes, and I even commented on the fact that it was thoroughly confusing. But I don't blame you for not seeing that in this 'mighty tangle'.So not a good look then.

Have you looked at http://www.debunking911.com, http://www.911myths.com or http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Here for a list of sceptical sites http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

You can be fairly sure that everything you have brought up, or are going to bring up, has been addressed before.

[Ganymede]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Whitehouse Spokesman Dana Perino says that Osama Bil Laden didn't mastermind 911. She said that Khalid Sheik Muhammad did, and he's in Jail. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Wait Wait, let me guess, so now you guys think K.S.M was behind 911? AHAHAHAHAAHA the white house just debunked your all of your theories. AHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwb2EuzGN4

[scott3x]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Whitehouse Spokesman Dana Perino says that Osama Bin Laden didn't mastermind 911. She said that Khalid Sheik Muhammad did, and he's in Jail. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Wait Wait, let me guess, so now you guys think K.S.M was behind 911? AHAHAHAHAAHA the white house just debunked your all of your theories. AHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwb2EuzGN4

Well atleast the government's giving up its hopeless case that Osama organized 9/11. The faked video where he claims to have done it was probably the icing on the cake of its demise and it may even be that they're now accusing this sheikh in an effort to take attention away from the fact that even the FBI never claimed to have enough evidence to accuse him of conspiring on 9/11. Anyway, since the guy is already in prison, they could perhaps torture him to get him to confess to whatever it is they want him to confess to.

One thing I will say, however. Dana Perino doesn't look like one of those people who know the truth but is too sly to tell us. She seems more like the 'doe caught in the headlights' type. I must admit she's nice on the eyes. I've been reading up on her and it seems that she wanted Bush Jr. in the whitehouse 2 years before he actually ran (http://www.uiaa.org/spfld/magazine/stxt0708.html).

Anyway, I think that if anyone could be said to be someone who actually believes the Bush administration's lies within the white house itself, she'd be a prime candidate. I think the article below essentially sums things up:
http://www.236.com/news/2007/12/12/are_you_smarter_than_a_white_h_1_2886.php

I simply don't think that she should be dismissed. The article itself hints at a compelling reason why; I believe that many americans don't know any more then she does. Reporters can work at educating her as well as the many who are still in the dark on so many things.

[KennyJC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

So he was basically placed on paid leave because he gained notoriety as a conspiracy nut? Seems reasonable.

No, he didn't. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 54:

Although Ryan made it clear that he was speaking only for himself, not his company, his employers' reaction was decisive. On November 22, 2004, the South Bend Tribune carried this headline, "South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe." UL officials denied any testing of the WTC steel and said Ryan was terminated because his letter was written "without UL's knowledge or authorization."

I'd fire him too. Not only were his claims completely false, but he was making claims outside his field and the company wouldn't want anything to do with conspiracy theorists.

The guy was a director/manager in the lab that tested the steel used in the WTC buildings. I don't know how much he knew initially, but he did have this to say:

I'm pretty sure this is the guy I read about that has no qualification in steel testing and his expertise was in water treatment.

In other words, he may not have known enough when things started, but by the time he wrote the letters, it seems like he definitely did. And he's gone much further since:

Ryan and Jones are unpublished kooks who are rejected by the scientific community. Their claims can be debunked easily even by non-scientists who do just a little bit of fact checking. It really is as simple as that. If these guys are the best appeals to authority you can muster, you have nothing.

No, because I don't think it was wrong. I sincerely believe that a steel columned building would be a little more resistant then cardboard, so if anything, I think his model should have been made of sturdier stuff.

The WTC was infinitely heavier than a cardboard box and exerted infinitely more kinetic energy.

Again, it's like comparing toy car collisions to highway collisions. Why do toy car collisions display no damage and yet real cars do?

[KennyJC]

The faked video where he claims to have done it was probably the icing on the cake of its demise

Perhaps you should watch the whole video which is 30-40 minutes long instead of focusing on a single screenshot which is amongst the poorest quality of the entire video.

Anyway, in the video he released in 2004 he admitted it was his idea. I suppose you will say this was fake too?

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than 500 billion dollars.

[scott3x]

So he was basically placed on paid leave because he gained notoriety as a conspiracy nut? Seems reasonable.

Trust it to you to phrase things that way. I'll warrant he knows a lot more then most on the physics of 9/11. I firmly believe the problem is as I mentioned; the university doesn't want to be seen as accusing the current administration of any wrongdoing for political reasons.


I'd fire him too. Not only were his claims completely false...

Or atleast that's what you believe.

but he was making claims outside his field and the company wouldn't want anything to do with conspiracy theorists.

In terms of making 'claims outside his field', I have already made it clear that he was a lab director in the company that tested the safety of the WTC steel, even though they seem to now being denying even this. There is also the detail that he was a scientist and while he may not have been the one who personally tested the steel, it's well known that NIST tested steel after the fact and found that it didn't collapse after 2 hours of temperatures of 800C. There is also another issue; in combination with Steven Jones, who he's done work with, they have come upon evidence from many, many experts. But you don't seem interested in looking in that.


Ryan and Jones are unpublished...

Believe me, they're published. Maybe not in NIST type places, but they're published.


kooks who are rejected by the scientific community.

Wrong and I've linked to many sites by scientists that reject the official story, but you seem to be turning a blind eye to this.


Their claims can be debunked easily even by non-scientists who do just a little bit of fact checking.

I'd argue that it's the other way around; NIST has been easily debunked with the help of people such as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan to compile all the information that is available on the flaws to the official story. But if you don't look at evidence they've compiled, you won't see this ofcourse.


It really is as simple as that. If these guys are the best appeals to authority you can muster, you have nothing.

I've cited many more but you seem to be ignoring them all.


The WTC was infinitely heavier than a cardboard box and exerted infinitely more kinetic energy.

No, not 'infinitely'. It was certainly heavier, but its supports were a lot stronger then a cardboard box too. Kevin, why won't you just read Steven Jones critique of the official story?


Again, it's like comparing toy car collisions to highway collisions. Why do toy car collisions display no damage and yet real cars do?

In the case of metal toy cars, I do believe that scaled, they are indeed built stronger as models then as the real thing.

[scott3x]

Perhaps you should watch the whole video which is 30-40 minutes long instead of focusing on a single screenshot which is amongst the poorest quality of the entire video.

What I've seen is enough, thanks.


Anyway, in the video he released in 2004 he admitted it was his idea. I suppose you will say this was fake too?

I believe I was referring to the 2004 one. If you have both links I can give them a once over.


I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than 500 billion dollars.

Something coming to his mind is not the same thing as something he did. In any case, even the government no longer believes Osama Bin Laden masterminded it, so you can't even rely on them for support.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I'll be sure to tell my cousins that this is all a big mistake, a plot by the US government. I'm sure they will agree that their mom died in a faked disaster. I will also tell a union brother's family that when he stepped outside the pentagon's door for a smoke and got hit by an airplane, that it wasn't a real act of terrorism. I'm positive they will all actually be willing to believe that Alqaeda was not responsible.

Fucktards.

[scott3x]

I'll be sure to tell my cousins that this is all a big mistake, a plot by the US government. I'm sure they will agree that their mom died in a faked disaster. I will also tell a union brother's family that when he stepped outside the pentagon's door for a smoke and got hit by an airplane, that it wasn't a real act of terrorism. I'm positive they will all actually be willing to believe that Alqaeda was not responsible.

I'd like to hear more of this 'union brother', seeing as how there seems to be a fair amount of evidence that the pentagon was hit by a missile not a plane. Anyway, perhaps Al Queda played a part, even though even the U.S. government no longer believes that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind behind it. But this doesn't mean that it wasn't an inside job, meaning that there were rogue elements that played a part; such as placing explosives in the WTC buildings.

[Ganymede]

I'll be sure to tell my cousins that this is all a big mistake, a plot by the US government.

For evidence, ask them to refer to the Tonkin Gulf incident, and Operation Northwoods.


I'm sure they will agree that their mom died in a faked disaster.

The only person who alleged it was fake was you? Why would you dishonor your cousins mother? Don't you have any shame?



I will also tell a union brother's family that when he stepped outside the pentagon's door for a smoke and got hit by an airplane, that it wasn't a real act of terrorism. I'm positive they will all actually be willing to believe that Alqaeda was not responsible.

Fucktards.

Your are the first one in this thread to allege that the terrorists attacks were fake? What evidence do you have to support this? We're not discussing if a terroist attack occured, we're debating who was behind it. I know you're incapable of discerning the difference between the two. But I'm here to help you if needed.

[shaman_]

I'd like to hear more of this 'union brother', seeing as how there seems to be a fair amount of evidence that the pentagon was hit by a missile not a plane. If you choose to ignore the witnesses who saw a plane, the light poles knocked down and the wreckage from a 757...

Surely this stupid theory is ridiculed even by conspiracy theorists.

[Ophiolite]

What I've seen is enough, thanks.

If you have both links I can give them a once over.Scott, could you just confirm you don't work in the oil industry. I just want to avoid the risk of hiring you by accident. We don't like to employ people who are unaware of how to carry out a thorough examination of evidence.

[scott3x]

Scott, could you just confirm you don't work in the oil industry. I just want to avoid the risk of hiring you by accident. We don't like to employ people who are unaware of how to carry out a thorough examination of evidence.

So you're an employer in the oil industry? Interesting. Your business has certainly benefitted from the sky high oil prices, that's for sure. Last I heard, the Bush administration was trying to get some sweetheart oil deals in Iraq too, but I'm not sure how that's going. Perhaps you would be more informed on such things?

Anyway, no, I'm not in the oil industry. In regards to evidence, your examination of the evidence is rather sad, but the fact that you can't even show evidence to support your own stance is, to me, even sadder.

[scott3x]

If you choose to ignore the witnesses who saw a plane

Or thought that they saw a plane. As I've mentioned before, few people have seen a missile in flight.

the light poles knocked down

There was testimony from one person that only one pole was knocked down from the actual craft. As to the rest, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to pull a few more down to give a superficial appearance that a plane came down.


and the wreckage from a 757...

Fairly little wreckage that many people feel was planted.

[KennyJC]

Trust it to you to phrase things that way. I'll warrant he knows a lot more then most on the physics of 9/11. I firmly believe the problem is as I mentioned; the university doesn't want to be seen as accusing the current administration of any wrongdoing for political reasons.

No, the university didn't want a known crackpot to be held responsible for teaching its students. Pure and simple:

Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

A view shared by just about every single structural engineering expert who has looked into the issue.

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

A view shared by just about every single physicist who has looked into the issue.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

That's what I know. If you had any honesty, you would know it too. When I was a kid, I knew the WWF wrestling was fake, but I believed it was real.

There is also another issue; in combination with Steven Jones, who he's done work with, they have come upon evidence from many, many experts. But you don't seem interested in looking in that.

So many scholars in the world, so many experts in the relevant fields and yet you can only produce a handful of 'experts' to support your claims. Most of which don't even have expertise in the required fields. Doesn't matter though, they can be easily debunked by the casual researcher.

Believe me, they're published. Maybe not in NIST type places, but they're published.

Not published and approved in the relevant journals that would earn them respectability.

Wrong and I've linked to many sites by scientists that reject the official story, but you seem to be turning a blind eye to this.

You linked a handful of websites with a handful of 'experts'. On close inspection you realise that they are hardly experts at all. Just because you may have a Ph.D in farting doesn't mean you can make claims relating to physics, demolition and civil engineering.

No, not 'infinitely'. It was certainly heavier, but its supports were a lot stronger then a cardboard box too. Kevin, why won't you just read Steven Jones critique of the official story?

It may as well be infinite, such is the difference between the force a falling cardboard box emparts compared the thousands of tons of building collapsing.

In the case of metal toy cars, I do believe that scaled, they are indeed built stronger as models then as the real thing.

The outercasing of a toy car remains more fragile than the shell of a real car. So why is one damaged and the other not when collided when a solid object?

I believe I was referring to the 2004 one. If you have both links I can give them a once over.

Well you do realize that the 2004 video were first shown by Aljazeera and accepted as genuine? I don't think Aljazeera would be willing to take part in any American cover-up. Do you?

Something coming to his mind is not the same thing as something he did. In any case, even the government no longer believes Osama Bin Laden masterminded it, so you can't even rely on them for support.

It's funny watching you be so stupid to try and keep your fantasy intact.

It's always been unknown how much Bin Laden directly had to do with planning 9/11, but as he is the head of the organisation that carried out the attacks, you have to admit that he is still the prime target.

[scott3x]

No, the university didn't want a known crackpot to be held responsible for teaching its students. Pure and simple:

Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

A view shared by just about every single structural engineering expert who has looked into the issue.

You have any evidence that that's so or do you just like making claims up from thin air? I, on the other hand, have already provided a website of architects and engineers who disagree with the official story. From their website:
474 architectural and engineering professionals
and 2337 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

http://www.ae911truth.org/



The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

Look, I haven't heard Steven Jones' side to the story, but I can easily imagine that the 'relevant scientific venues' are full of NIST types who are beholden to government and corporate interests. Kind of like doctors are frequently beholden to pharmaceutical interests.


A view shared by just about every single physicist who has looked into the issue.

Another claim out of thin air?

Or atleast that's what you believe.

That's what I know.

Prove it.


If you had any honesty, you would know it too.

So now you're a telepath and 'know' that I'm being dishonest.


When I was a kid, I knew the WWF wrestling was fake, but I believed it was real.

For me, I either believed something was real or it was fake. No halfway about it. I could have doubts, but then that would mean I wasn't sure which it was.


So many scholars in the world, so many experts in the relevant fields and yet you can only produce a handful of 'experts' to support your claims.

Look, unlike NIST types who get lots of cash to come up with creative lies, people who disagree with the government's view can and have at times gotten fired.


Most of which don't even have expertise in the required fields. Doesn't matter though, they can be easily debunked by the casual researcher.

If that were true, this argument would have ended a long time ago. Anyway, I got to go.

[Ganymede]

Official Story Supporters

Can I please see the evidence that indicates that Khalid Sheik Muhammad was responsible for 911 and not Bin Laden. I haven't heard any of you mention his name once. You haven't because you know it's Bullshit. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Still think the Government is telling you truth? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Ganymede]

Well atleast the government's giving up its hopeless case that Osama organized 9/11. The faked video where he claims to have done it was probably the icing on the cake of its demise and it may even be that they're now accusing this sheikh in an effort to take attention away from the fact that even the FBI never claimed to have enough evidence to accuse him of conspiring on 9/11. Anyway, since the guy is already in prison, they could perhaps torture him to get him to confess to whatever it is they want him to confess to.

One thing I will say, however. Dana Perino doesn't look like one of those people who know the truth but is too sly to tell us. She seems more like the 'doe caught in the headlights' type. I must admit she's nice on the eyes. I've been reading up on her and it seems that she wanted Bush Jr. in the whitehouse 2 years before he actually ran (http://www.uiaa.org/spfld/magazine/stxt0708.html).

Anyway, I think that if anyone could be said to be someone who actually believes the Bush administration's lies within the white house itself, she'd be a prime candidate. I think the article below essentially sums things up:
http://www.236.com/news/2007/12/12/are_you_smarter_than_a_white_h_1_2886.php

I simply don't think that she should be dismissed. The article itself hints at a compelling reason why; I believe that many americans don't know any more then she does. Reporters can work at educating her as well as the many who are still in the dark on so many things.

Scott,

We have successfully checkmated any argument that the official story supporters have presented. With the Revelation that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the mastermind behind 911 completely debunks their entire arguments.

This also proves that the Bin Laden tape where he admits to masterminding 911 is fake. Also, the impostor in Bin Laden tape was writing with this right hand, when Bin Laden is left handed. To overt for the Government apologists to recognize unfortunately.

[shaman_]

Or thought that they saw a plane. As I've mentioned before, few people have seen a missile in flight. Could you please provide a link to this testimony?

Interesting that the majority most definitely saw a plane but you entertain the thought they are all wrong because supposedly someone saw a missile.


There was testimony from one person that only one pole was knocked down from the actual craft. As to the rest, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to pull a few more down to give a superficial appearance that a plane came down. So people ran around knocking poles down as the missile was hitting and no one saw them doing it? The witnesses who saw the plane actually hitting the light poles were just wrong or government plants?

There is clear evidence of five poles being knocked down. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

Please show me the testimony of the person who claims only one was knocked down.


Fairly little wreckage that many people feel was planted.There was plenty of wreckage.
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Some CTs may feel that it was planted. With no evidence all they have is their feelings.

I guess you can discard any evidence you don’t like as ‘planted’ just as you ignore relevant, qualified opinions that come from “NIST types”.

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
Or thought that they saw a plane. As I've mentioned before, few people have seen a missile in flight.

Could you please provide a link to this testimony?

You mistook what I was trying to say. I meant that since few people have seen a missile in flight, they could easily confuse a missile for a plane. Anyway, if it's a plane, why is the government hiding the videos that could have proved it conclusively?


So people ran around knocking poles down as the missile was hitting and no one saw them doing it?

Perhaps someone did, but I haven't seen the evidence for this as of yet. However, I do know that one witness says that the craft only knocked down one pole. No, I don't have the link on me right now. It's probably in this 'mighty tangle' somewhere, but I'm not going to look.

The witnesses who saw the plane actually hitting the light poles were just wrong or government plants?

Perhaps a bit of both. And if in the ending, you see a bunch of knocked down poles well then.. you must have seen the plane knock down a bunch, right? Wouldn't want people thinking you're crazy or something.. poles don't knock themselves down now do they? Something like what happened when JFK was assassinate could have been at work here; some guys saying how things were and people who don't quite remember things that way, well.. you don't really want to go up against big brother now, do you?


There is clear evidence of five poles being knocked down. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

Agreed. But as I've said before there are claims that all but one weren't knocked down by the craft.

Fairly little wreckage that many people feel was planted.

There was plenty of wreckage.
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Where are the turbines? Personally, I believe that loose change does a better job of describing why the evidence doesn't stack with the idea of a plane hitting the pentagon then I care to ferret out right now..


Some CTs may feel that it was planted. With no evidence all they have is their feelings.

There may be some evidence, just too tired to look right now :-p.


I guess you can discard any evidence you don’t like as ‘planted’ just as you ignore relevant, qualified opinions that come from “NIST types”.

Qualified lies maybe. But it seems all you official story believers choose to ignore the zingers that people like Steven Jones have for the glaring NIST report fallacies, no matter how many times I post them.

[scott3x]

Scott,

We have successfully checkmated any argument that the official story supporters have presented. With the Revelation that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the mastermind behind 911 completely debunks their entire arguments.

This also proves that the Bin Laden tape where he admits to masterminding 911 is fake. Also, the impostor in Bin Laden tape was writing with this right hand, when Bin Laden is left handed. To overt for the Government apologists to recognize unfortunately.

Apparently they're ignoring the fact that the official story has changed. Hey, if the BBC can do it (they did so today, for instance), why can't they.

[scott3x]

No, not 'infinitely'. It was certainly heavier, but its supports were a lot stronger then a cardboard box too. Kevin, why won't you just read Steven Jones critique of the official story?

It may as well be infinite, such is the difference between the force a falling cardboard box emparts compared the thousands of tons of building collapsing.

Steel is stronger then cardboard. And there was a lot of it in the towers. The story doesn't fly, but you don't want to actually read the arguments against the fatally flawed NIST report, so there's no helping you.


The outercasing of a toy car remains more fragile than the shell of a real car. So why is one damaged and the other not when collided when a solid object?

Simple: scale. I believe that if you could magnify your sturdy metal toy cars with the same amounts of things to a real sized car you'd see that they use more metal then real sized cars do proportionally. I'm no expert on toy car metal proportionality but experts -have- commented on what happened on the towers; and when they're not being paid by people who could stand to lose a lot if the truth were told, they paint quite a different picture. I've posted all this before, but you seem to be blind when it comes to those posts.


Well you do realize that the 2004 video were first shown by Aljazeera and accepted as genuine? I don't think Aljazeera would be willing to take part in any American cover-up. Do you?

No, but they could be duped. Much of the american public still is in my view.


It's always been unknown how much Bin Laden directly had to do with planning 9/11, but as he is the head of the organisation that carried out the attacks, you have to admit that he is still the prime target.

I think the prime target for the Bush administration was and always has been the acquisition of more power. The power to curtail the rights of their own citizens. The power to feed the military industrial complex. And the power to acquire more oil reserves and give some sweetheart deals in places like Iraq to some companies that high level government officials had very close ties to before 9/11.

Even Alan Greenspan admits that Iraq was really about oil:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

I've even heard that they at first believed that Afghanistan had a fair amount of oil but were dissapointed. The opium trade is booming these days, however. And the military industrial complex certainly got a boost from both wars.

The people who suffer are the soldiers who die, the Iraqi civilians who die, the families of both.. if more money is diverted to fighting wars, less can be used for education and social programs, U.S. productivity is affected.. wallstreet monitoring is loosened, you get all these banks making poor economic choices and then the very people who are truly suffering are forced to pay for these rich people's mistakes (bailing them out).

I guess we can only hope it gets better with Obama. We certainly didn't have all this economic turmoil when Clinton was in office.. hopefully it'll get better if another democrat is elected.

[KennyJC]

Scott,

With the Revelation that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the mastermind behind 911 completely debunks their entire arguments.

It does nothing of the sort. AlQaeda was still responsible for the attacks, and even if it's up for debate how much Bin Laden directly had to to with planning the attacks, he is clearly accountable as he is the leader of the group.

This also proves that the Bin Laden tape where he admits to masterminding 911 is fake. Also, the impostor in Bin Laden tape was writing with this right hand, when Bin Laden is left handed. To overt for the Government apologists to recognize unfortunately.

Perhaps you should be aware, that for some insane reason, it's common for muslims to write with the right hand even if they are left handed:

It is true that in Islam it is highly recommended for us to use our right hand while doing things such as eating, drinking, dressing, and writing, and to use the left hand for acts such as cleaning ourselves after defecation. If, however, you are left-handed and you find it hard to write with your right hand, then you can consider yourself excused.
http://infad.usim.edu.my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=6664

We have successfully checkmated any argument that the official story supporters have presented.

If it makes you feel better, just you continue to think that way. Meanwhile you will always be relegated to the realm of conspiracy kooks and you will never get the academic support your crave.

Wear your tinfoil hat loud and proud, you cretinous liar.

[shaman_]

You mistook what I was trying to say. I meant that since few people have seen a missile in flight, they could easily confuse a missile for a plane. The testimonies give detailed description of a plane. ..



Anyway, if it's a plane, why is the government hiding the videos that could have proved it conclusively? .It has been proven conclusively. You just refuse to accept the explanation. Many saw a plane, there was plane wreckage, five light poles were knocked down.

Don’t pretend that a video of a plane hitting the pentagon is going to stop conspiracy theorists creating absurd theories. If there was clear footage of the plane available they would say that bombs were involved.

Perhaps someone did, but I haven't seen the evidence for this as of yet. However, I do know that one witness says that the craft only knocked down one pole.. .This person saw a missile knock down a pole?

You actually think it is plausible that people were driving around with trucks knocking over poles to make it look like a plane knocked them over, and no one saw these people. Then someone unloaded a bunch of plane parts out the front and no one saw them either. If this could all be arranged why not just fly a 757 into the pentagon?!

Do you have one theory that sounds logical?


Perhaps a bit of both. And if in the ending, you see a bunch of knocked down poles well then.. you must have seen the plane knock down a bunch, right? Wouldn't want people thinking you're crazy or something.. poles don't knock themselves down now do they? Something like what happened when JFK was assassinate could have been at work here; some guys saying how things were and people who don't quite remember things that way, well.. you don't really want to go up against big brother now, do you? .Lots of people are standing up to big brother. Every poorly researched article you have linked to is someone standing up to big brother.


Agreed. But as I've said before there are claims that all but one weren't knocked down by the craft. .So maybe that person didn’t see the other poles? Where is this testimony?




Where are the turbines? Personally, I believe that loose change does a better job of describing why the evidence doesn't stack with the idea of a plane hitting the pentagon then I care to ferret out right now..

There may be some evidence, just too tired to look right now :-p.

Qualified lies maybe. But it seems all you official story believers choose to ignore the zingers that people like Steven Jones have for the glaring NIST report fallacies, no matter how many times I post them.I think zingers is a good description for some of his theories.
Steven Jones’ work has been totally discredited by various sources which you refuse to look at.

As for the ignoring NIST report fallacies, your points have been addressed and any reasonable person reading these pages would see that you are struggling. You are the one who refuses to look at anything that could ruin the conspiracy theory.

If there are any that were missed then summarize them. Don't just randomly link to documents.

[scott3x]

I think zingers is a good description for some of his theories.
Steven Jones’ work has been totally discredited by various sources which you refuse to look at.

Can you give me some quotes with some info discrediting his research?


As for the ignoring NIST report fallacies, your points have been addressed

No, they haven't been.

If there are any that were missed then summarize them. Don't just randomly link to documents.

Steven Jones summarizes the arguments quite well is his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

The abstract of the article is this:
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

Apart from his own knowledge in physics (which he puts to good use), he also cites other experts.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

[John99]

Can you give me some quotes with some info discrediting his research?


Well there is this:

IIao mh a eem saasas aeaIe mn Ia nos Ile nI noa m l n.laa

and this:


na neaoa moloemlI.eamsa saooah

source: www.iamanimbecile/loosechangeforum.php?do=2005840

[John99]

And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission.

[scott3x]

The testimonies give detailed description of a plane. ..

Well, most people know what planes look like, so they can embellish what they saw with what they remember planes to look like. Anyway, give me some links of people testifying as to the appearance of the craft, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Originally Posted by scott3x
Anyway, if it's a plane, why is the government hiding the videos that could have proved it conclusively?

It has been proven conclusively. You just refuse to accept the explanation. Many saw a plane

You mean, many thought they saw a plane.

there was plane wreckage

Which could have been planted. The turbines were apparently never found. And I'm not sure the wings were either.

five light poles were knocked down.

Seems like more, but as I've mentioned before, one guy said only one was knocked down by the actual craft.


Don’t pretend that a video of a plane hitting the pentagon is going to stop conspiracy theorists creating absurd theories.

With computer graphics these days, they could perhaps create a false video. But the fact that they haven't released the many tapes they have recording the incident is fishy, don't you think?


If there was clear footage of the plane available they would say that bombs were involved.

Actually, there are already claims that explosives were used, apart from the missile. Their are claims that explosives smelling dogs were present after the event as well.


This person saw a missile knock down a pole?

He saw a craft knock down only one pole, yes.


You actually think it is plausible that people were driving around with trucks knocking over poles to make it look like a plane knocked them over, and no one saw these people.

I believe I once heard that explosives may have been used to knock down the poles.


Then someone unloaded a bunch of plane parts out the front and no one saw them either.

Maybe someone has seen them but I don't know about it yet. The thing I've most studied is the WTC Collapses, this whole issue isn't one I'm that familiar with.


If this could all be arranged why not just fly a 757 into the pentagon?!

I never said I had all the answers.


Do you have one theory that sounds logical?

Way more then one, but that doesn't mean that you'll think they're logical.


Lots of people are standing up to big brother. Every poorly researched article you have linked to is someone standing up to big brother.

Or atleast you think they're poorly researched. Anyway, some people do question the official story, but they tend to be people who won't be affected so much if at all; unlike Steven Jones, I'm not a proffessor at a university. Unlike Kevin Ryan, I'm not a lab director at the firm where they tested the steel of the WTC towers. Unlike a New York fireman, no ex CIA director is making me feel that I have to watch what I say concerning 9/11.


So maybe that person didn’t see the other poles? Where is this testimony?

Look it up in the mighty tangle :-p. If I find the reference again and this is still an issue, I'll let you know.

[John99]

Can you give me some quotes with some info discrediting his research?


Well there is this:

IIao mh a eem saasas aeaIe mn Ia nos Ile nI noa m l n.laa

and this:


na neaoa moloemlI.eamsa saooah

source: www.iamanimbecile/loosechangeforum.php?do=2005840

[John99]

And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission. Or you will hear from me.

[scott3x]

Well there is this: (gibberish text and non existent link follows)

Right. Well, you go right on ahead and believe that stuff.

[John99]

i thought you would understand that.

[scott3x]

And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission. Or you will hear from me.

I believe such a thing as 'fair use' is allowed. Seriously, I quoted 3 lines from you, because I wanted more info on the subject. Is it that you prefer that your points remain unanswered?

[John99]

AHA....

So it WAS you then? Well i knew it all along anyway.

[Ophiolite]

And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission. Or you will hear from me.Can I quote you on that?

[John99]

I made a statement on here, not an unanswered point, as Scott states and he copied it to paste it on another forum. Under a different name too.

[scott3x]

AHA....

So it WAS you then? Well i knew it all along anyway.

I'm Scott75 on the loose change forums. I haven't posted much there, but anything with that name is (as far as I can tell) mine.

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by John99
And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission. Or you will hear from me.

Can I quote you on that?

Lol :-)

[scott3x]

I made a statement on here, not an unanswered point, as Scott states and he copied it to paste it on another forum. Under a different name too.

The difference in name is minor (I decided I'd use part of the year of my birth instead of a reference to my current age). You made some statements that I wanted some help debunking. I was very clear that it was a quote from a 9/11 conspiracy debunker, so no plagiarism there. Here is the famous 3 lines that I quoted:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/637353/1/#new

[KennyJC]

The difference in name is minor (I decided I'd use part of the year of my birth instead of a reference to my current age). You made some statements that I wanted some help debunking. I was very clear that it was a quote from a 9/11 conspiracy debunker, so no plagiarism there. Here is the famous 3 lines that I quoted:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/637353/1/#new

LOL, how cute.

If you want to learn something I would recommend you don't go to kooky websites. I mean, if you don't know something about evolution, you wouldn't go to a creationist website would you? Only a dishonest person would do that.

[Captain Kremmen]

And i see that some of my quote have made it to the LC forum. Do NOT use my quotes without my permission. Or you will hear from me.

Is this it?
Ovo je zamišljeno na na#269;in da ljudi stavljaju linkove na stranice sa kojih je moguce skidati besplatno(!) muziku.

http://www.labin.com/lc/forum/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=183

[Neddy Bate]

I meant that since few people have seen a missile in flight, they could easily confuse a missile for a plane.
Scott3x,

I have heard that the "no plane at the pentagon" theory was introduced as a way to sidetrack 911-truthers and keep them diverted from more obvious problems with the official story.

Likewise, the arguments that there were no planes at the WTC (some say it was done with special effects at the news stations, etc). This disinformation technique is called "poisoning the well". Mixing bad theories in with the good ones so as to reduce the credibility of all of the theories taken together as a whole.

You've got a lot of good evidence on your side without the missile theory, but I understand that it is always tempting to add one more log to the fire, so to speak.

[KennyJC]

Scott3x,

I have heard that the "no plane at the pentagon" theory was introduced as a way to sidetrack 911-truthers and keep them diverted from more obvious problems with the official story.

Likewise, the arguments that there were no planes at the WTC (some say it was done with special effects at the news stations, etc). This disinformation technique is called "poisoning the well". Mixing bad theories in with the good ones so as to reduce the credibility of all of the theories taken together as a whole.

You've got a lot of good evidence on your side without the missile theory, but I understand that it is always tempting to add one more log to the fire, so to speak.

Haha.. good one.

That's the first time I've heard that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually part of the so-called "cover up".

[Read-Only]

Haha.. good one.

That's the first time I've heard that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually part of the so-called "cover up".

Wow - talk about advancing to the rear! That IS just plain nuts!!!:D (But what else would you expect from them, anyway?);)

[shaman_]

Can you give me some quotes with some info discrediting his research?His research has been addressed many times throughout this thread but I will find a couple of articles.

Here is a discussion of his work.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones%27hypothesesbydavero

If you go to the middle of the page there are several articles discussing his theories.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept

While we're discussing Jones hear him evading the question here regarding peer review. It's pretty funny.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4997804576359751731

Here is the professor of civil engineering from Jones' old university:-
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

" I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable."

Department chair of civil engineering from the same university:-

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"

http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

No, they haven't been.

Steven Jones summarizes the arguments quite well is his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

The abstract of the article is this:


Apart from his own knowledge in physics (which he puts to good use), he also cites other experts. Like David Ray Griffin...
Perhaps you didn't read my post properly. I asked you to summarise which points had not been addressed and not just link an article we have discussed many times before. Your claim was that we are ignoring his 'zingers'. We have addressed the ones you have brought up. Don't expect us to post a rebuttal to the entire document.



Well, most people know what planes look like, so they can embellish what they saw with what they remember planes to look like. Anyway, give me some links of people testifying as to the appearance of the craft, I'd be interested in seeing it.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/eye.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

Here is a summary

"
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away."



You mean, many thought they saw a plane.Okay but lots of people thought they saw a plane. Where is the evidence for a missile?



Which could have been planted. The turbines were apparently never found. And I'm not sure the wings were either.Scott the wings aren't made that sturdy. They would have been torn apart on impact with the reinforced wall and then destroyed further by the subsequent explosion.

I think part of a turbine is on this page.
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html



Seems like more, but as I've mentioned before, one guy said only one was knocked down by the actual craft.

With computer graphics these days, they could perhaps create a false video. But the fact that they haven't released the many tapes they have recording the incident is fishy, don't you think?.Perhaps they have a clear video of it and maybe they don't. Perhaps they don't want to release another highlight reel for terrorists to enjoy and be encouraged by.



Actually, there are already claims that explosives were used, apart from the missile. Their are claims that explosives smelling dogs were present after the event as well.Scott you need to apply some critical thinking to claims like these.


He saw a craft knock down only one pole, yes.So where was the evidence for a missile?

Did this person claim that they looked around and so that no other poles were definitely knocked down? They may certainly have seen only one get knocked down but that doesn't mean that more weren't. This sounds like more quote mining that conspiracy theorists are so fond of.


I believe I once heard that explosives may have been used to knock down the poles. .Again, you really need to apply some critical thinking to nonsense like that.


Maybe someone has seen them but I don't know about it yet. The thing I've most studied is the WTC Collapses, this whole issue isn't one I'm that familiar with..If someone saw such a thing a conspiracy theorist would have latched onto it by now. No one did.


I never said I had all the answers..The point is that the theory doesn't sound plausible, does it? The CTs have a list of what they see as anomalies or lies but the theories they lead to are ridiculous.

Way more then one, but that doesn't mean that you'll think they're logical.

Or atleast you think they're poorly researched. Anyway, some people do question the official story, but they tend to be people who won't be affected so much if at all; unlike Steven Jones, I'm not a proffessor at a university. Unlike Kevin Ryan, I'm not a lab director at the firm where they tested the steel of the WTC towers. Unlike a New York fireman, no ex CIA director is making me feel that I have to watch what I say concerning 9/11.Many firemen would have retired or left the profession since 2001 and they aren't speaking up. People are making videos and websites all the time and no one is being killed. I think you need to move on from the idea that people are scared to speak up.

[Sock Puppy]

The missile story is nonsense. Unless it were a two-hundred foot long missile that knocked over light poles and left a wide set of wing marks in the side of the Pentagon.

For the life of me, I can't imagine what other airborne machine would leave marks like that.

Have we given up on the molten metal theory then? :D

[scott3x]

Scott3x,

I have heard that the "no plane at the pentagon" theory was introduced as a way to sidetrack 911-truthers and keep them diverted from more obvious problems with the official story.

I believe I have heard this too but at present I do believe that a missile was indeed used there. However, my main focus has been on the collapse of the WTC towers so I won't contest this issue for now.


Likewise, the arguments that there were no planes at the WTC (some say it was done with special effects at the news stations, etc).

In this case, I do agree that planes did indeed hit the WTC towers.


This disinformation technique is called "poisoning the well". Mixing bad theories in with the good ones so as to reduce the credibility of all of the theories taken together as a whole.

Yes, I've heard this too.


You've got a lot of good evidence on your side without the missile theory, but I understand that it is always tempting to add one more log to the fire, so to speak.

Well all I can say is that based on what I know now, the missile theory seems the most likely. But this may change.

[scott3x]

Haha.. good one.

That's the first time I've heard that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually part of the so-called "cover up".

Well it's certainly not news to me. It's because there is so much information out there (good and bad) that I am constantly learning more to be more and more sure that my conclusions are right.

[Neddy Bate]

Haha.. good one.

That's the first time I've heard that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually part of the so-called "cover up".

KennyJC, I'm just saying that there is such a theory. You can read all about it here:

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Of course, it might just be that some people have heard so many lies that they just don't know what to believe or not believe anymore.

[scott3x]

His research has been addressed many times throughout this thread but I will find a couple of articles.

Here is a discussion of his work.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones%27hypothesesbydavero

I looked at that link. Didn't get too far, but I did get to this point:
Jones claims that the liquid running from one of the corners of one of the WTC towers cannot be aluminium and must therefore be molten steel. From the emission colour he estimates its temperature at 1000 C. Elsewhere in the paper he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510 C. His own analysis therefore contradicts his own conclusions.


I'm wondering if Rogers didn't notice something that Steven Jones said, however, namely:
The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.

Since it lowers the temperature, perhaps 1000C would have been enough then. I'm not sure and I'd like it verified, but something to think about at any rate.

[KennyJC]

Well it's certainly not news to me. It's because there is so much information out there (good and bad) that I am constantly learning more to be more and more sure that my conclusions are right.

Loose Change is not a source for good information. Only a conspiracy nut would fail to understand that... or maybe you do, but continue anyway.

You've continually demonstrated on this forum that even though there are simple explanations, you would rather believe the X-files type of information. Thus you are a conspiricy nut and it's no surprise that the scientific, demolition and civil engineering community disagrees with you.

[KennyJC]

I believe I have heard this too but at present I do believe that a missile was indeed used there. However, my main focus has been on the collapse of the WTC towers so I won't contest this issue for now.

The great zig-zagging missle that knocked over numerous light posts and smashed into a large generator before finally hitting the pentagon. It just looked like a large plane with American Airlines written on it, but that was just to fool the eye witnesses. The light posts were cut down afterwards even though nobody witnessed this (bit like your demolition setup), and the mass amount of AA 757 wreckage was merely planted... as were the body parts of the people on board the plane who were of course carted there after being shot in a bunker in the Pentagon then cut up into little peices.

And all this before the rescuers arrived on the scene seconds/minutes later.

But of course, that you concede planes hit the WTC, I am now confused that you ignore the obvious evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

In this case, I do agree that planes did indeed hit the WTC towers.

If there was no video of the planes hitting the WTC, you would be as stupid to say that no planes hit the WTC as you are with the Pentagon.

Yes, I've heard this too.

Wait a minute, this guy said that the no plane theory of the Pentagon was invented by the government to reduce credibility of the truth movement, then you go ahead and agree that no plane hit the Pentagon... LMAO!

Well all I can say is that based on what I know now, the missile theory seems the most likely. But this may change.

http://kellsmurthwaite.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/dunce.jpg

[scott3x]

Loose Change is not a source for good information.

Or that's what you believe anyway.


You've continually demonstrated on this forum that even though there are simple explanations, you would rather believe the X-files type of information.

The 'simple explanations' are full of holes. And X-files had an episode that essentially predicted the even that would happen months before it actually did happen. It's also dealt briefly with things like depleted uranium, something my mother knows a lot of. Do you?

...it's no surprise that the scientific, demolition and civil engineering community disagrees with you.

I've already given links showing just how many scientists disagree with the official theory, as well as the vast amount of normal people who do, but you seem to turn a blind eye to such things.

[moementum7]

A key witness remembers 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTL_I_LhddY&feature=user

[scott3x]

A key witness remembers 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTL_I_LhddY&feature=user

Good post moementum. If only we could focus on this instead of all the insults, I think this thread could do much better.

[scott3x]

The great zig-zagging missle that knocked over numerous light posts...

According to 1 eye witness, only one light post was knocked down by the craft itself. I believe I heard that the rest were knocked down by explosives.


...and smashed into a large generator before finally hitting the pentagon.

I don't know about this large generator bit. As I've mentioned before, my research has mainly been done on the WTC collapses.


It just looked like a large plane with American Airlines written on it, but that was just to fool the eye witnesses.

How many people claimed to see American Airlines written on it? And how many of them were aware that the official story claimed that an American Airlines plane hit the building?


The light posts were cut down afterwards even though nobody witnessed this (bit like your demolition setup)

If they were knocked out soon after the craft passed over them, only an eye witness would have been able to see that the craft itself didn't hit them.


and the massive amount of AA 757 wreckage was merely planted...

I haven't heard that it was a massive amount.


as were the body parts of the people on board the plane who were of course carted there after being shot in a bunker in the Pentagon then cut up into little pieces.

I hadn't heard of any body parts either.


And all this before the rescuers arrived on the scene seconds/minutes later.

From what I remember, there were some very suspicious 'rescuers'. And why did they have to bury the crime scene with a bunch of gravel?


But of course, that you concede planes hit the WTC, I am now confused that you ignore the obvious evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

They were very different events. There's publicly available video of one or both of the towers being hit by plane(s). In the case of the Pentagon, however, all the decent video of the event was confiscated and remains under wraps to this day. Why?


If there was no video of the planes hitting the WTC, you would be as stupid to say that no planes hit the WTC as you are with the Pentagon.

Kenny, your insults only show that you are incapable of continuing a civilized discussion with someone. In any case, your are mistaken. If I felt that the majority of the evidence pointed to a plane in the case of the WTC towers, I would still believe it was a plane even if there were no video evidence.


Wait a minute, this guy said that the no plane theory of the Pentagon was invented by the government to reduce credibility of the truth movement, then you go ahead and agree that no plane hit the Pentagon... LMAO!

I did no such thing. I said that while I still believe that a missile hit the Pentagon, I wouldn't contest it vehemently because I haven't investigated the Pentagon crash as much as I've investigated the collapse of the WTC buildings.

[shaman_]

I'm gonna jump in here with some thoughts.

The 'simple explanations' are full of holes. So you claim. I’m sure it may seem that way if you spend a lot of time reading the half baked theories presented by the conspiracy sites. However you have had plenty of opportunity to show us these holes but your evidence does not stand up to any scrutiny

And X-files had an episode that essentially predicted the even that would happen months before it actually did happen. It's also dealt briefly with things like depleted uranium, something my mother knows a lot of. Do you? I’m interested to see if Kenny understands what you mean here because I don’t.


I've already given links showing just how many scientists disagree with the official theory, as well as the vast amount of normal people who do, but you seem to turn a blind eye to such things.If there are so many relevant experts how come the one we keep discussing is a crackpot retired physics professor writing articles outside his field of expertise?

According to 1 eye witness, only one light post was knocked down by the craft itself. I believe I heard that the rest were knocked down by explosives.If you believe this then you will believe anything. Do you really think explosives are a good way to bend a light pole? Have a look at the photos.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

Out of curiosity, is there a conspiracy theory that you have thought was unbelievable?

How many people claimed to see American Airlines written on it? Scott you didn’t read the summary of witness accounts in my last post.

If they were knocked out soon after the craft passed over them, only an eye witness would have been able to see that the craft itself didn't hit them. There are eyewitnesses that did see the plane hitting the poles though.

From what I remember, there were some very suspicious 'rescuers'. And why did they have to bury the crime scene with a bunch of gravel? http://www.911myths.com/html/lawn_covered.html

[scott3x]

I'm gonna jump in here with some thoughts.

Ok :-)


So you claim.

Indeed I do :-)

I’m sure it may seem that way if you spend a lot of time reading the half baked theories presented by the conspiracy sites.

Many experts believe it's the official story that's the half baked farce:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fema_911.html


However you have had plenty of opportunity to show us these holes but your evidence does not stand up to any scrutiny

I would argue that it's the official story that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Admittedly, you do have to do a little research. And ofcourse, you have to have a mindset that is open to the possibility that one's own government could be part of such things.

Originally Posted by scott3x
And X-files had an episode that essentially predicted the even that would happen months before it actually did happen. It's also dealt briefly with things like depleted uranium, something my mother knows a lot of. Do you?

I’m interested to see if Kenny understands what you mean here because I don’t.

As to the x-files episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ205ccX8M

As to the depleted uranium:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2374


If there are so many relevant experts how come the one we keep discussing is a crackpot retired physics professor writing articles outside his field of expertise?

1- He's not a crackpot.
2- He's not discussing outside his field of expertise; his focus is on the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings, something that's certainly within the realm of physics.
3- We keep discussing Steven Jones because I believe he's got good points that official story believers don't pay enough attention to.
4- I have discussed other experts as well.
5- My guess is that more experts aren't speaking out because (a) they're not interested in being called a crackpot and (b) they're not interested in being put on indefinite paid leave or (as was the case with Kevin Ryan) outright fired. And if someone has already said it well, why say it again. They can simply add their support, perhaps anonymously so as not to incur (a) and (b).

Let me make one thing clear as well: I believe there are definitely some NIST types who know the truth but who are being paid to come up with creative lies.

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
According to 1 eye witness, only one light post was knocked down by the craft itself. I believe I heard that the rest were knocked down by explosives.

If you believe this then you will believe anything. Do you really think explosives are a good way to bend a light pole? Have a look at the photos.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

I'm not sure a plane would either. Remember the idea is that the eye witness only saw one light pole get knocked down by the craft; the others, therefore, must have been dealt with in a different manner.


Out of curiosity, is there a conspiracy theory that you have thought was unbelievable?

Clearly, -someone- always believes in any conspiracy theory out there. But in terms of myself, I don't believe that the WTC wasn't hit by planes at all, for instance (some have claimed they were holograms).


Scott you didn’t read the summary of witness accounts in my last post.

Yes, I did.

There are eyewitnesses that did see the plane hitting the poles though.

Perhaps they mistook a missile for a plane.

Originally Posted by scott3x
From what I remember, there were some very suspicious 'rescuers'. And why did they have to bury the crime scene with a bunch of gravel?

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

Alright, perhaps the gravel was put there for the dump trucks.

[Ophiolite]

Remember the idea is that the eye witness only saw one light pole get knocked down by the craft; the others, therefore, must have been dealt with in a different manner. You are much smarter than most of the conspiracy nutters, but this line is pure, unadulterated stupidity.

A ruddy great aircraft, presumably full of people (or if you prefer a low flying guided missile) has just crashed into the HQ of the armed forces of the world's only superpower. There is noise, there are flames and explosions, there is smoke, people are running everywhere. Sirens are going off. Car alarms have been triggered.

Amidst all of this you are saying to yourself, "I wonder what happened to the other lamp posts?" :rolleyes: Get real.

[moementum7]

You are much smarter than most of the conspiracy nutters, but this line is pure, unadulterated stupidity.

A ruddy great aircraft, presumably full of people (or if you prefer a low flying guided missile) has just crashed into the HQ of the armed forces of the world's only superpower. There is noise, there are flames and explosions, there is smoke, people are running everywhere. Sirens are going off. Car alarms have been triggered.

Amidst all of this you are saying to yourself, "I wonder what happened to the other lamp posts?" :rolleyes: Get real.

I'm sure someone here has asked this question before, but why doesn't the pentagon just release the footage of the airliner crashing into the pentagon?
And why is the only footage they did choose to release so gosh darn ambiguous?
Is it true that some gov agency went around and retrieved all tapes of the event happening?...think I heard that somewhere.
You can drive near the pentagon and film all the same footage, so I don't think it is a national security issue.

Just curious, I would prefer to here from a coincidence theorist, (I think that's what they call you), as apposed to a conspiracy theorists side...anyone?

[shaman_]

Ok :-)




Indeed I do :-)



Many experts believe it's the official story that's the half baked farce:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fema_911.html That's not a criticism of the official story but yet more claims of the steel being removed quickly. The steel was there for many months. It wasn’t removed quickly.

I would argue that it's the official story that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Admittedly, you do have to do a little research. And ofcourse, you have to have a mindset that is open to the possibility that one's own government could be part of such things. I’m open to the possibility. The evidence however does not exist.


As to the x-files episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ205ccX8M

As to the depleted uranium:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2374
I can’t watch youtube from work. I vaguely remember the episode though.

However I don’t see the relevance of that or the article on uranium.

1- He's not a crackpot. He wrote a paper claiming that jesus visited America. That is why I call him a crackpot.


2- He's not discussing outside his field of expertise; his focus is on the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings, something that's certainly within the realm of physics. His field is cold fusion not structural engineering or metals. There are experts far more qualified to speak on this and they do not agree with him.

3- We keep discussing Steven Jones because I believe he's got good points that official story believers don't pay enough attention to. We talk about him because he is the best expert you have.

His points become ignored after they have been debunked.



4- I have discussed other experts as well. The majority in the appropriate field certainly do not agree with the conspiracy theory. If you are swayed by credentials then you should not ignore this.


5- My guess is that more experts aren't speaking out because (a) they're not interested in being called a crackpot and (b) they're not interested in being put on indefinite paid leave or (as was the case with Kevin Ryan) outright fired. And if someone has already said it well, why say it again. They can simply add their support, perhaps anonymously so as not to incur (a) and (b). If the qualified experts truly believed the US masterminded this then some of them would speak up in the seven years since then. They’re not. The best you have is Steven Jones which is shaky ground (and I’m being kind there).

I'm not sure a plane would either. You don’t think a plane could bend over a few poles?

Yes, I did. Then you wouldn’t have had to ask “How many people claimed to see American Airlines written on it?”

26 did.

Perhaps they mistook a missile for a plane. You don’t really think that many people would see a missile and think it was a plane do you? They described wings and seeing “American Airlines”. Are you suggesting the missile knocked down the five poles?

Come on Scott you are refusing to accept any evidence that damages the conspiracy theory.

[shaman_]

I'm sure someone here has asked this question before, but why doesn't the pentagon just release the footage of the airliner crashing into the pentagon?
And why is the only footage they did choose to release so gosh darn ambiguous?
Is it true that some gov agency went around and retrieved all tapes of the event happening?...think I heard that somewhere.
You can drive near the pentagon and film all the same footage, so I don't think it is a national security issue.

Just curious, I would prefer to here from a coincidence theorist, (I think that's what they call you), as apposed to a conspiracy theorists side...anyone?Don't know. Perhaps they have footage of it perhaps they don't. Perhaps it is so spectacular that they don't want to release as it would be a sight for muslim extremists to rejoice over. You don't want your enemies to see their successes. It may set a benchmark or encourage further acts. :shrug:

[KennyJC]

A key witness remembers 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTL_I_LhddY&feature=user

This is a guy who didn't start saying there were bombs in the basement until 2004. Previous to that he is quoted as saying jet fuel in the elevator shafts was the cause of what he experienced.

He changed his story about numerous other things too which can only prove he is a liar and now he makes a living out of his lies.

According to 1 eye witness, only one light post was knocked down by the craft itself. I believe I heard that the rest were knocked down by explosives.

So you agree that the "craft" did knock down at least one? So what if the eye witness did not happen to notice it hitting other lamp posts.

How many people claimed to see American Airlines written on it?

Didn't you read shamans post?

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

It's not looking good for the no-planers.

I haven't heard that it was a massive amount.

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Yes. Massive amounts.

I hadn't heard of any body parts either.

Many of our people have provided the necessary expertise to the people of New York City, Washington DC and Pennsylvania that has allowed these communities and the victim's families to have the confidence that everything humanly possible is being done to recover, properly identify and return the victims to their families.
http://www.dmort.org/DNPages/jan2002newstext.htm

Here is one such example of victims families receiving remains of their loved ones:
http://gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=73724

As well as personal artifacts:
http://onlineathens.com/stories/091104/new_20040911030.shtml

I do believe that pictures of victims were shown in court in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial but have not been made public.

From what I remember, there were some very suspicious 'rescuers'. And why did they have to bury the crime scene with a bunch of gravel?

Yet another disgusting claim by you.

Ed Pickens, the senior construction scheduler: "On that first day we discussed with the FBI where to place the dumpsters needed to cart away debris. We discovered, however, that the dumpsters had to be brand new because the debris was evidence and could not be contaminated in any way. So we had to deliver numerous new dumpsters to the site immediately. And then I informed the FBI that we were going to have to build a road for the trucks carrying the debris because the ground around the heliport—the area closest to the blast—was too soft.

The FBI authorized construction of the road, and I called a contractor, who got the gravel, and we got things moving"
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html

They were very different events. There's publicly available video of one or both of the towers being hit by plane(s). In the case of the Pentagon, however, all the decent video of the event was confiscated and remains under wraps to this day. Why?

How do you know there was decent video? The blurry videos that are public do show something consistent with an AA 757:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBHi9CbrNf4

I'm not sure, but I may have read somewhere that some unreleased video was shown at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.

If I felt that the majority of the evidence pointed to a plane in the case of the WTC towers, I would still believe it was a plane even if there were no video evidence.

Bullshit. If there was no video of the plane hitting the WTC, you would then say "they collapsed the building to cover-up that no plane hit the building". That's how the mind of a conspiracy nut works.

Just out of curiosity, what evidence would you use that a 767 hit the WTC if there was no video?

I did no such thing. I said that while I still believe that a missile hit the Pentagon, I wouldn't contest it vehemently because I haven't investigated the Pentagon crash as much as I've investigated the collapse of the WTC buildings.

And despite the fact you have not investigated it, you still automatically side with the assumption that no plane hit the Pentagon.

I mean, he said that the no plane theory is so ridiculous that it must have been created by the government to divert truthers, and you agreed with him, before going on to say that you do think it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. Perfect irony.

[James R]

If no plane hit the Pentagon, what happened to American Airlines Flight 77?

[Sock Puppy]

The great zig-zagging missle that knocked over numerous light posts and smashed into a large generator before finally hitting the pentagon. It just looked like a large plane with American Airlines written on it, but that was just to fool the eye witnesses. The light posts were cut down afterwards even though nobody witnessed this (bit like your demolition setup), and the mass amount of AA 757 wreckage was merely planted... as were the body parts of the people on board the plane who were of course carted there after being shot in a bunker in the Pentagon then cut up into little peices.

And all this before the rescuers arrived on the scene seconds/minutes later.

Two words:

"Conspiracy elves".

[Sock Puppy]

Originally Posted by scott3x
According to 1 eye witness, only one light post was knocked down by the craft itself. I believe I heard that the rest were knocked down by explosives.

That. Is. Absurd. Back to the imaginary explosives. Who saw these explosives? Who planted them? Did they plant explosives that just knocked the poles over instead of blowing pieces out of them? This smacks of the "Hush-a-Bomb" from the "Rocky and Bullwinkle Show".

I'm not sure a plane would either. Remember the idea is that the eye witness only saw one light pole get knocked down by the craft; the others, therefore, must have been dealt with in a different manner.

So - what? The big giant plane wings just...retracted as the plane rocketed past, eh? "Hey, watch out! You almost hit that lightpole! Whew!"

Seriously, enough.

Clearly, -someone- always believes in any conspiracy theory out there. But in terms of myself, I don't believe that the WTC wasn't hit by planes at all, for instance (some have claimed they were holograms).

Scott, this is not the benchmark you really want to be applying yourself to. "Well some people think the WTC was hit by...holograms. But not me." The people who believe in the giant, impacting holograms are, since no other phrase really applies, completely, utterly insane. No, in a legal, executorial fashion. They should not - literally - be making any decisions for themselves. I'm not so often a great believer in medication, but this sort of delusion unquestionably qualifies. They - again, completely literally - need help. Badly. If your stance is such that you can still see them on the horizon, you need, very badly, to rethink your opinions and their foundation.

Perhaps they mistook a missile for a plane.

Highly unlikely, unless you can conjure up a model of missile around two hundred feet in length. Misidentified by people who work at the Pentagon. Which sometimes deals in such things, if I recall correctly.

Alright, perhaps the gravel was put there for the dump trucks.

We're making progress.

[moementum7]

This is a guy who didn't start saying there were bombs in the basement until 2004. Previous to that he is quoted as saying jet fuel in the elevator shafts was the cause of what he experienced.

He changed his story about numerous other things too which can only prove he is a liar and now he makes a living out of his lies.

Have you got any direct proof on hand(links) that you could share, if that's true it is quite dispicable.

[moementum7]

Don't know. Perhaps they have footage of it perhaps they don't. Perhaps it is so spectacular that they don't want to release as it would be a sight for muslim extremists to rejoice over. You don't want your enemies to see their successes. It may set a benchmark or encourage further acts. :shrug:

Hmmm, no.
I mean it's possible....but doesn't seem probable.
Who knows, still seems strange to me.
If the gov really wanted this conspiracy stuff to end all they would have to do is show this footage...well at least that would be enough for me anyway.
Come to think of it I don't think there is ANY clear footage of ANY of the planes to clearly identify them before impact at any location...how much of a pain in the ass is that.

[KennyJC]

Have you got any direct proof on hand(links) that you could share, if that's true it is quite dispicable.

I recommend you read the whole thing which is here:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Here are excerps:

--------------------

However, Rodriguez did say this to NIST:

"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized." Read his entire statement here.


That wasn't a slip. On September 11, 2002, Rodriguez was interviewed by CNN:

“And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance.” Source

-----------------------

My bad, it was actually 2006 when Rodriguez first claimed bombs were used in the basement:

-----------------------

In October, 2004, Rodriguez filed a 237-page lawsuit (since dismissed) against the United States of America, the Bush family, and many others, alleging a massive conspiracy to commit and cover up the crimes of 9/11. The suit covered the gamut of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and for good measure threw in accusations of election fraud, drug running, and other crimes. It even suggested that United flight 93 may have been shot down with a “high-powered microwave weapon.”

Yet the lawsuit made no mention of what today is Rodriguez’s most important “evidence”: the basement explosion. Rodriguez had to throw that claim into the stew pot in an affidavit in 2006.

[moementum7]

Thanks for sharing...looks like another pentagon survivor is speaking out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg&feature=related

The whole pentagon scenario is messed up.
I wish they would just show the plane hit the building and end all this crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg&feature=related

[Ganymede]

The whole pentagon scenario is messed up.
I wish they would just show the plane hit the building and end all this crap.


The Pentagon can't release something that doesn't exist.

[KennyJC]

Thanks for sharing...looks like another pentagon survivor is speaking out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg&feature=related

What's with the body language in the last part of the video? She seemed straight forward enough describing her experiences, but when she starts going all Woo her body language changes. Typical of a bad liar.

I don't know why she thinks she should have been covered in kerosene. I also don't know why she claims there was no debris on the lawn as there was plenty of it photographed.

The whole pentagon scenario is messed up.
I wish they would just show the plane hit the building and end all this crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg&feature=related

What makes you think there is clear video showing the impact of Flight 77? There were 85 videos deemed relevant to the investigation, 56 of which did not even show the Pentagon building. Of the remaining 29, 16 did not show the crash site and the 13 others were after the crash.

As far as I'm aware there are only 3 cameras capturing the impact and those are the 3 that are on YouTube.

2:15 of this video shows an object consistent with the scale, shape and colour of Flight 77:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is_qBXqObes

You have light poles knocked over that were consistent with the wing span of Flight 77 and the path it took into the Pentagon. It was witnessed by 136 people so far as I'm aware, most of whom are quite clear in stating that it was a large plane, and others who specifically stated it was an American Airlines plane.

We already know that two planes hit the WTC, so why is it so hard to believe the same thing happened with the Pentagon? Why make things more difficult by flying a missile, planting multitudes of plane/body parts after impact, mysteriously hiding Flight 77 and it's passengers somewhere without being noticed, paying off people to be eyewitnesses, cutting down lamp posts after impact... If I was in charge of the conspiracy, I just fly a plane into the Pentagon. Why wouldn't they, afterall? Trying to make it look like a plane crash without it actually being a plane crash would be an impossible task when you consider there were so many people on the scene.

[GeoffP]

Yeah: why would they use a missile? Because it would be incongrous with the planes that hit the Towers? :D It never fails to make me smile how Troofers disown the really crazy Troofers who claim it was missiles and holograms at the Towers, and then turn around and claim the Pentagon hit was a missile. ;)

[Neddy Bate]

:cool:It never fails to make me smile how Troofers disown the really crazy Troofers who claim it was missiles and holograms at the Towers, and then turn around and claim the Pentagon hit was a missile. ;)
Sorry, but this is wrong. The real 911-truthers do not put stock in any of those far-fetched theories. They are only looking for truth, in any form. Why are you still talking about these absurd claims, when they are obviously meant to derail any progress in this otherwise semi-civilized discussion?

Why not try to address more pertinent issues, such as:


The unfathomable delay in the timeline before fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the hi-jacked bogies

The "dancing Isreallies" who celebrated and videotaped the attack as it unfolded in NY, (later confirmed to be Mosad agents sent to "document the event")

Well, you probably already have all the answers memorized, so I'm sure you'll enjoy rebutting the above. Unfortunately, when you're done with those, I might have a few more for you.

On a more cheerful note, thanks to all who sacrificed their retirement funds in order to bail out the obscenely rich folks on Walll Streeet, now that their drunken gambling party has wound down, and they realized that it's about time for someone (besides themselves, of course) to pick up the tab. Now they can get back to "playing the market", gambling against us with our grandchildren's retirement accounts.

"Nothing to see here -- move along people." -- Officer Barbrady

[Read-Only]

:cool:
Sorry, but this is wrong. The real 911-truthers do not put stock in any of those far-fetched theories. They are only looking for truth, in any form. Why are you still talking about these absurd claims, when they are obviously meant to derail any progress in this otherwise semi-civilized discussion?

Why not try to address more pertinent issues, such as:


The unfathomable delay in the timeline before fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the hi-jacked bogies

The "dancing Isreallies" who celebrated and videotaped the attack as it unfolded in NY, (later confirmed to be Mosad agents sent to "document the event")

Well, you probably already have all the answers memorized, so I'm sure you'll enjoy rebutting the above. Unfortunately, when you're done with those, I might have a few more for you.

On a more cheerful note, thanks to all who sacrificed their retirement funds in order to bail out the obscenely rich folks on Walll Streeet, now that their drunken gambling party has wound down, and they realized that it's about time for someone (besides themselves, of course) to pick up the tab. Now they can get back to "playing the market", gambling against us with our grandchildren's retirement accounts.

"Nothing to see here -- move along people." -- Officer Barbrady

What is it with some of you people anyway? So many take the same ignorant approach to the "Wall Street" thing as they do the 9/11 thing.

Just what part of LOAN!! do you not understand??? And the fact that those loans will help SAVE those very same retirement funds that you're crying and wailing about!!!!!!

Sheesh!! Such uneducated nutters!!!!:bugeye:

[Neddy Bate]

What is it with some of you people anyway? So many take the same ignorant approach to the "Wall Street" thing as they do the 9/11 thing.

Just what part of LOAN!! do you not understand??? And the fact that those loans will help SAVE those very same retirement funds that you're crying and wailing about!!!!!!

Sheesh!! Such uneducated nutters!!!!:bugeye:

Attention Mods:

The Wall Street thing should be in a seperate thread. It has nothing to do with the topic. I apologize.

[shaman_]

:cool:
Sorry, but this is wrong. The real 911-truthers do not put stock in any of those far-fetched theories. They are only looking for truth, in any form. Why are you still talking about these absurd claims, when they are obviously meant to derail any progress in this otherwise semi-civilized discussion?The conspiracy theorists, or fake 911-truthers, keep bringing them up.


The unfathomable delay in the timeline before fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the hi-jacked bogiesSo if the fighter jets had scrambled earlier, what would they have done? Shot the planes down? Rammed them in to the ground?


The "dancing Isreallies" who celebrated and videotaped the attack as it unfolded in NY, (later confirmed to be Mosad agents sent to "document the event")I have read conflicting reports as to whether they were mossad agents and there is no evidence to support that they were set up before the attack. Thousands were documenting the event that day.

[KennyJC]

[LIST=1]
The unfathomable delay in the timeline before fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the hi-jacked bogies

In the year prior to 9/11, 67 scrambles were made by fighter jets. But none of these took place within US territory. Of the 67 scrambles, only a fraction resulted in intercepts. In the decade prior to 9/11 there was only one domestic intercept which took 76 minutes.

On 9/11 there was some confusion about what aircraft was hijacked and from the first signs of hijacking and the time of the last crash (Flight 77) was a gap of a mere 43 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xjBbqRJT7Q

The "dancing Isreallies" who celebrated and videotaped the attack as it unfolded in NY, (later confirmed to be Mosad agents sent to "document the event")

Confirmed? I don't even think reports of "dancing jews" was even confirmed in the first place, was it?

Well, you probably already have all the answers memorized, so I'm sure you'll enjoy rebutting the above. Unfortunately, when you're done with those, I might have a few more for you.

By all means, keep it coming. I'm willing to be convinced. It would certainly benefit me politically if a conspiracy could be proven.

[GeoffP]

:cool:
Sorry, but this is wrong. The real 911-truthers do not put stock in any of those far-fetched theories. They are only looking for truth, in any form.

Then you should have a chat with the fake Troofers, who seem to dominate your movement. It is hardly my error to cite them as representative of "9/11 Troof" overall if they occur in such vast proportions as to so convince me.

Why are you still talking about these absurd claims, when they are obviously meant to derail any progress in this otherwise semi-civilized discussion?

Er, because the claims are still being made. Are you combatting these absurd claims within the movement then? That would be very helpful in keeping the discussion semi-civilized.

Why not try to address more pertinent issues, such as:

[LIST=1]
The unfathomable delay in the timeline before fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the hi-jacked bogies

Describe it. Then I shall fathom.

The "dancing Isreallies" who celebrated and videotaped the attack as it unfolded in NY, (later confirmed to be Mosad agents sent to "document the event")

The entire issue is shrouded in preconception and misconception, frankly. I suggest the following link to start:

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

Essentially, it's premature conclusion. Not uncommon in elderly reporters.

Well, you probably already have all the answers memorized, so I'm sure you'll enjoy rebutting the above.

Aha! I am a Mossad/CIA/Lizardoid agent. I see. Clearly I know not who I am.

Or do I? Anyway, good thing you caught me. I might have eaten your brain or something.

Unfortunately, when you're done with those, I might have a few more for you.

Bring them! They shall be as soft as molten steel on a San Diego bridge to me, and as apparent as hundred of tons of wreckage on a lawn outside a crash site.

[Neddy Bate]

In the year prior to 9/11, 67 scrambles were made by fighter jets. But none of these took place within US territory. Of the 67 scrambles, only a fraction resulted in intercepts. In the decade prior to 9/11 there was only one domestic intercept which took 76 minutes.

On 9/11 there was some confusion about what aircraft was hijacked and from the first signs of hijacking and the time of the last crash (Flight 77) was a gap of a mere 43 minutes.

Good try, but the correct answer is: The delay in scramble/intercept was the result of two things:


Military war games going on that very same morning. Including a scenario in which a hijacked plane would be used as a weapon against a building. (Please disregard Condy Rice's statement soon therafter, "I dont think anyone could have imagined using airplanes to ...")

New rules of engagement that required the vice president to approve all counter-manoeuvers ahead of time. Yes, civilians were in charge of these things that morn, rather than military, as it would normally be.

By all means, keep it coming. I'm willing to be convinced. It would certainly benefit me politically if a conspiracy could be proven.

I am glad that you will benefit somehow (politically?) by discovering these things. I don't benefit from this at all. Actually, it brings be me great pain to even discuss this. It is all so incredibly horrible.

[KennyJC]

Good try, but the correct answer is: The delay in scramble/intercept was the result of two things:

Even though I've given you the facts telling you how rare domestic intercepts were prior to 9/11 means nothing? The fact that given the sheer amount of planes in the air and mass confusion about which planes were hijacked and which were not means nothing? The fact that fighter jets had very little time and very little information to go on means nothing? The fact that nothing like this had ever happened in America means nothing?

Military war games going on that very same morning. Including a scenario in which a hijacked plane would be used as a weapon against a building. (Please disregard Condy Rice's statement soon therafter, "I dont think anyone could have imagined using airplanes to ...")

It sounds to me that you could be talking about the drills for a plane accident at the Pentagon, which was not based on a hijacked plane, but an accidental crash. Bearing in mind the fact the Pentagon was about a mile from Reagan International Airport and in the flight path of one of the runways, it seems sensible to drill for such an accident.

But since that took place a year before, and not on the very same morning you must be talking of something else, or lying.

New rules of engagement that required the vice president to approve all counter-manoeuvers ahead of time. Yes, civilians were in charge of these things that morn, rather than military, as it would normally be.

That appears irrelevant since rules of engagement describes the force that should be used once an aircraft has been intercepted. Since none of the hijacked aircraft were itercepted, why would rules of engagement have hampered anything? And you make it sound like these "new" rules were put in force on the morning of 9/11. How new were they?

I am glad that you will benefit somehow (politically?) by discovering these things. I don't benefit from this at all. Actually, it brings be me great pain to even discuss this. It is all so incredibly horrible.

Oh, pull the other one!

Nothing pisses me off more than truthers pretending to care about the victims of 9/11. If you care one bit about the victims of 9/11, then please stop trying to re-write their history.

[Neddy Bate]

Even though I've given you the facts telling you how rare domestic intercepts were prior to 9/11 means nothing? The fact that given the sheer amount of planes in the air and mass confusion about which planes were hijacked and which were not means nothing? The fact that fighter jets had very little time and very little information to go on means nothing? The fact that nothing like this had ever happened in America means nothing?

All very well, and quite right. I agree that it does take a long time to scramble jets, no question. But you replied to my original question without mentioning the war games that were in operation that day. No fault of your own, perhaps. These war excercises occur periodically (in order to ensure that, should a real emergency occur, the military apparatus will be ready, practiced, and efficient. So that, you know, things like 911 do not occur.

It sounds to me that you could be talking about the drills for a plane accident at the Pentagon, which was not based on a hijacked plane, but an accidental crash. Bearing in mind the fact the Pentagon was about a mile from Reagan International Airport and in the flight path of one of the runways, it seems sensible to drill for such an accident.

But since that took place a year before, and not on the very same morning you must be talking of something else, or lying.

No, I have no use for lying. If I am incorrect in my opinions, then I welcome sincere criticism & correction from all learned people, such as yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001

Excerpt:
"Aside from military exercises, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11, 2001. In a simulated event, a small aircraft would crash into one of the towers of the agency's headquarters after experiencing a mechanical failure"
/excerpt


But really, what does it matter if they were running multiple simulations that day? At least they got some jets up within the hour, right?
Oh, pull the other one!

Nothing pisses me off more than truthers pretending to care about the victims of 9/11. If you care one bit about the victims of 9/11, then please stop trying to re-write their history.

No, you pull mine first. Don't get pissed off at me. Remember, (or perhaps you don't) that it was the victims' families who pressed for a real investigation when everything was being stonewalled at the highest levels. Do you ever wonder who is writing this 'history' of which you speak?

[scott3x]

Remember, (or perhaps you don't) that it was the victims' families who pressed for a real investigation when everything was being stonewalled at the highest levels. Do you ever wonder who is writing this 'history' of which you speak?

Good point.

[Stryder]

Remember, (or perhaps you don't) that it was the victims' families who pressed for a real investigation when everything was being stonewalled at the highest levels. Do you ever wonder who is writing this 'history' of which you speak?

"Money Makes the world go round" - Cabaret

Quite simply if you found that your family was lost do to an incident, then you are going to raise questions, not just questions directly related to the perpetrators, but also at those that you pay through taxation to protect yourself and your family. Did they know the threat?, why couldn't they stop it? etc

These are naturally questions people have, however the main point is people want "pay" in some form for what happen to themselves and their families. Going to war with a foreign country is obviously not enough, people want "money". You can't get money out of terrorists, however if you can imply your governments involved, then obviously there is money to be made and this is the angle that some take.

A "Real" investigation that you suggest existed to me just sounds like a bunch of people trying to sue a bunch of other people, in fact this is probably where all these bullshit conspiracies started.

[scott3x]

A "Real" investigation that you suggest existed to me just sounds like a bunch of people trying to sue a bunch of other people, in fact this is probably where all these bullshit conspiracies started.

We can all speculate as to motivations. I think, however, that it would be better to simply look at the evidence.

[GeoffP]

And when that fails, what next? :D

[scott3x]

And when that fails, what next? :D

When that fails, we get speculation without supporting evidence, which is what some here tend to rely on.

[GeoffP]

Yes. I can think of two people off the top of my head who do. :D

[KennyJC]

All very well, and quite right. I agree that it does take a long time to scramble jets, no question. But you replied to my original question without mentioning the war games that were in operation that day. No fault of your own, perhaps. These war excercises occur periodically (in order to ensure that, should a real emergency occur, the military apparatus will be ready, practiced, and efficient. So that, you know, things like 911 do not occur.

No, I have no use for lying. If I am incorrect in my opinions, then I welcome sincere criticism & correction from all learned people, such as yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001

Excerpt:
"Aside from military exercises, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11, 2001. In a simulated event, a small aircraft would crash into one of the towers of the agency's headquarters after experiencing a mechanical failure"
/excerpt

I don't understand whether or not you are trying to make something sinister out of the coincidence that this drill was being tested on the day of 9/11, or that the drill should have meant that we should have been able to intercept all hijacked aircraft that morning.

I don't see how it is related to the terrorist attacks in either case.

But really, what does it matter if they were running multiple simulations that day? At least they got some jets up within the hour, right?

I'm unclear on how these simulations had anything to do with 9/11. Was there a drill on dealing with multiple domestic hijacked aircraft with the intent of suiciding into buildings? That would be more relevant to this discussion; not buildings simulating accidental crashes from local airports.

No, you pull mine first. Don't get pissed off at me. Remember, (or perhaps you don't) that it was the victims' families who pressed for a real investigation when everything was being stonewalled at the highest levels. Do you ever wonder who is writing this 'history' of which you speak?

Was this for reasons that they suspected 9/11 was an inside job and that the towers were demolished, etc etc?

[Neddy Bate]

When that fails, we get speculation without supporting evidence, which is what some here tend to rely on.

It's strange that both sides of this discussion cannot even agree to what the evidence is, much less what the evidence means.

Perhaps we should start by just listing the evidence that we all agree on, and then, from there, we would be free to venture off to hypothesise on what the implications are of this evidence.

For example, the dancing Israelis. I brought them up earlier in the thread, and then I was immediately challenged as to whether or not they even existed. Well it slows the discussion down quite a bit...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html?q=fiveisraelis.html

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a846israelishighfive#a846israelis highfive

Anyway, in the end, these assholes were sent back to Israel, and the investigation became "classified", and no one heard anything else about them. Until they appeared on a talk show in Israel where they explained that, "their purpose was to document the event". Sounds suspicious to me, but I'll let you come to your own conclusions.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11_israelis.wmv

So what does this mean? Allow me to hypothesise:

There is no reason for Israelis to hate the US, which is probably one their biggest allies, so why were they so happy about the attack? They were obviously smart enough to know that the US would interpret this 'suicide mission' as something done by Radical Islamists. This means that the US military response would soon be raining Shock and Awe down upon Israel's enemies. Why else would they be so happy? Think about it.

So what? We cannot blame these douchbags for wanting to see the US attack their enemies. However, one clue leads to the next like a trail of bread crumbs. If these guys are smart enough to know that war was coming to the Middle East, then how stupid did the Islamists attackers have to be to not realize this fact? Would they really be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their Muslim brothers and sisters to death by an invasion of Infidels, just for the satisfaction of killing a few thousand innocent US citizens?

[KennyJC]

Until they appeared on a talk show in Israel where they explained that, "their purpose was to document the event". Sounds suspicious to me, but I'll let you come to your own conclusions.

Context?

It sure would be suspicious if their purpose was to document the attacks before the attacks took place. If their purpose was to document the attacks after the attacks happened then that's not so suspicious seeing as thousands of others did the same.

There is no reason for Israelis to hate the US, which is probably one their biggest allies, so why were they so happy about the attack?

Even if they were happy, what does that prove?

In fact the first person to tell me about the 9/11 attacks was a waitress; I was stuck at work in the kitchen and she came in with a smile on her face almost laughing (in a shocked kind of way) telling me that planes hit the Pentagon and that the WTC collapsed. When I got home and spoke with some of my friends, the general consensus was that the event was "exciting". These people were not even there to witness it in person, but still managed to get some sort of a thrill out of the experience.

I'm just posing the question that perhaps these guys did show signs of being being excited in some sort of perverted way. I witnessed the same thing by people around me on 9/11. Not being native to the New York area (or even the country) meant they wouldn't necessarily have had the same emotional reaction as those around them.

[BlueMoose]

Lets rewrite history, what if like the security works like that much that only one plane got hijacked and flied to WTC under Dicks watch. Firemans comes to rescue, one hundred dead and little damage to one building. Whats would happen next ?
Full scale bombing to Afghanistan and then later in Iraq ? Patriot Act approved without reading it ? And so on ? Something to chew about motives. Bye !

[Neddy Bate]

Context?

It sure would be suspicious if their purpose was to document the attacks before the attacks took place. If their purpose was to document the attacks after the attacks happened then that's not so suspicious seeing as thousands of others did the same..

There is nothing strange about 911 witnesses in NY or NJ stopping whatever they were doing, and starting to take pictures or videos. The linked articles seem to be saying that that these Israeli guys were already set up when the first plane hit, but I guess we'll never know since the information became "classified" when we sent them back to Israel. Also, these guys later turned out to be part of a mossad surveillance mission, so saying that "their purpose was to document the event" might mean more than just "I saw this thing happen, so I decided to take a video of it".


Even if they were happy, what does that prove?

In fact the first person to tell me about the 9/11 attacks was a waitress; I was stuck at work in the kitchen and she came in with a smile on her face almost laughing (in a shocked kind of way) telling me that planes hit the Pentagon and that the WTC collapsed. When I got home and spoke with some of my friends, the general consensus was that the event was "exciting". These people were not even there to witness it in person, but still managed to get some sort of a thrill out of the experience.

I'm just posing the question that perhaps these guys did show signs of being being excited in some sort of perverted way. I witnessed the same thing by people around me on 9/11. Not being native to the New York area (or even the country) meant they wouldn't necessarily have had the same emotional reaction as those around them.
This wasn't that kind of "happy". They were literally celebrating, high-fiving, and dancing. Did your waitress do anything like that?

Anyway, I still think they were pretty smart to realize that the US would soon be attacking their enemies. Too bad the Islamist attackers didn't think that far ahead.

Lets rewrite history, what if like the security works like that much that only one plane got hijacked and flied to WTC under Dicks watch. Firemans comes to rescue, one hundred dead and little damage to one building. Whats would happen next ?
Full scale bombing to Afghanistan and then later in Iraq ? Patriot Act approved without reading it ? And so on ? Something to chew about motives. Bye !

I think BlueMoose is saying that if the 911 attack had failed (or at least not been so successful,) then the US would never have been able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, pass the Patriot Act without even reading it, etc. And that it does make you wonder who had the greatest motive.

It is a good point. My point above was that smart Islamists should not have had very much motive to provoke the US into wars with their own countries. Unless their motive was to bankrupt the US and turn it into a surveillance state, in which case they seem to be succeeding.

[shaman_]

I think BlueMoose is saying that if the 911 attack had failed (or at least not been so successful,)It could not possible had failed. The buildings were loaded up with bombs AND thermite AND they were flew planes into them.

The goverment had a missile to fire at the pentagon. IF that failed they always had the original plane hidden away somewhere as a backup, and flight 93.

Where's the sacarasm smiley again oh here it is :rolleyes:

(Not necessarliy directed at you Neddy)

[GeoffP]

It's strange that both sides of this discussion cannot even agree to what the evidence is, much less what the evidence means.

Perhaps we should start by just listing the evidence that we all agree on, and then, from there, we would be free to venture off to hypothesise on what the implications are of this evidence.

For example, the dancing Israelis. I brought them up earlier in the thread, and then I was immediately challenged as to whether or not they even existed. Well it slows the discussion down quite a bit...

...when you don't bother to read my links.

There is no reason for Israelis to hate the US, which is probably one their biggest allies, so why were they so happy about the attack?

Because - if there were any celebrating - now their major ally is going to be forced to get serious about terrorism.

They were obviously smart enough to know that the US would interpret this 'suicide mission' as something done by Radical Islamists.

Which, on the evidence, it was.

So what? We cannot blame these douchbags for wanting to see the US attack their enemies.

I agree; regrettable and cold-hearted, but not conspiratorial.

However, one clue leads to the next like a trail of bread crumbs. If these guys are smart enough to know that war was coming to the Middle East, then how stupid did the Islamists attackers have to be to not realize this fact?

Uh, how stupid are any of them then? Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah do this sort of thing every day.

Would they really be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their Muslim brothers and sisters to death by an invasion of Infidels, just for the satisfaction of killing a few thousand innocent US citizens?

In a word: yes.

Hamas and Hezbollah set up mortar and rocket teams beside UN outposts, residential buildings in Lebanon and Palestine, and behind schools.

Bombs are strapped to women, kids, and anything else crossing into Jerusalem.

Hamas openly admits it likes to use human shields.

Why is 9/11 so surprising?

[scott3x]

I will continue discussion from another board, because KennyJC was temporarily suspended from that board, but I believe that the response they gave him there should be something for him and others to see. Headspin has given permission to quote him. So here goes.

Kenny believed that Headspin had generally ignored everything RKOwens4 had written (in yet another forum). Headspin replied:

no, i addressed everything he said, you simply did not read my responses.

Kenny wanted Headspin to address the point RK had made regarding barium nitrate and aluminium oxide not being found in the dust. Headspin responded:

barium nitrate is not a requirement for an aluminothermic reaction as I pointed out in post#3 above, Jones paper explains this which I linked to in post#5, specifically pages 79-81 here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

He also mentioned that he could have searched for the word "barium" in the above document if Kenny had the intention of understanding the discussion.

He further mentioned:
You should by now understand that barium nitrate is not a necessary ingredient, RKOwens is saying it is not a cake because there is no chocolate.

Kenny asks if there is or is not a clear distinction between barium and barium nitrate. Headspin responds:

barium is an element, barium nitrate is a compound of elements: barium, nitrogen and oxygen. XEDS was used to examine the microspheres, it detects elements and their amounts, it does not detect compounds as i said in post#11.

Kenny also asks if there is a clear distinction between aluminium and aluminium oxide. Headspin responds:
read the paper and look at the graphs, the XEDS graphs show peaks of aluminum and oxygen, pages 2 and 3 :
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

For those who are able and interested in seeing the original thread where this post, and posts this post references, it is here:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=141354&t=663014

I will continue his response in the following post.

[scott3x]

Kenny continues, saying that Headspin had suggested that all of the dust seen from the collapse was aluminium oxide. Headspin responded:
i never said such a thing. you need to read post#3 again...


Kenny then states that, to his knowledge, Steven Jones did not even report barium in his initial findings. Headspin responds:
you may be correct about this, i do not recall accurately, but his papers are published for all to see and scrutinise. I remember him talking about barium in one of his earlier presentations, he may have been talking about the US Geological Survey report which did find barium, or he may have been talking about finding barium in his own samples, I suspect the latter but I am happy to be corrected, either way it does not negate the point above that barium is not a requirement.


Kenny then states that it wasn't until later that Steven Jones started claiming this. Headspin responds:
this is just an attempt to discredit rather than address the data.


Kenny states that, in regards to Headspin's materials on the microspheres, he had thrown a lot of material at me and he wasn't going to take it on at that time. Headspin responds:
then you have no right making any judgements and throwing the insults around.


Kenny states that Steven Jones talks about molten steel being ejected from the south tower and that he believes it is far more likely that it was molten aluminum.

Headspin responds:
molten aluminium is silver, not yellow-orange. there are plenty of threads already on the subject, it is pretty clear it is not molten aluminum.


Kenny states:
Also, I should make it clear that the quoted text dealing with the microspheres from my sciforums post was not from RKOwens4, but NASA scientist Ryan Mackey.

Headspin responds:
a scientist saying something does not make what he says scientific, his "science" has been discredited here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
and here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Kenny states:
You guys need to get off Jones' nuts; the guy is a particle physicist and not a structural engineer.

Headspin responds:
Jones' work is available to be scrutinised by anyone, no matter what their qualifications or experience. NIST refuses to even discuss this with him, despite their team comprising the pioneers of nanothermite technology, preferring to just deny the data.

[scott3x]

In another post, Headspin continues to respond to Kenny's post.

Kenny stated:
molten steel? When will tin hatters get over melted steel? When has there ever been proof of liquid steel anywhere?

Headspin responded:
from post 203, here
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/242875/9/#new

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center"
- Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California Berkeley.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

(Image, only those who can go to the forum can see it)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091901astanehfinds&scale=0#a091901astanehfinds

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/663014/1/ , post 17

[GeoffP]

I don't think you're allowed to post from other forums, Scott.

Also, contaminated molten aluminium could easily be orange in colour.

Finally: if there's molten steel, so what? Gasoline fires melt unprotected steel.

[GeoffP]

Oh, and the refusal for NIST to meet with Jones is not surprising. He's not an engineer.

[scott3x]

I don't think you're allowed to post from other forums, Scott.

I have permission from the author. Or are you saying that the admins here don't approve?


Also, contaminated molten aluminium could easily be orange in colour.

I must admit I've heard that argument before. I'll see what the loose change crew have to say about it.


Finally: if there's molten steel, so what? Gasoline fires melt unprotected steel.

I remember someone bringing up a gasoline fire apparently melting steel, but I'm not sure if it was accurate reporting; after all, it would seem to defy the laws of physics. Anyway, I'll bring both these points up with the loose change guys.

[scott3x]

Oh, and the refusal for NIST to meet with Jones is not surprising. He's not an engineer.

He has an enormous following. If NIST is willing to meet reporters, I can't see how it would hurt to meet a physicist, who certainly knows a fair amount on the 9/11 tower collapses. That is, if they wanted to get to the truth. If not, I can definitely see how it could hurt their case.

In terms of Steven Jones expertise, let me give you an example of someone who wasn't so knowledgeable on this subject just a short time ago and yet now know a fair amount; myself. I'm the first to admit that at present, some issues still go over my head, but I'm learning relatively quickly. Steven Jones has been doing this for years now and being a physicist is certainly an advantage. What's more, he has referenced many others as well, some of who are definitely experts on fires. There are also many engineers who disagree with the official story.

[scott3x]

...contaminated molten aluminium could easily be orange in colour.

I know that NIST has claimed this, but their attempt to actually verify this as a possibility are fairly dissapointing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY


Finally: if there's molten steel, so what? Gasoline fires melt unprotected steel.

I have been told that gasoline, diesel or kerosene will not melt steel without a properly proportioned oxidizer. The theory that the fires melted the steel is perhaps the first news story that died out. At present, NIST officials state that there was no melted steel at all. I believe this may be because the idea that the 10 minute jet fuel fire, or office furniture thereafter doing this is something that even NIST officials can't defend, so to admit that there was indeed melted and even evaporated steel is akin to essentially admitting that their theory is a brittle as a stack of cards.

[shaman_]

Ok a few points to be made here.

Quoting the research of Abolhassan Astaneh is interesting because he was one of those who investigated the steel. Once again the steel was investigated and not spirited away and hidden.

He made several comments regarding the twisted columns which he looked over. Twisted steel is not molten steel.

At 1800 degrees F steel is down to 10% of its strength. NIST estimated that there were pockets of fire at 1823 degrees F. So steel bending out of shape due to becoming soft is not surprising at all.

Jet fuel may not burn that hot but if you cover offices in jet fuel then set them alight with an explosion those temperatures could be reached. Watch footage of the building long after the impacts and you will see fires raging away.

I would like clarification on what "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center" means exactly. Is he talking about steel being bent out of shape or did he see the results of molten metal? Soft steel is not molten steel. If it's still recognisable as a girder then it was not molten steel.

The claims of thermite, supposedly used to cut the columns, wouldn’t explain the bent steel and neither do bombs. If the steel could bend without these things, why do we need to imagine that they were involved?

All this is still a bit of misdirection because it is clear that the steel did not need to melt for the building to fall.

Keep in mind that Abolhassan Astaneh, who specializes in structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings, found no signs of explosives and he supports the official story.

[KennyJC]

barium nitrate is not a requirement for an aluminothermic reaction as I pointed out in post#3 above, Jones paper explains this which I linked to in post#5, specifically pages 79-81 here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...1SciMethod.pdf

Yes, but Steven Jones does claim it was thermAte. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a thermate reaction will always give off barium nitrate and aluminum oxide.

barium is an element, barium nitrate is a compound of elements: barium, nitrogen and oxygen. XEDS was used to examine the microspheres, it detects elements and their amounts, it does not detect compounds as i said in post#11.

So even if this is true, basically he can’t prove anything? Reason being; these elements were within the WTC anyway, with or without thermate. If he could have found compounds of barium nitrate and aluminium oxide it would have certainly given his claims a degree of respectability.

read the paper and look at the graphs, the XEDS graphs show peaks of aluminum and oxygen, pages 2 and 3 :
http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...CHighTemp2.pdf

Without even reading this, I can confirm to you that aluminium was everywhere in the WTC as it encased the outer beams. And it’s rather obvious that oxygen should be there too.

"The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium."
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF

But as seen with Jones’ paper on how Jesus visited America, he is happy to put faith over evidence, and falsify evidence to suit agenda. Very unscientific.

i never said such a thing. you need to read post#3 again...

You said there was much observed dust as the building collapsed and this would account for the aluminium oxide which funnily enough, absent in Jones' reports.

you may be correct about this, i do not recall accurately, but his papers are published for all to see and scrutinise. I remember him talking about barium in one of his earlier presentations, he may have been talking about the US Geological Survey report which did find barium, or he may have been talking about finding barium in his own samples, I suspect the latter but I am happy to be corrected, either way it does not negate the point above that barium is not a requirement.

Nevertheless he still claims that barium being found in dust is evidence of thermate. Glad to see you agree with me that this is a dubious claim.

molten aluminium is silver, not yellow-orange. there are plenty of threads already on the subject, it is pretty clear it is not molten aluminum.

First you need to realize a few things before you fall all over yourself to shout “molten steel”. The molten material just so happens to be coming from exactly the point where the plane crashed to a halt. I shouldn’t need to tell you that a plane is made of large amounts of aluminium. You also will notice that this is the area that is greatly affected by fire and heat, thus it’s logical to assume that the aluminium from the plane was heated to the point were it melted.

The temperatures were well within the range of melting aluminium, and at such temperatures, any molten aluminium would not be silver. At 1800 farenheit which is the temperatures NIST describes, any molten aluminium would have been light orange in appearance. It’s colour and luminosity could also be influenced by contamination from other materials such as glass. It’s very unlikely that it was pure aluminium. The further the molten material falls, you see it dim to the point were you can almost make out that it is silvery in appearance.

The reason for the material being ejected appears to have been due to the sagging floors which became noticeable at the exact same time the molten material was seen falling out of the windows.

Jones' work is available to be scrutinised by anyone, no matter what their qualifications or experience. NIST refuses to even discuss this with him, despite their team comprising the pioneers of nanothermite technology, preferring to just deny the data.

I think people would be happy to peer review his information if he was even remotely interested in submitting it to the relevant respected journals. When someone questioned him at one of his presentations about where his work has been peer reviewed he dodged the question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRfCAaEyLk

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center"
- Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California Berkeley.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scien...ass_05-10.html

(Image, only those who can go to the forum can see it)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...01astanehfinds

LOL... this proves (if it hasn’t been proven already) that you are a complete ignorant dumbass. Did you even read the full document? He describes steel being twisted and warped and that this could have only been possible if:

“That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”

So I think we can effectively rule out that he made any claims about molten steel.

One huge obstacle you have to overcome is explaining how it would even be possible to demolish a building with thermate. Here’s what NIST has to say about the of thermite/thermate being used to demolish the towers:

"Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present [approx. 19% by weight] in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

Here is what demolition expert Brent Blanchard had to say about the matter:

"Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal."

All truthers need to do to debunk this is to get a chunk of steel similar to the consistency and thickness of any of the supporting beams Steven Jones claims were cut by thermite/thermate in the WTC, then stand it up vertically and cut the beam horizontally using only thermite/thermate without it being directly applied by hand.

If the beam can be cut quickly and accurately by thermite/thermate use, then that would give his claims some credibility.

[KennyJC]

I'm the first to admit that at present, some issues still go over my head, but I'm learning relatively quickly.

No scott, you are not learning. With the help of conspiracy authors and idiots on the Loose Change forum, the only thing you are learning is to have a deceitful answer to everything. The reason you do this is because you have an initial fondness for believing in quacky conspiracy theories, and quite obviously only listen to the people who share your fantasy.

[scott3x]

Ok a few points to be made here.

Quoting the research of Abolhassan Astaneh is interesting because he was one of those who investigated the steel. Once again the steel was investigated and not spirited away and hidden.

From whatreallyhappened.com:
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. [Fire Engineering - 1/4/2002] (http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225)


He made several comments regarding the twisted columns which he looked over. Twisted steel is not molten steel.

Alright, I'll let this one go for now.


At 1800 degrees F steel is down to 10% of its strength. NIST estimated that there were pockets of fire at 1823 degrees F. So steel bending out of shape due to becoming soft is not surprising at all.

They misrepresent the physics of fires. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:
Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF ... Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF ... And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent. Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html


I would like clarification on what "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center" means exactly. Is he talking about steel being bent out of shape or did he see the results of molten metal? Soft steel is not molten steel. If it's still recognisable as a girder then it was not molten steel.

I'll see if I can get it clarified.


The claims of thermite, supposedly used to cut the columns, wouldn’t explain the bent steel and neither do bombs. If the steel could bend without these things, why do we need to imagine that they were involved?

Again, I'll attempt to get answers here.


All this is still a bit of misdirection because it is clear that the steel did not need to melt for the building to fall.

If fires were the only things involved, what seems clear is that the steel wouldn't have even softened.


Keep in mind that Abolhassan Astaneh, who specializes in structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings, found no signs of explosives and he supports the official story.

Ok. Perhaps he didn't really look into the story. Or perhaps he was promised some sweet deals like Van Romero has gotten after 9/11. Initially, Van Romero stated:
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures. ... "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." ... "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

Later, he said:
"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells Popular Mechanics. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

9-11 Research goes on:
PM quotes Romero denying that his retraction was bought:
"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

PM fails to mention that Van Romero was named chairman of the Domestic Preparedness Consortium in January 2001, that his Institute received $15 million for an anti-terrorism program in 2002, or that Influence Magazine tapped him as one of six top lobbyists in 2003, having secured $56 million for New Mexico Tech.

[GeoffP]

He has an enormous following.

So does L. Ron Hubbard.

If NIST is willing to meet reporters, I can't see how it would hurt to meet a physicist, who certainly knows a fair amount on the 9/11 tower collapses. That is, if they wanted to get to the truth. If not, I can definitely see how it could hurt their case.

They don't want to bother meeting Jones because a) he has an agenda, rather than an open mind, b) it seems unlikely he could provide any clarification of the issue of the collapse and c) he's not an engineer. That would be enough for me.

What's more, he has referenced many others as well, some of who are definitely experts on fires. There are also many engineers who disagree with the official story.

By this, do you mean the theologians or the history professors on his "Who's That" list of arcane academics supporting his equally arcane theories? There are many more engineers who agree with the official story.

[KennyJC]

If fires were the only things involved, what seems clear is that the steel wouldn't have even softened.

Another lie.

You keep ignoring the bowing of the tower which supports the softening of steel. You ignore the very article your Loose Change guru put fourth showing that inspected WTC steel was shown to have warped and twisted due to high temperatures.

[scott3x]

Another lie.

You keep ignoring the bowing of the tower which supports the softening of steel. You ignore the very article your Loose Change guru put fourth showing that inspected WTC steel was shown to have warped and twisted due to high temperatures.

Clearly, in the actual event, the towers collapsed, never mind bent. I've simply demonstrated, through the words of experts, that the fires caused by the jets and some office furniture couldn't have done it.

[scott3x]

Ok, after doing a little research, I have once again affirmed that there is lots of statements that there was molten steel:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

And as to shaman's comment about bent steel. Why should it matter why some steel was bent? The real issue should be why the towers collapsed. And ofcourse bent steel doesn't make a tower collapse, let alone get it to collapse in its own footprint at about freefall speed. But it seems the argument is that bent steel = towers collapsing at free fall speed :-p.

It seems this whole bent steel thing is really just distracting us from the point. I recently read a post of mine, hammering home the most important points; that is, the arguments used by NIST to justify that the tower collapsed due to fire and its counter. I believe that Steven Jones says it well. I've said it before but I don't want to look through the mighty tangle, so I'll just quote Steven Jones article once more:
They [NIST] require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers?

He then offers a far more plausible cause of the WTC collapses:
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

[KennyJC]

Clearly, in the actual event, the towers collapsed, never mind bent. I've simply demonstrated, through the words of experts, that the fires caused by the jets and some office furniture couldn't have done it.

The bowing of the tower shows that the steel was being subjected to immense temperatures. It really is as simple as that.

You seem to forget that I am also using the words of experts. NIST, MIT and ASCE consists of 125,000 civil engineers as well as experts in other fields. I can not for the life of me wonder why you think they would all got out of their way to lie.

Even if I use sources unrelated to NIST, there is still agreement on temperatures required to weaken steel:

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel. However, in practice this is a very conservative assumption; low loads, the insulating effects of concrete slabs, the restraining effects of connections etc. mean that real failure temperatures can be as high as 750ºC or even higher for partially exposed members.
http://www.azobuild.com/details.asp?ArticleID=3621

Lets also bear in mind that the aircraft damaged much of the structural support and shifted a lot of weight on to what supports remained and with the fire proofing blown off and fires which reached temperatures of 1832 degrees, any weakening of the remaining supports would have been critical.

The effects of fire damage were also seen in WTC5 which suffered internal collapse due to "normal office fires". Much of the steel was weakened to the point were it failed completely.

Again, it would be easy for truthers to debunk any of this with an experiment using a supporting beam similar to that of the WTC and subjected to the same amount of heat. All they have to do is show how much strength was lost in the steel.

[GeoffP]

He then offers a far more plausible cause of the WTC collapses:

“ Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly.

With the tiny unfortunate complication that the towers didn't fall from the bottom.

Why do you cite these idiots, Scott?

[GeoffP]

It seems this whole bent steel thing is really just distracting us from the point.

Because it now appears that the loss of structural strength aptly explains the collapse of the Towers?

[KennyJC]

Ok, after doing a little research, I have once again affirmed that there is lots of statements that there was molten steel:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com...tal-under.html

One thing that becomes obvious is that many of those quotes say metal and not steel. It’s interesting that people refer to things that are “molten” when they are clearly still solid. The fact that it may be red hot is enough to fool the layman into saying it’s “molten”. The layman will also be fooled into saying that molten material is molten steel. How did they know it is steel?

Secondly, what makes you think that bombs or thermate would be responsible? Bombs are instantaneous, and I’m sure you’ll agree that there wasn’t enough thermate used to continue a several month long reaction.

And as to shaman's comment about bent steel. Why should it matter why some steel was bent? The real issue should be why the towers collapsed. And ofcourse bent steel doesn't make a tower collapse, let alone get it to collapse in its own footprint at about freefall speed. But it seems the argument is that bent steel = towers collapsing at free fall speed :-p.

It seems this whole bent steel thing is really just distracting us from the point. I recently read a post of mine, hammering home the most important points; that is, the arguments used by NIST to justify that the tower collapsed due to fire and its counter.

Still claiming that the WTC fell in free fall speed? 15 seconds for tower 2 and over 20 seconds for tower 1 are not free fall. Please stop repeating this lie.

As for bent steel, I shouldn’t have to tell you that bent steel is not a good thing for a building. I’m sure any civil engineer will testify to the fact that if you have weakened steel in a steel framed building, it’s integrity would be put in serious doubt.

I believe that Steven Jones says it well. I've said it before but I don't want to look through the mighty tangle, so I'll just quote Steven Jones article once more:

“ They [NIST] require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers? ”

The NIST computer models were based upon the fires, temperature and visible bowing of the tower. They tweaked the computer models to see if the heat and temperatures could account for the bowing effect that was seen and its eventual failure. And what d’yknow? They were right. Read their report and stop going on second hand information that has been skewed by a disgraced professor.


He then offers a far more plausible cause of the WTC collapses:
“ Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise. ”
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

You really are making this too easy for me.

Let me start with his claim about columns being cut. In the above quote he claims explosives cut them, but this is a contradiction on his thermate claims. Was it explosives, or was it thermate? If it was explosives then once again we are faced with the conundrum of silent explosions. Find me an explosive that can cut these beams and not be heard for miles.

As for the squibs; well this is really easy to debunk. The ‘squibs’ seen in videos of the collapse are very slow, which would be consistent with the compressed air being forced out. If it was an explosive, it would be instantaneous and accompanied by a humungous sound blast as well as a bright flash. None of this happened with the ‘squibs’ seen at the WTC. And again, he contradicts his thermate theory by citing squibs as being proof of explosives.

Then he talks about thermite being used to cut beams seen at ground zero. Well this is perhaps the easiest to be debunked of all his claims. I recommend you watch this video which shows multiple beams being cut in the recovery effort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-MEKpLmWtA

It’s also worth mentioning that if the first image in that video was molten steel, then how are fire fighters able to keep their face directly over the hole? I shouldn’t need to tell you that temperatures required to keep steel molten are immense, therefore the last thing you are going to do is hover your face above it.

[shaman_]

From whatreallyhappened.com: Not everyone agrees with Manning’s criticism.
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering_letter.html


There may have been criticisms of the investigation but the steel was investigated. It wasn’t spirited away and it wasn’t hidden. Experts looked at it and found nothing suspicious.

Alright, I'll let this one go for now.

They misrepresent the physics of fires. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html Who is misrepresenting the physics?

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

At the bottom.
“
So I went to the website of Corus Construction Co, and found a section in their Research area that said this about the difference in temperatures between steel and atmosphere:

"With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C."

So the tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity.

I just thought it was a pretty striking example of dishonesty….”

Your sources are always poorly researched, dishonest or both.


I'll see if I can get it clarified.

Again, I'll attempt to get answers here.

If fires were the only things involved, what seems clear is that the steel wouldn't have even softened. What? Bad science aside, you posted a link to a story of a bridge that collapsed after a gas tanker crashed.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley " In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed.”

Take your blinkers off and think about what you are saying Scott. If the steel could be softened there and the Madrid Tower then surely it's possible that it could be softened by the fires on 9/11.




Ok. Perhaps he didn't really look into the story. Or perhaps he was promised some sweet deals like Van Romero has gotten after 9/11. Typical conspiracy theorist. When presented with evidence from an expert you instantly claim that he was paid off. If you do some searching on Abolhassan Astaneh you will see that he even had of criticisms of the investigation, although they were minor. He is far more qualified than Jones to speak on these matters and he found no evidence for explosives.

[Ganymede]

I see the spooks are still at it. Losers.

[KennyJC]

I see the spooks are still at it. Losers.

I think the real losers are the truthers. Not only have they failed to convince historians, demolition experts, civil engineers etc. but their membership is in sharp decline.

You know how many truthers turned out at their most important rally of the year? 150.

As for being a spook... I really wish I was. Being a secret agent sounds a little more glamorous than my day job.

[Ganymede]

Ok, after doing a little research, I have once again affirmed that there is lots of statements that there was molten steel:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

And as to shaman's comment about bent steel. Why should it matter why some steel was bent? The real issue should be why the towers collapsed. And ofcourse bent steel doesn't make a tower collapse, let alone get it to collapse in its own footprint at about freefall speed. But it seems the argument is that bent steel = towers collapsing at free fall speed :-p.

It seems this whole bent steel thing is really just distracting us from the point. I recently read a post of mine, hammering home the most important points; that is, the arguments used by NIST to justify that the tower collapsed due to fire and its counter. I believe that Steven Jones says it well. I've said it before but I don't want to look through the mighty tangle, so I'll just quote Steven Jones article once more:


He then offers a far more plausible cause of the WTC collapses:


http://physics911.net/stevenjones

Keep giving them hell Scott. Make these Spooks earn their paycheck.:D

[KennyJC]

Make these Spooks earn their paycheck.:D

That is enough to prove that you are a stupid moron.

[Ganymede]

Yeah: why would they use a missile? Because it would be incongrous with the planes that hit the Towers? :D It never fails to make me smile how Troofers disown the really crazy Troofers who claim it was missiles and holograms at the Towers, and then turn around and claim the Pentagon hit was a missile. ;)

Provide the video or STFU, you're now on the Clock. You can't because it doesn't it exist. That's all the proof I need.

[KennyJC]

Provide the video or STFU, you're now on the Clock. You can't because it doesn't it exist. That's all the proof I need.

You'd make a bad detective if you had to see pictures of a crime taking place in order to solve it.

[Ganymede]

I will continue discussion from another board, because KennyJC was temporarily suspended from that board


:p:p:p It's a total waste debating him, I see It didn't take them long to realize what a dishonest debater that guy really is. The best thing to do is ignore him. He's not here to have an honest discussion, he's only here to push the Governments unprovavble version of the facts.. We're having a great debate on Abovetopsecret.com, and they don't allow name calling there, a great place for adults to have a discussion.

[KennyJC]

:p:p:p It's a total waste debating him, I see It didn't take them long to realize what a dishonest debater that guy really is. The best thing to do is ignore him. He's not here to have an honest discussion, he's only here to push the Governments unprovavble version of the facts.. We're having a great debate on Abovetopsecret.com, and they don't allow name calling there, a great place for adults to have a discussion.

I'm a dishonest debater? LOL! You're the one that shows pictures of planes that have crashed at low speed and think it's valid to compare it to a plane that has nose dived into the ground approaching the speed of sound.

I know you are reading everything I'm saying even though you have me on "ignore".

[Ganymede]

Not everyone agrees with Manning’s criticism.
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering_letter.html




http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm




Those 2 sites have been exposed as being disinformation sites sponsered by intellence assets whitin the US.

[KennyJC]

Those 2 sites have been exposed as being disinformation sites sponsered by intellence assets whitin the US.

I'd sure like to see evidence for this. So far your claims of everybody disagreeing with you being government agents is making you look downright silly.

[Ganymede]

You are much smarter than most of the conspiracy nutters, but this line is pure, unadulterated stupidity.

A ruddy great aircraft, presumably full of people (or if you prefer a low flying guided missile) has just crashed into the HQ of the armed forces of the world's only superpower. There is noise, there are flames and explosions, there is smoke, people are running everywhere. Sirens are going off. Car alarms have been triggered.

Amidst all of this you are saying to yourself, "I wonder what happened to the other lamp posts?" :rolleyes: Get real.

Can you share with me what evidence you have that proves that Khalid SHeik Muhammad was responsible for 911 and not Bin Laden. It's been going on 3 weeks now. And you still haven't showed me any evidence that links KSM to 911. Nor has the F.B.I charged him with the crime.

[Ganymede]

Scott3x,

I have heard that the "no plane at the pentagon" theory was introduced as a way to sidetrack 911-truthers and keep them diverted from more obvious problems with the official story.

Likewise, the arguments that there were no planes at the WTC (some say it was done with special effects at the news stations, etc). This disinformation technique is called "poisoning the well". Mixing bad theories in with the good ones so as to reduce the credibility of all of the theories taken together as a whole.

You've got a lot of good evidence on your side without the missile theory, but I understand that it is always tempting to add one more log to the fire, so to speak.

Can you please share with us the Video of the Plane hitting the Pentagon? You didn't see it, so how can you push a theory that you have no concrete proof of.

[Ganymede]

So why not simply delete all the stupid conspiracy posts and permaban the idiot conspiracy theorists?

Sorry, but this isn't communist China. Stryder tried to silence any dicussion about this topic by moving it to this forum. But it completely backfired, and now he's totally frustrated that he can't surpress others from having an open and civil discussion. The only ones who're calling other deragatory names are the pro-goverment posters.

[Ganymede]

Scott, could you just confirm you don't work in the oil industry. I just want to avoid the risk of hiring you by accident. We don't like to employ people who are unaware of how to carry out a thorough examination of evidence.

African oil at issue

Daily oil production by the Gulf of Guinea states—Nigeria, Congo, Gabon, Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea—is over 4.5 million barrels. The total is more than Iran, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela produces individually.

The top two U.S. oil companies, Chevron Texaco and Exxon Mobil, plan to invest $70 billion in oil production over the next 5 to 10 years in the Gulf of Guinea. The states in this region already provide 16 percent of the United States’ oil supply. The amount is expected to rise to 25 percent by 2015.

Controlling as many oil sources as possible is one of the U.S. government’s primary objectives worldwide. It wants to hold a strategic lock on oil markets so that it can control the flow of oil and other essential resources to countries like China and India, and to imperialist rivals in Europe and Japan. The U.S. government’s new moves and "threat" assessments in Africa are largely predicated on prevailing over its rivals.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5687&news_iv_ctrl=0

[Ganymede]

Ganymede, try not to make yourself look keven more foolish. My starting point was to have no opinion on the cause(s) of 911. After reviewing the data, then I reached my conclusion. That is how it works. You don't maintain a belief in something that is contrary to the evidence. You move on.
Do you also write in English?

Do you belive that KSM is responsible for 911 and no OBL? I would like to see what evidence you reviewed that led you to that conclusion.

[Ganymede]

Also, here' another way to point out the spooks on this forum.

1) 90% of their time is spent on debating people who they claim are crazy.

2) They always put in their profiles that they're from the UK or Australia, or some other shithole of a continent to masquerade thier true identities.

[shaman_]

I have another identity?

Cool :cool:

[GeoffP]

I see the spooks are still at it. Losers.

Keep giving them hell Scott. Make these Spooks earn their paycheck.

These kind of comments make me laugh out loud. "You're too good, you know the real answers to all my stupid points. You must be...a government agent!" What an idiot.

Provide the video or STFU, you're now on the Clock. You can't because it doesn't it exist. That's all the proof I need.

Bitch, it's the parking cam vid. The same fucking video that the Troofers used to like to point to and say "that couldn't be a plane!" which clearly fucking is. I repeat: what an idiot. "It's a missile!" Yeah, a two-hundred foot missile. Sure. Mocked up to look like an airplane? Idiot.

Those 2 sites have been exposed as being disinformation sites sponsered by intellence assets whitin the US.

Provide the evidence or STFU.

Also, here' another way to point out the spooks on this forum.

1) 90% of their time is spent on debating people who they claim are crazy.

2) They always put in their profiles that they're from the UK or Australia, or some other shithole of a continent to masquerade thier true identities.

You. Are. An. Idiot.

I'm from the UK and Canada, living in the States. Oh, and by the way: don't call the UK a shithole, you useless little fuck. It's the funniest fucking thing when you yell "You're not from those places!" and then insult those places to piss us off. STFU, little boy.

Done.

[GeoffP]

I have another identity?

Cool :cool:

You are a gov'mint agent. Ganymede says so!

[scott3x]

barium nitrate is not a requirement for an aluminothermic reaction as I pointed out in post#3 above, Jones paper explains this which I linked to in post#5, specifically pages 79-81 here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Yes, but Steven Jones does claim it was thermAte. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a thermate reaction will always give off barium nitrate and aluminum oxide.

You are indeed mistaken :-). Since you may not believe truthers saying so, here is an official story believer saying so (search for barium nitrate):
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/1528/33345.aspx

However, Steven Jones seems to believe that the thermate used did indeed have barium nitrate. He states:
Thermate-TH3 is an analog of thermite containing sulfur and barium nitrate, developed by the military for destroying enemy vehicles51.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf, page 81

He continues, saying:
anomalously high concentrations in the WTC dust such as zinc, copper and manganese and barium...

So clearly he is claiming that barium was indeed found. You go on to state that barium is not barium nitrate. Headspin responded saying:
barium is an element, barium nitrate is a compound of elements: barium, nitrogen and oxygen. XEDS was used to examine the microspheres, it detects elements and their amounts, it does not detect compounds as i said in post#11.


You then say:
So even if this is true, basically he can’t prove anything? Reason being; these elements were within the WTC anyway, with or without thermate. If he could have found compounds of barium nitrate and aluminium oxide it would have certainly given his claims a degree of respectability.

If he were being paid by the government to study these things, he might indeed have had the time and the tools to do these things. As it is, this isn't happening. Remember, however, that there were some anomalously high concentrations of certain trace metals, including barium. He ends off by saying:
We are learning more by studying the iron-rich
spheres found in the WTC dust.

Studies that were perhaps cut short when he was put on paid leave, while university officials were apparently examining whether they should terminate him, perhaps because of such studies. He retired before they could make up their minds. More later...

[GeoffP]

So he needs to prove that there should have been no barium in the WTC. From where does he collect his samples? How many replicates? And so on. This data needs to be presented.

Anyway: unsurprising they kicked Kenny off the Troofer forum. They prefer Troof to truth, so I can imagine his arrival would have been poorly received.

[scott3x]

So he needs to prove that there should have been no barium in the WTC.

No, only that the levels that were there were 'anomalosly high'.


From where does he collect his samples? How many replicates? And so on. This data needs to be presented.

I would imagine he's done it, but I don't have it on hand right now.


Anyway: unsurprising they kicked Kenny off the Troofer forum. They prefer Troof to truth, so I can imagine his arrival would have been poorly received.

They suspended his account for 14 days, because in 1 post he managed to insult people within the forum 3 times (they have a 3 strike rule there). He regularly insults people here too, but so do truthers. Everyone who's been here a while knows that the rule/regulation/recommendation (they don't specify which is which) is a nebulous clause that, if it is ever enforced, is only done so when the admins feel like it.

[scott3x]

read the paper and look at the graphs, the XEDS graphs show peaks of aluminum and oxygen, pages 2 and 3 :
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Without even reading this, I can confirm to you that aluminium was everywhere in the WTC as it encased the outer beams. And it’s rather obvious that oxygen should be there too.

"The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium."
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF

But as seen with Jones’ paper on how Jesus visited America, he is happy to put faith over evidence, and falsify evidence to suit agenda. Very unscientific.

I haven't really looked at his evidence for jesus visiting america, but as I've mentioned before, many people and enormous religions believe things that have little if any evidence. It is for this reason that I believe we should separate his religious views from his articles on 9/11, which have been peer reviewed on the Journal for 9/11 studies site. I haven't seen him use anything but evidence to sustain his 9/11 claims, but if you feel he has written a passage in his writings on the subject where this is not so, by all means bring it to my attention.


Since you made a hilarious statement alluding that all of the dust seen from the collapse was aluminium oxide

i never said such a thing. you need to read post#3 again...

You said there was much observed dust as the building collapsed and this would account for the aluminium oxide which funnily enough, absent in Jones' reports.

No, he didn't. This is what Headspin said:
The process used to analyse the previously molten Iron microspheres was XEDS - this involves firing electons at the tiny wtc dust samples (microspheres). when the electrons hit the sample they will eventually collide with the various atoms in the sample, the atom gets excited and gives off an xray. these x-rays are measured and tell us what element the electron struck, the results of these x-rays are plotted on a graph showing peaks which indicate what ELEMENTS and their AMOUNTS found in the tiny sample. The overall result of the graph produces a chemical signature, like a fingerprint, very specific, showing precisely the elemental content of the sample. Jones work shows the signatures found in the wtc microspheres samples match precisely those of thermite residue samples.

so if you understand the above, it should be obvious why statements like "there is a world of difference between aluminum and aluminum oxide" are bogus.

you may be correct about this, i do not recall accurately, but his papers are published for all to see and scrutinise. I remember him talking about barium in one of his earlier presentations, he may have been talking about the US Geological Survey report which did find barium, or he may have been talking about finding barium in his own samples, I suspect the latter but I am happy to be corrected, either way it does not negate the point above that barium is not a requirement.

Nevertheless he still claims that barium being found in dust is evidence of thermate. Glad to see you agree with me that this is a dubious claim.

He said nothing of the sort. He only said that he didn't remember if the US Geological Survey found the barium or Jones himself did.

[GeoffP]

No, only that the levels that were there were 'anomalosly high'.

'Significantly' high?

I'm referring to Jones' analysis, not Jones himself here.

I would imagine he's done it, but I don't have it on hand right now.

So locate it. Bring your proofs if ye are truthful.

They suspended his account for 14 days, because in 1 post he managed to insult people within the forum 3 times (they have a 3 strike rule there). He regularly insults people here too, but so do truthers. Everyone who's been here a while knows that the rule/regulation/recommendation (they don't specify which is which) is a nebulous clause that, if it is ever enforced, is only done so when the admins feel like it.

Do Troofers get banned? Only the obnoxious ones, I bet.

[scott3x]

'Significantly' high?

I'm referring to Jones' analysis, not Jones himself here.

The term he used was 'anomalously high'. I'll quote the paragraph where he uses it:

Thermate-TH3 is an analog of thermite containing sulfur and barium nitrate, developed by the military for destroying enemy vehicles51. In general, thermate (as defined here) combines aluminum powder and iron or other metal oxides with sulfur. The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is in general faster than basic thermite in cutting through steel due to the presence of sulfur. (Elemental sulfur forms a low-melting-temperature eutectic with iron). Given the mix of trace metals present in anomalously high concentrations in the WTC dust such as zinc, copper and manganese and barium, and the formation of iron-aluminum-rich spherules, I have argued that significant aluminothermic reactions occurred, with likely ingredients to include powders of aluminum, iron oxide, copper oxide, zinc nitrate, sulfur, and potassium permanganate. We are learning more by studying the iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust.

www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf, page 27 in pdf document, 81 on page.

From where does he collect his samples? How many replicates? And so on. This data needs to be presented.

I would imagine he's done it, but I don't have it on hand right now.

So locate it. Bring your proofs if ye are truthful.

Being truthful and having proofs for every single counter official story believers have are entirely different things. Unlike certain NIST individuals, I'm not being paid to research these things. But if I come across the information requested, I see now reason why I wouldn't put it up here.


They suspended his account for 14 days, because in 1 post he managed to insult people within the forum 3 times (they have a 3 strike rule there). He regularly insults people here too, but so do truthers. Everyone who's been here a while knows that the rule/regulation/recommendation (they don't specify which is which) is a nebulous clause that, if it is ever enforced, is only done so when the admins feel like it.

Do Troofers get banned? Only the obnoxious ones, I bet.

I haven't done an in depth study on the subject. But feel free to begin one ;-).

[scott3x]

First you need to realize a few things before you fall all over yourself to shout “molten steel”. The molten material just so happens to be coming from exactly the point where the plane crashed to a halt. I shouldn’t need to tell you that a plane is made of large amounts of aluminium. You also will notice that this is the area that is greatly affected by fire and heat, thus it’s logical to assume that the aluminium from the plane was heated to the point were it melted.

The temperatures were well within the range of melting aluminium, and at such temperatures, any molten aluminium would not be silver. At 1800 farenheit which is the temperatures NIST describes, any molten aluminium would have been light orange in appearance.

This claim of NIST has been shown to be spurious. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:
Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF ... Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF ... And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent. Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html


It’s colour and luminosity could also be influenced by contamination from other materials such as glass. It’s very unlikely that it was pure aluminium. The further the molten material falls, you see it dim to the point were you can almost make out that it is silvery in appearance.

Given the fact that the melting point of aluminium is 1220.58 °F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), about twice as hot as the steel should have gotten by fires alone in the building, I believe this whole argument is doomed to failure. But I'll give it another push in that direction by showing a video wherein NIST attempts to support their theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

[GeoffP]

The term he used was 'anomalously high'.

So, not significantly so?

[scott3x]

So, not significantly so?

Geoff, don't you think that if he didn't think it was significant, he wouldn't mention it?

[GeoffP]

I'm a scientist. Anomalous doesn't mean much to me; significance is important. And yes, I think he would.

[scott3x]

I think people would be happy to peer review his information if he was even remotely interested in submitting it to the relevant respected journals. When someone questioned him at one of his presentations about where his work has been peer reviewed he dodged the question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRfCAaEyLk

He is published on the Journal for 9/11 studies. From their site:
Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology. All content is freely available online.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[scott3x]

I'm a scientist.

What's your field of study?


Anomalous doesn't mean much to me; significance is important. And yes, I think he would.

Well, you're free to believe whatever you like.

[GeoffP]

What's your field of study?

Genetics. As such, significance is my issue.

[shaman_]

This claim of NIST has been shown to be spurious. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
Scott perhaps you could read post 921 before you repeat this again.

I have done some searching and found other tests where the steel temperature was not very far behind the atmosphere temperature.

[KennyJC]

You are indeed mistaken :-). Since you may not believe truthers saying so, here is an official story believer saying so (search for barium nitrate):
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/1528/33345.aspx

It's not clear from the quote I read whether or not her was talking about thermite or thermate. I want to read from a reliable source that is not from a truther website or some guy on a forum. Wiki would do. Is a thermate reaction possible without barium nitrate being a byproduct?

This is irrelevant anyway since Steven Jones doesn't report finding barium nitrate.

He continues, saying:
anomalously high concentrations in the WTC dust such as zinc, copper and manganese and barium...

So clearly he is claiming that barium was indeed found. You go on to state that barium is not barium nitrate. Headspin responded saying:
barium is an element, barium nitrate is a compound of elements: barium, nitrogen and oxygen. XEDS was used to examine the microspheres, it detects elements and their amounts, it does not detect compounds as i said in post#11.

As usual, I will state that Steven Jones found nothing that wasn't already in the WTC with or without thermate. The fact that Steven Jones could not check for compounds leaves him without evidence.

If he were being paid by the government to study these things, he might indeed have had the time and the tools to do these things. As it is, this isn't happening. Remember, however, that there were some anomalously high concentrations of certain trace metals, including barium. He ends off by saying:

The bottom line is that he didn't find these things he was desperately looking for. The fact he couldn't even tell elements and compounds apart means that he has no business making any of these claims, particularly when all the elements he describes as suspicious had a more mundane explanation for being present.

[KennyJC]

Scott, you need to stop putting external sources as quoted text from your hand-holder Headspin and Steven Jones, because it makes it more difficult to reply.


No, he didn't. This is what Headspin said:
The process used to analyse the previously molten Iron microspheres was XEDS - this involves firing electons at the tiny wtc dust samples (microspheres). when the electrons hit the sample they will eventually collide with the various atoms in the sample, the atom gets excited and gives off an xray. these x-rays are measured and tell us what element the electron struck, the results of these x-rays are plotted on a graph showing peaks which indicate what ELEMENTS and their AMOUNTS found in the tiny sample. The overall result of the graph produces a chemical signature, like a fingerprint, very specific, showing precisely the elemental content of the sample. Jones work shows the signatures found in the wtc microspheres samples match precisely those of thermite residue samples.

so if you understand the above, it should be obvious why statements like "there is a world of difference between aluminum and aluminum oxide" are bogus.

I understand that the mere presence of the elements doesn't spell out evidence thermite if you would expect those elements to be there without thermite.

This claim of NIST has been shown to be spurious. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:

Zzzz... you've fallen into the habit of posting urls without giving me excerpts again.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

Same as above.

Given the fact that the melting point of aluminium is 1220.58 °F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), about twice as hot as the steel should have gotten by fires alone in the building, I believe this whole argument is doomed to failure. But I'll give it another push in that direction by showing a video wherein NIST attempts to support their theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

I'd like to know the context here - something truthers are not always willing to provide. Did this NIST experiment work previously? Did it work afterwards? Was this just a single failed attempt? The fact that they are doing it for the cameras tells me that they would have known from previous experiments that it worked.

He is published on the Journal for 9/11 studies. From their site:

Ahhh. So basically he is published and peer-reviewed on conspiracy theory websites, but no respected scientific journal? Everyone on a conspiracy theory website is going to agree with him regardless. He has to try and convince experts in the relevant fields who are skeptical of his claims. The scientific process is without bias, so how about he shows some courage of his convictions and submit it to the relevant sources?

I shouldn't have to tell you why that just won't do it. That's like saying biologists write papers supporting creationism and are 'published' on a creationist website.

[scott3x]

Genetics. As such, significance is my issue.

Geneticists concentrate on 'significant genes' right? Those 2 words in quotes bring lots of hits on google anyway. But semantics aside, I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that Steven Jones would bring up anything that he felt was not significant.

[scott3x]

LOL... this proves (if it hasn’t been proven already) that you are a complete ignorant dumbass. Did you even read the full document? He describes steel being twisted and warped and that this could have only been possible if:

“That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”

So I think we can effectively rule out that he made any claims about molten steel.

Sometimes I wonder if you're incapable of refraining from personal attacks. Anyway, it's clear that you haven't read the document thoroughly. He said (and I quote):
Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

I have never argued that the WTC buildings didn't reach those temperatures and neither has any serious 9/11 truther that I know. I have only argued that the fires in the WTC buildings couldn't have done it, and many experts hold this view as I have already stated.

[scott3x]

One huge obstacle you have to overcome is explaining how it would even be possible to demolish a building with thermate. Here’s what NIST has to say about the of thermite/thermate being used to demolish the towers:

"Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present [approx. 19% by weight] in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

I'll ask the loose change forum regarding this.

Here is what demolition expert Brent Blanchard had to say about the matter:

"Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal."

Again, I'll ask the loose change forum concerning this.

All truthers need to do to debunk this is to get a chunk of steel similar to the consistency and thickness of any of the supporting beams Steven Jones claims were cut by thermite/thermate in the WTC, then stand it up vertically and cut the beam horizontally using only thermite/thermate without it being directly applied by hand.

If the beam can be cut quickly and accurately by thermite/thermate use, then that would give his claims some credibility.

Once more, I'll ask the loose change crew.

[Ganymede]

These kind of comments make me laugh out loud. "You're too good, you know the real answers to all my stupid points. You must be...a government agent!" What an idiot.



Bitch, it's the parking cam vid. The same fucking video that the Troofers used to like to point to and say "that couldn't be a plane!" which clearly fucking is. I repeat: what an idiot. "It's a missile!" Yeah, a two-hundred foot missile. Sure. Mocked up to look like an airplane? Idiot.

REPORTED!!!!

[scott3x]

No scott, you are not learning. With the help of conspiracy authors and idiots on the Loose Change forum, the only thing you are learning is to have a deceitful answer to everything. The reason you do this is because you have an initial fondness for believing in quacky conspiracy theories, and quite obviously only listen to the people who share your fantasy.

You have any evidence to back that claim or are you all talk?

[KennyJC]

Sometimes I wonder if you're incapable of refraining from personal attacks.

You and your Loose Change crew are deliberately ignorant and dishonest. I do not tolerate that. Perhaps if you were deliberately ignorant and dishonest in another matter, I wouldn't be quite so intolerant, but not when it comes to 9/11.

Anyway, it's clear that you haven't read the document thoroughly. He said (and I quote):

There you go again quoting external sources meaning when I reply, it becomes invisible.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

I have never argued that the WTC buildings didn't reach those temperatures and neither has any serious 9/11 truther that I know. I have only argued that the fires in the WTC buildings couldn't have done it, and many experts hold this view as I have already stated.

When he talks about the WTC steel 'melting', he claims that the damage he saw to the steel points to the temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees. This does not contradict the "official story" and his comments do not in anyway paint pictures of pools liquid steel especially when his guessed temperature is not enough to melt steel completely. The beams he examined were softened, twisted and warped - NOT liquiduidized.

[Ganymede]

You have any evidence to back that claim or are you all talk?

Scott, put them on Ignore, make your point, and move on. They're not here to have a civil discussion. If someone were to tell me that Homo Sapiens first evolved in Europe I wouldn't spend 2 months arguing, and calling them names in order to prove my point. I would make my case and move on. You're to intelligent to engage with participants who don't even respect your opinion, nor have the honesty or integrity to concede any point what so ever.

They're only here to present the illusion that the general populace doesn't believe in a 911 conspiracy, even though plenty of mainstream media polls indicate otherwise. The Dark sectors of the Government know this. So they employ people to visit forums such as this, in order to suppress the truth. Research Operation Mockingbird, that will shine a luminous light on the lengths the spooks will go in-order to plague the general populace with misleading information. They're so well entrenched that even Alex Jones is part of the disinformation campaign. This board is saturated with spooks, it's a pointless to debate anyone who holds you in contempt. Notice how the spooks are allowed to break the forum rules with impunity. They can't complete a sentence without calling us a derogatory name. You should be jubilant that your mind is open enough to consider other alternatives, without being emotionally attached to the aristocratic power structure that proceeds to lead you astray.

[KennyJC]

I'll ask the loose change forum regarding this.

Again, I'll ask the loose change forum concerning this.

Once more, I'll ask the loose change crew.

Well that just about sums it up.

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
He has an enormous following.

So does L. Ron Hubbard.

I agree that popularity doesn't mean rightness. But I do think that someone who has a sizeable following shouldn't be ignored, if only so that an attempt can be made to edify the following in question.


They don't want to bother meeting Jones because a) he has an agenda, rather than an open mind

He has beliefs and goals, as do we all. If you want to call that an 'agenda', fine, but then we all have agendas.


b) it seems unlikely he could provide any clarification of the issue of the collapse

I couldn't disagree with you more there.


c) he's not an engineer.

He is, however, a physicist and the WTC collapses are definitely within the realm of physics. I think it's high time that people stop worrying so much about titles and start thinking of the presented evidence.

What's more, he has referenced many others as well, some of who are definitely experts on fires. There are also many engineers who disagree with the official story.

By this, do you mean the theologians or the history professors on his "Who's That" list of arcane academics supporting his equally arcane theories?

The only theologian I have heard of is David Ray Griffin. Yes, he's a theologian, but he has also published about 5 books on 9/11 and edited another that includes some of Steven Jones' work. But if you insist on engineering experts, how about this:
NIST maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite the observations above, particularly the fact that fire endurance tests with actual models did not result in collapse. In a paper by fire-engineering experts in the UK, we find:

The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire… However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)

http://physics911.net/stevenjones


There are many more engineers who agree with the official story.

Quantity does not equal quality, but can you even prove this claim of yours or is it a GeoffP (tm) statistic?

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
Clearly, in the actual event, the towers collapsed, never mind bent. I've simply demonstrated, through the words of experts, that the fires caused by the jets and some office furniture couldn't have done it.

The bowing of the tower shows that the steel was being subjected to immense temperatures. It really is as simple as that.

I don't see why we have to disagree here. The issue is what caused those immense temperatures. This is where we disagree.


You seem to forget that I am also using the words of experts. NIST, MIT and ASCE consists of 125,000 civil engineers as well as experts in other fields.

How many of those 125,000 spoke up for the official theory? And of those, how many were being paid by the government to do so?


Even if I use sources unrelated to NIST, there is still agreement on temperatures required to weaken steel:

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel. However, in practice this is a very conservative assumption; low loads, the insulating effects of concrete slabs, the restraining effects of connections etc. mean that real failure temperatures can be as high as 750ºC or even higher for partially exposed members.
http://www.azobuild.com/details.asp?ArticleID=3621

In which case, the WTC buildings should not have failed, since it is estimated that the actual steel should never even have hit 700C if there was only a brief jet fuel fire followed by a bit of burning office material.


Lets also bear in mind that the aircraft damaged much of the structural support and shifted a lot of weight on to what supports remained

In one of the towers, the jets' damage was about 1% of the structural support in the floors it hit. Not exactly a lot of damage.


The effects of fire damage were also seen in WTC5 which suffered internal collapse due to "normal office fires".

I must admit I haven't heard much of WTC5, although I think I may have heard that explosives were used there as well.


Again, it would be easy for truthers to debunk any of this with an experiment using a supporting beam similar to that of the WTC and subjected to the same amount of heat. All they have to do is show how much strength was lost in the steel.

If it were so easy, I'm sure it would have been done. But then, for all I know, it has been done.

[scott3x]

He then offers a far more plausible cause of the WTC collapses:

[quote]Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly.

With the tiny unfortunate complication that the towers didn't fall from the bottom.

Why do you cite these idiots, Scott?

These are scientists, like you. I don't see why you have to insult them. While normal controlled demolitions start at the bottom, it isn't impossible to start one further up.

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
It seems this whole bent steel thing is really just distracting us from the point.

Because it now appears that the loss of structural strength aptly explains the collapse of the Towers?

Regardless of how much certain NIST individuals would like us to believe this, it does nothing of the sort.

[scott3x]

Ok, after doing a little research, I have once again affirmed that there is lots of statements that there was molten steel:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

One thing that becomes obvious is that many of those quotes say metal and not steel. It’s interesting that people refer to things that are “molten” when they are clearly still solid. The fact that it may be red hot is enough to fool the layman into saying it’s “molten”. The layman will also be fooled into saying that molten material is molten steel. How did they know it is steel?

Steven Jones actually seems to have the same concern; it seems he believes it could be iron instead of steel. But there's lots of evidence that it wasn't aluminium anyway.


Secondly, what makes you think that bombs or thermate would be responsible? Bombs are instantaneous, and I’m sure you’ll agree that there wasn’t enough thermate used to continue a several month long reaction.

Actually, apparently thermate can react for quite a long time. I read it somewhere, but not sure where now. Anyway, as to why I think it was explosives, Steven Jones says it best:

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire… ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored — but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones


Still claiming that the WTC fell in free fall speed? 15 seconds for tower 2 and over 20 seconds for tower 1 are not free fall. Please stop repeating this lie.

You're right, not free fall. But almost free fall.


The NIST computer models were based upon the fires, temperature and visible bowing of the tower. They tweaked the computer models to see if the heat and temperatures could account for the bowing effect that was seen and its eventual failure. And what d’yknow? They were right.

You're clearly not reading what Steven Jones said. You ever seen what you can do to, say, the picture of a face on a computer? You can distort it beyond recognition. You can certainly do the same when it comes to computer models of fires in buildings and they certainly did so. I advise you to read more carefully what Steven Jones has said. The fact that he was put on paid leave in the university he was working in, perhaps hoping to get the types of grants that were promised if only Steven Jones would stop researching this uncomfortable subject, does not disgrace him one bit; if anything, it only adds fuel to the fire that the government badly wanted to get him out of his post. Anyway, I again quote part of what I quoted to you before, in the hopes that you actually read what he says this time instead of focusing on the fact that certain government officials didn't like the research he was doing:

Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all).

Read their report and stop going on second hand information that has been skewed by a disgraced professor.

I've checked their report to confirm bits that Steven Jones has said. For me, that's quite enough; I'm not interested in reading more disinformation.

[scott3x]

He then offers a far more plausible cause of the WTC collapses:
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

You really are making this too easy for me.

Let me start with his claim about columns being cut. In the above quote he claims explosives cut them, but this is a contradiction on his thermate claims. Was it explosives, or was it thermate? If it was explosives then once again we are faced with the conundrum of silent explosions. Find me an explosive that can cut these beams and not be heard for miles.

If I recall correctly, he believes that both thermate and explosives were used.


As for the squibs; well this is really easy to debunk. The ‘squibs’ seen in videos of the collapse are very slow, which would be consistent with the compressed air being forced out.

Steven Jones has already dealt with that argument:
4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones


Then he talks about thermite being used to cut beams seen at ground zero. Well this is perhaps the easiest to be debunked of all his claims. I recommend you watch this video which shows multiple beams being cut in the recovery effort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-MEKpLmWtA

Alright, I'll let the beams thing alone for now.


It’s also worth mentioning that if the first image in that video was molten steel, then how are fire fighters able to keep their face directly over the hole? I shouldn’t need to tell you that temperatures required to keep steel molten are immense, therefore the last thing you are going to do is hover your face above it.

I'll see if I can find out regarding that.

[KennyJC]

I don't see why we have to disagree here. The issue is what caused those immense temperatures. This is where we disagree.

Fire. Office fires can burn up to 1800 degrees, and the expert Headspin put forward who inspected the WTC steel describes that this temperature was enough to cause the steel to become distorted.

I would be interested to hear exactly what could have caused the bowing if it wasn't the heat from the fires. I'm all ears...

How many of those 125,000 spoke up for the official theory? And of those, how many were being paid by the government to do so?

Nobody was paid to falsify scientific evidence. This is yet another baseless farfetched claim on your part.

In which case, the WTC buildings should not have failed, since it is estimated that the actual steel should never even have hit 700C if there was only a brief jet fuel fire followed by a bit of burning office material.

Subject any steel to 1800 degrees atmospheric temperature whilst it is supporting a lot of weight, and it will fail. Prove me wrong.

In one of the towers, the jets' damage was about 1% of the structural support in the floors it hit. Not exactly a lot of damage.

Bullshit.

For the north tower, 15% of the perimeter columns and 13% of the core columns were severed with many more damaged.

For the south tower 14% of the perimeter columns and 21% of the core columns were severed with many more damaged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

And then you have fires up to 1832 degrees softening the naked steel.

I must admit I haven't heard much of WTC5, although I think I may have heard that explosives were used there as well.

LOL

If it were so easy, I'm sure it would have been done. But then, for all I know, it has been done.

You're right, the effects of fire on steel are well understood. Hence the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue that weakened steel was to blame for the collapse.

[shaman_]

In which case, the WTC buildings should not have failed, since it is estimated that the actual steel should never even have hit 700C ...which you keep repeating but this is blatantly false.

[scott3x]

Not everyone agrees with Manning’s criticism.
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering_letter.html

Granted. However, many do and continue to do so.


There may have been criticisms of the investigation but the steel was investigated. It wasn’t spirited away and it wasn’t hidden. Experts looked at it and found nothing suspicious.

Some experts on the government payroll, yes. However, many experts -not- on the government payroll have found many things to be suspicious about.


They misrepresent the physics of fires. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:
Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF ... Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF ... And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent. Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

Who is misrepresenting the physics?

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

At the bottom.

“So I went to the website of Corus Construction Co, and found a section in their Research area that said this about the difference in temperatures between steel and atmosphere:

"With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C."

So the tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity.

I just thought it was a pretty striking example of dishonesty….”

For starters, debunking911.com doesn't realize that celsius and fahrenheit are not the same thing. Secondly, you will note that they only mention "typical unprotected beams". My theory is that the WTC buildings were not typical buildings. I've even heard that there is some dispute as to how much of the steel was uninsulated, but in this case, the testing done was on uninsulated steel so it's not a factor. The most important point here, ofcourse, is that the same company that allegedly says (he doesn't provide a link) With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C

is the one that, in the particular case of the WTC buildings, says In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF

[shaman_]

Granted. However, many do and continue to do so.

Some experts on the government payroll, yes. However, many experts -not- on the government payroll have found many things to be suspicious about.and their work has been debunked.

Abolhassan Astaneh is by the way a university professor.


For starters, debunking911.com doesn't realize that celsius and fahrenheit are not the same thing. So he does. Why aren't Americans on the damn metric system?


Secondly, you will note that they only mention "typical unprotected beams". My theory is that the WTC buildings were not typical buildings. I've even heard that there is some dispute as to how much of the steel was uninsulated, but in this case, the testing done was on uninsulated steel so it's not a factor. The most important point here, ofcourse, is that the same company that allegedly says (he doesn't provide a link)

is the one that, in the particular case of the WTC buildings, saysThat number is not in reference to WTC.

What was the atmosphere temperature?

Let's look at some other tests I found with a quick search. These are from a conspiracy site so they are possibly going to be the least significant results.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

There are a couple of tests there where the atmosphere temperature is around 1000C and the steel temperature is over 900C.

The point is that a fire that reaches 1000C can heat steel above 590C point where it reaches approx 50% strength. According to NIST it is at less than 10% around 982C.

Don't forget you posted a link to an overpass that collapsed simply from the fire caused by a gas tanker crashing. To say that the steel couldn't get hot enough to weaken and bend is false.

[Miragememories]

"Bullshit.

For the north tower, 15% of the perimeter columns and 13% of the core columns were severed with many more damaged.

For the south tower 14% of the perimeter columns and 21% of the core columns were severed with many more damaged.

And then you have fires up to 1832 degrees softening the naked steel."

Please don't state your data as factual when most of it is based on unproven NIST hypotheses.

Yes, we can observe the perimeter column damage but core column damage is
all speculative.

20 minute office fires are not going to create sustained high temperatures long enough to seriously cripple the fire-proofed structural steel.

WTC2 (South Tower) collapsed 56 minutes after aircraft impact!

The steel was not proven to be "naked".

NIST assumed that the spray on fireproofing must have been mostly removed by the aircraft impacts because their computer simulated collapse initiation
could not succeed otherwise.

MM

[GeoffP]

I agree that popularity doesn't mean rightness. But I do think that someone who has a sizeable following shouldn't be ignored, if only so that an attempt can be made to edify the following in question.

Fair enough.

He has beliefs and goals, as do we all. If you want to call that an 'agenda', fine, but then we all have agendas.

Well, the issue is science and reason, not agenda. If I as a scientist had an agenda with respect to a particular research question, I wouldn't be a very impartial judge of my own answer, would I?

I couldn't disagree with you more there.

See above.

He is, however, a physicist and the WTC collapses are definitely within the realm of physics. I think it's high time that people stop worrying so much about titles and start thinking of the presented evidence.

And I am a geneticist, but not a phylogeneticist. I'm not an expert in that branch of the field. My claims in that area, therefore, would deserve scrutiny from my peers who actually work there. And the "Journal of 9/11 Studies", I'm willing to wager, is probably not a particularly impartial publication.

Quantity does not equal quality, but can you even prove this claim of yours or is it a GeoffP (tm) statistic?

Ah. Unsubstantial ad homeinem mixed with red herring sauce. Tasty.

[GeoffP]

NIST assumed that the spray on fireproofing must have been mostly removed by the aircraft impacts because their computer simulated collapse initiation
could not succeed otherwise.

MM

A pretty bloody likely assumption given that the building was hit by an airplane at top speed.

[mike47]

9/11 tragic events require a full new inquiry to check what exactly happened that day . Of course the Administration version of events do not make sense and are full of lies and contradictions .

[Miragememories]

"NIST assumed that the spray on fireproofing must have been mostly removed by the aircraft impacts because their computer simulated collapse initiation could not succeed otherwise."

A pretty bloody likely assumption given that the building was hit by an airplane at top speed.

Exactly!

Pretty bloody unlikely because the bulk of the aircraft's destructive energy
was used up breaking through the perimeter columns.

I suggest you investigate how NIST reached this assumption rather than allowing
yourself to be convinced by the "shock 'n awe" of those spectacular aircraft
impacts.

MM

[GeoffP]

Exactly!

Pretty bloody unlikely because the bulk of the aircraft's destructive energy
was used up breaking through the perimeter columns.

I suggest you investigate how NIST reached this assumption rather than allowing
yourself to be convinced by the "shock 'n awe" of those spectacular aircraft
impacts.

MM

Actually, you have taken the opposite view to me. I suggest you review the evidence before you assume that NIST doesn't know what it's talking about. It's amazing that all the airplane's energy was used up just on the perimeter, especially when parts of it burst out the other side of the buildings. Or maybe that was an exploding Mac.

[Miragememories]

Actually, you have taken the opposite view to me. I suggest you review the evidence before you assume that NIST doesn't know what it's talking about. It's amazing that all the airplane's energy was used up just on the perimeter, especially when parts of it burst out the other side of the buildings. Or maybe that was an exploding Mac.
Maybe this more detailed examination of the NIST's insulation removal hypothesis will satisfy you?

From a presentation by Kevin Ryan

" Fireproofing widely dislodged?

The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could have knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.

NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1

** Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
* Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
* For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area

**Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT"

MM

[GeoffP]

Maybe this more detailed examination of the NIST's insulation removal hypothesis will satisfy you?

Yes. It satisfies me that it's possible. You're making the assumption that "most" or all of the fireproofing was removed. This wouldn't need to be true. And, frankly, a 747 hitting a building sure sounds like the power of thousands of shotgun blasts to me, besides carrying more sheer weight.

[KennyJC]

Please don't state your data as factual when most of it is based on unproven NIST hypotheses.

Yes, it managed to make a large hole in the WTC and somehow all the core columns were perfectly intact... In cartoon land maybe.

Yes, we can observe the perimeter column damage but core column damage is all speculative.

And yet they didn't pull the answer out of their ass as can be seen by the hundreds of pages written about the aircraft impact alone.

20 minute office fires are not going to create sustained high temperatures long enough to seriously cripple the fire-proofed structural steel.

20 minutes? Huh? Fire proofed? Huh? Do you even know how NIST arrived at its temperature models on each floor?

Do you really expect me to believe that the fire proofing remained on the steel around the impact area after it was hit by a 767 at 500mph and the explosion that followed? We're back to cartoon troofer physics once again.

WTC2 (South Tower) collapsed 56 minutes after aircraft impact!

So? It's well understood by experts why the south tower was first to go.

The steel was not proven to be "naked".

I don't know about that, but I think some common sense can be applied here to assume much of the steel in the impacted area was either naked, severed, damaged, weakened by high temperatures if not all of the above.

But NIST went beyond that and detailed their calculations for their conclusions.

NIST assumed that the spray on fireproofing must have been mostly removed by the aircraft impacts because their computer simulated collapse initiation could not succeed otherwise.

Firstly, it is logical that the fireproofing was removed.

Secondly, if their models didn't work with all the fireproofing intact, then they would have tried the simulation without the fireproofing and I guess that's when they got the result that the building would have collapsed.

I really ought to read the 10,000 page NIST report sometime...

[Miragememories]

"Please don't state your data as factual when most of it is based on unproven NIST hypotheses."
"Yes, it managed to make a large hole in the WTC and somehow all the core columns were perfectly intact... In cartoon land maybe."

I'm not questioning damage to the core columns.

I'm questioning the accuracy of conclusions that are overly dependent on the output from computer modeling software.

The most advanced version of the WTC software was used in the Final WTC7 Draft Report.

Did you watch NIST's video output from their Final Model?

It supposedly shows the true collapse shape for a building with WTC7's dimensions.

NIST's report editors expect the public to believe that WTC7 folded up because column 79 failed and less than a second later, columns 80 and 81 failed as well.

WTC7 was a huge, 47-story building, a totally interconnected, steel framework.

It's floors were the size of football fields.

NIST is arguing that with the collapse of the east penthouse, WTC7 was engulfed by a major 7 second internal collapse, that outwardly showed nothing more than a few broken windows.

During this 7 second period, the entire north face remained completely stable.

MM

[KennyJC]

WTC7 was more enigmatic than the WTC 1 + 2 towers, which is what troofers love. You love the fact you can not see what was happening inside the tower as the fires raged for 8 hours. I see no reason to be suspicious about why it collapsed, especially in light of quotes from firefighters who described its deteriorating state and eventually pulled away from it.

The problem is that you don't have an alternative theory that makes any sense. It's unproven that it is possible to bring a building like that down with thermite, and if explosives are your preference, then you have to explain why there was no explosion heard for miles in the moment before it collapsed.

[GeoffP]

Yeah: why are there these massive explosions when thermite actually goes hiss, not boom?

:rolleyes:

[Miragememories]

"20 minute office fires are not going to create sustained high temperatures long enough to seriously cripple the fire-proofed structural steel."
"20 minutes? Huh? Fire proofed? Huh?

Do you really expect me to believe that the fire proofing remained on the steel around the impact area after it was hit by a 767 at 500mph and the explosion that followed? We're back to cartoon troofer physics once again."

The 20 minute figure is NIST's and they make reference to it in both the WTC Collapse Final Report and in their August 2008 WTC7 Final Draft Report.

We know the structural steel was fireproofed.

We also know that a normal expectation would have a debris spray moving forward in the direction of the original aircraft impacts, striking only what's directly in it's path.

SFRM coated the core columns and floor trusses on all exposed sides of the steel, and not just the steel lying directly in the debris path.

The greatest damage to SFRM coated structural steel occurred in the area of the greatest impact.

Interestingly, NIST says it was the opposite side of the building in WTC1, and the east wall of WTC 2, that were the hottest.

Case in point the woman standing in the gaping entrance hole to WTC1 (North Tower).

MM

[KennyJC]

The 20 minute figure is NIST's and they make reference to it in both the WTC Collapse Final Report and in their August 2008 WTC7 Final Draft Report.

What specifically do they say about the 20 minute figure? We know that all buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were on fire for longer than 20 minutes.

We know the structural steel was fireproofed.

We also know that a normal expectation would have a debris spray moving forward in the direction of the original aircraft impacts, striking only what's directly in it's path.

SFRM coated the core columns and floor trusses on all exposed sides of the steel, and not just the steel lying directly in the debris path.

The greatest damage to SFRM coated structural steel occurred in the area of the greatest impact.

With or without fireproofing, the floor trusses sagged. A sign that the steel was losing strength. Guess what... this is exactly where the collapse was initiated. Mystery over.

Interestingly, NIST says it was the opposite side of the building in WTC1, and the east wall of WTC 2, that were the hottest.

Case in point the woman standing in the gaping entrance hole to WTC1 (North Tower).

Would you expect any different? The aircraft piled combustable office materials to the far end of the building and it's no surprise this is where fires were more intense. And of course, there were pockets where people would not have been killed by the heat.

[Miragememories]

"The 20 minute figure is NIST's and they make reference to it in both the WTC Collapse Final Report and in their August 2008 WTC7 Final Draft Report."
"What specifically do they say about the 20 minute figure? We know that all buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were on fire for longer than 20 minutes."
Have you read any of NIST's work or are you just echoing what you hear from others?

In the case of WTC 7, NIST said; "Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 (4.0 lb/ft2 on Floors 7 to 9 and 6.4 lb/ft2 on Floors 11 to 13) persisted in any given location for approximately 20 minutes to 30 minutes."

If you can't understand the significance of that NIST statement, then there is little point in responding to you.

"We know the structural steel was fireproofed.

We also know that a normal expectation would have a debris spray moving forward in the direction of the original aircraft impacts, striking only what's directly in it's path.

SFRM coated the core columns and floor trusses on all exposed sides of the steel, and not just the steel lying directly in the debris path.

The greatest damage to SFRM coated structural steel occurred in the area of the greatest impact."
"With or without fireproofing, the floor trusses sagged. A sign that the steel was losing strength. Guess what... this is exactly where the collapse was initiated. Mystery over."
It's a sign that the steel floor trusses were expanding from heat and bending downward as this expansion was resisted by the stronger columns. The trusses were pushing against the columns but unless hot enough to lose their rigidity, would not pull on the columns.

You can't "suck and blow" at the same time.

The trusses did not begin acting like hanging chains.

"Interestingly, NIST says it was the opposite side of the building in WTC1, and the east wall of WTC 2, that were the hottest.

Case in point the woman standing in the gaping entrance hole to WTC1 (North Tower). "
"Would you expect any different? The aircraft piled combustable office materials to the far end of the building and it's no surprise this is where fires were more intense. And of course, there were pockets where people would not have been killed by the heat."
Yes but you've been arguing that the SFRM removal was concentrated in the area of the aircraft impacts.

KennyJC: "Do you really expect me to believe that the fire proofing remained on the steel around the impact area after it was hit by a 767 at 500mph and the explosion that followed? We're back to cartoon troofer physics once again....I think some common sense can be applied here to assume much of the steel in the impacted area was either naked, severed, damaged, weakened by high temperatures if not all of the above."

There is little reasonable argument to support the removal of SFRM in the areas where NIST estimated the greatest heat and fire occurrences.

The SFRM coated steel in those WTC 1 and WTC 2 locations, should have withstood their respective 102 minute and 56 minute fire durations.

MM

[Miragememories]

"WTC7...You love the fact you can not see what was happening inside the tower as the fires raged for 8 hours."


The fires in WTC 7 were ignited as a result of the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was approximately 370 ft to the south."
NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation xxxi

Your statement in effect claims that fires were raging in WTC7 at 9:30 am on 9/11?

" I see no reason to be suspicious about why it collapsed, especially in light of quotes from firefighters who described its deteriorating state and eventually pulled away from it."


Individual firefighters made similar statements about One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991.

They didn't collapse.

To put it simply, the firefighters meant well, but their statements were not backed up by any experience that would make them credible.

Prior to 9/11, not a single firefighter, anywhere, had witnessed a modern steel building collapse, yet they forecast that outcome for WTC7.

The initial message warning about an expected WTC7 collapse came from the FDNY brass and not vice versa.

"The problem is that you don't have an alternative theory that makes any sense. It's unproven that it is possible to bring a building like that down with thermite, and if explosives are your preference, then you have to explain why there was no explosion heard for miles in the moment before it collapsed."


Untrue.

NIST claims the single failure of column 79 in WTC7 was sufficient to initiate the complete collapse of WTC7.

This is well within the ability of thermite and it's derivatives.

MM

[GeoffP]

Which don't go boom.

[KennyJC]

In the case of WTC 7, NIST said; "Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 (4.0 lb/ft2 on Floors 7 to 9 and 6.4 lb/ft2 on Floors 11 to 13) persisted in any given location for approximately 20 minutes to 30 minutes."

If you can't understand the significance of that NIST statement, then there is little point in responding to you.

Well since we can rule out explosives and thermite, I'm just gonna have to assume that the temperatures surrounding the columns were sufficient to cause the collapse. Call it occams razor.

It's a sign that the steel floor trusses were expanding from heat and bending downward as this expansion was resisted by the stronger columns. The trusses were pushing against the columns but unless hot enough to lose their rigidity, would not pull on the columns.

You can't "suck and blow" at the same time.

The trusses did not begin acting like hanging chains.

The collapse initiated from where the floor trusses were sagging and the perimeter columns were bowing. Mystery over.

Yes but you've been arguing that the SFRM removal was concentrated in the area of the aircraft impacts.

There is little reasonable argument to support the removal of SFRM in the areas where NIST estimated the greatest heat and fire occurrences.

The SFRM coated steel in those WTC 1 and WTC 2 locations, should have withstood their respective 102 minute and 56 minute fire durations.

Yet there was still large damage caused by the plane in the areas worst affected by fires.

Your statement in effect claims that fires were raging in WTC7 at 9:30 am on 9/11?

They were burning from early in the morning up until the building collapsed. Firefighters state that the fires got worse as the day went on.

Individual firefighters made similar statements about One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991.

They didn't collapse.

One shoe does not fit all. Different structures, different circumstances.

To put it simply, the firefighters meant well, but their statements were not backed up by any experience that would make them credible.

Prior to 9/11, not a single firefighter, anywhere, had witnessed a modern steel building collapse, yet they forecast that outcome for WTC7.

The initial message warning about an expected WTC7 collapse came from the FDNY brass and not vice versa.

Hayden:...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

I could use quotes like this from multiple firefighters all day long. They were so confident that it would collapse that they put an evacuation zone around the building, and what do ya know? It collapsed a couple of hours later.

Untrue.

NIST claims the single failure of column 79 in WTC7 was sufficient to initiate the complete collapse of WTC7.

A critical column failure can effect columns around it as the load is redistributed, and a domino effect can ensue.

This is well within the ability of thermite and it's derivatives.

I'm still waiting for it to be proven thermite can cut thick steel columns horizontally and remotely.

I know you're probably gonna show me the device that does this on Youtube to a peice of steel (allegedly steel) that is an inch thick... but lets see it possible with a large steel column like the kind in WTC7.

Lets also bear in mind we can rule out explosives since no explosives were heard.

[GeoffP]

Have you read any of NIST's work or are you just echoing what you hear from others?

In the case of WTC 7, NIST said; "Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 (4.0 lb/ft2 on Floors 7 to 9 and 6.4 lb/ft2 on Floors 11 to 13) persisted in any given location for approximately 20 minutes to 30 minutes."

This point is a little nebulous. What are we meant to infer from it?

It's a sign that the steel floor trusses were expanding from heat and bending downward as this expansion was resisted by the stronger columns. The trusses were pushing against the columns but unless hot enough to lose their rigidity, would not pull on the columns.

So you're telling me that the heat from the fire was enough to expand the steel, but not melt or bow it. This seems to be conjecture. Also, precisely and specifically what do you mean by "bending downward"? Describe this process.

You can't "suck and blow" at the same time.

The trusses did not begin acting like hanging chains.

For one, I have no idea what this means. I don't think Kenny is implying in any way that the beams started to hang, but that they bent under weight from above.

There is little reasonable argument to support the removal of SFRM in the areas where NIST estimated the greatest heat and fire occurrences.

Frankly, all that is required is a specific hot zone in a specific damaged area of a truss. Whether the average was higher on one side of the building or another is not completely helpful. Moreover, what was that heat? And what was it on the near side, where the truss bent and failed? Sufficient to cause loss of structural integrity?

I firmly expect Ganymede to pop back in within the hour to denouce this appalling display of rationality and perspective.

[Fungezoid]

I made some calculations, and the force of the jet's impact plus the temperature of the burning jet fuel minus the temperature decreasing properties of the flame retardant, and I found that the steel support columns in the center would have broken under the stress. No thermite required. No sabotage required. Maybe Bush isn't evil after all.

[GeoffP]

Aha! But maybe he knew all that, and that's why he crashed the plane into the Towers.

Take that, Mr. Science and Reason Lover.

[Miragememories]

"NIST's estimated highest achieved gas temperatures DO NOT represent the temperature reached by the structural steel.

"Do you even know how NIST arrived at its temperature models on each floor?"
Yes, but you apparently don't.

In 2004, NIST had Underwriters Labs run floor model tests. After 2 hours in a test furnace maintaining a constant 2000F temperature, the floor assembly sagged 3 inches.
In this testing, NIST doubled the known WTC load and used far less fire proofing than was known to exist.

We do know that, at the time the towers were designed, the NYC code called for three hours of fire resistance for the floor assemblies, and four hours of fire resistance for the columns.

MM

[Miragememories]

"WTC2 (South Tower) collapsed 56 minutes after aircraft impact!"
"So? It's well understood by experts why the south tower was first to go."

So?

Unquestionably, the initial ball of flame also ignited areas of office furnishings.

But, less than ten minutes into each of the twin tower's timelines, all the aviation fuel was spent,
and half of the initial office furnishing's fires would be nearing their half-life.

But what the NIST report writers never properly explain, is the justification for accepting as adequate, NIST's SFRM removal tests.

Testing which was critical to their belief in a major failure to a critical number of fully SFRM coated main floor and column assemblies.

The massive core columns protected floor trusses and columns from the impacts of the heaviest and strongest parts of each aircraft.

The initial aircraft impact would have pushed forward a large volume of air that would have pushed down partitions and thrust office furnishings forward.

It would clear large floor areas removing fuel for fire.

These blown office furnishings would also be part of the debris immediately exiting out the back windows of each tower and all the fluttering paper.

According to the references used by NIST, fires should have no heating effect on the SFRM protected steel for a minimum of 2 hours.

The NIST would have to be well aware how critical it was to their simulation- supported theory, that the steel became over-heated in the known timeline.

Because the very adhesive SFRM had to be almost all removed to make the simulation work, that appeared to be all the justification the NIST required to accept unsatisfactory testing.

But a 56 minute timeline and you say "So?"

MM

[KennyJC]

Yes, but you apparently don't.

In 2004, NIST had Underwriters Labs run floor model tests. After 2 hours in a test furnace maintaining a constant 2000F temperature, the floor assembly sagged 3 inches.
In this testing, NIST doubled the known WTC load and used far less fire proofing than was known to exist.

What's your point? The sagging and bowing in the WTC was more than 3 inches, therefore these tests did not replicate what was going on in the WTC.

Also, are you trying to say that something suspicious was causing the extra sagging/bowing in the WTC? I fail to see how thermite or whatever else from your imagination could account for it.

We do know that, at the time the towers were designed, the NYC code called for three hours of fire resistance for the floor assemblies, and four hours of fire resistance for the columns.

That is, if a 500mph airliner doesn't smash into the building and remove the fire proofing.

Unquestionably, the initial ball of flame also ignited areas of office furnishings.

But, less than ten minutes into each of the twin tower's timelines, all the aviation fuel was spent, and half of the initial office furnishing's fires would be nearing their half-life.

And yet it was hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel as is clear by photographs.

The initial aircraft impact would have pushed forward a large volume of air that would have pushed down partitions and thrust office furnishings forward.

Yes, much debris was seen exiting the other side of the tower with great force. Force great enough - you could say - to remove fire protection from the steel.

According to the references used by NIST, fires should have no heating effect on the SFRM protected steel for a minimum of 2 hours.

Again, the steel was witnessed to be weakening due to the temperatures. Has the penny dropped yet? The steel had insufficient fire protection.

Because the very adhesive SFRM had to be almost all removed to make the simulation work, that appeared to be all the justification the NIST required to accept unsatisfactory testing.

Their model worked because fire protection was removed by a 200 ton bullet.

But a 56 minute timeline and you say "So?"

Because that's what happened. There is nothing suspicious about how the towers fell. The fact that there is no controversy about this amongst experts should tell you that.

[scott3x]

I think the real losers are the truthers. Not only have they failed to convince historians, demolition experts, civil engineers etc. but their membership is in sharp decline.

I haven't heard any historians disagreeing with the official story, but that's certainly not the case with demolition and engineering experts. From Steven Jones "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":

In a paper by fire-engineering experts in the UK, we find:

The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire… However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)


You know how many truthers turned out at their most important rally of the year? 150.

Evidence isn't measured by how many people turn up at a rally. I support alternate 9/11 theories, and yet I certainly didn't go to New York to say so. I personally find that the best place to communicate such things is to people willing to listen. You may disagree with what I have to say, but atleast you're listening to it.


As for being a spook... I really wish I was. Being a secret agent sounds a little more glamorous than my day job.

Laugh :-p. Mind telling me what your day job is?

[scott3x]

:p:p:p It's a total waste debating him, I see It didn't take them long to realize what a dishonest debater that guy really is.

They didn't accuse him of dishonesty; they accused him of offensiveness.


The best thing to do is ignore him. He's not here to have an honest discussion, he's only here to push the Governments unprovavble version of the facts..

I personally believe that he's here to express what he believes. Which is really the same reason I'm here.


We're having a great debate on Abovetopsecret.com, and they don't allow name calling there, a great place for adults to have a discussion.

I must admit I really do wish that Kenny would be more civil at times... but at the same time I recognize that he's helped my ability to counter 9/11 official story arguments. It may be that Kenny is incapable of being civil enough to stay in truther forums, but if you stay in truther forums, you don't get the rich amount of official story arguments that need to be worked on. Anyway, if you're in an interesting debate on abovetopsecret.com, by all means send me a PM with the link ;-).