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

Associating the Reichstag fire with 9/11

One of the meanings for 'associate' is: "to join or connect together". I'm definitely connecting the Reichstag fire with what happened on 9/11. I believe that both were inside jobs and I'm trying to persuade you that inside jobs of this nature have been done before.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why must thousands be involved?

You keep on mentioning this 'thousands'. The thing is, I'm not sure that thousands had to be involved. Not even sure if it had to be hundreds.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uranium burns hot enough to melt steel and is fairly easy to set on fire itself. Maybe they were storing depleted uranium down there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where is -what- true? The discreditation of the 'diesel fuel' story? If so, here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/wtc-7-report-response-round-up.html

 

511 unambiguous experts; you can check out their credentials for yourself:
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

You don't have to sign the petition to see their credentials.

To find that out, someone would have to determine a fair way of knowing who is at the 'top of their field' and then take a look at the list and see who qualifies. But Kenny, atleast 9/11 alternate theory believers -have- such a list. The official story side doesn't even have that, let alone how many of them are at the 'top of their field'.

In your dreams Kenny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Just because more aren't on the list doesn't mean they support the official theory. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Apart from the fact that I'm sure not all architects and engineers have even heard of it or are all that interested in signing such a petition, I can easily imagine that many don't want to show their support for the truth movement because they are afraid that they might lose their positions as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan did.

Eventually yes. 50 years after the first scientist declared that humans were causing global warming, consensus seems to have been reached...

Actually, it's fairly common knowledge. Steven Jones had some experience with this before 9/11. Here is an excerpt from an article he wrote titled "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method":

**************************************
My next paper on muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Physical Review Letters, was strongly challenged.4

I traveled to UC-Berkeley to defend the collaboration’sconclusions in that paper, much as I am doing today.1 We recorded a very small “muon-alpha sticking coefficient,” which had a consequence
that a much higher fusion energy yield was realized than had been theoretically predicted. One of the physicists at Berkeley said “you can’t possibly be right; you are challenging J. David Jackson,” which I was! Now those of you who know Jackson know that he was one of the top theoretical physicists of his day. Jackson had looked at this muon-alpha sticking coefficient and predicted that it would be around 1%. Then we did the experiment for the first time and we measured this parameter in a liquid deuterium-tritium mixture, we found a sticking value of about 0.42%, roughly a factor of two smaller than predicted by Jackson. We were told that it couldn’t possibly be correct, but we couldn’t just back down from our experimental measurements! (History repeats itself as I talk now about the probable use of thermite-analogs in the WTC buildings, unwilling to back down from carefully measured empirical findings.)
**************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf , page 2

 

You only had to scroll up the page scott.

http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Ah yes you are dazzled by qualifications when they believe in conspiracies. More appropriately qualified people who support the official story can easily be discarded as NIST types.

I doubt you actually read it. Anyway as discussed Ryan Mackay responds to that.

Mackay's document is the best analysis of all of Dr Griffin's half baked claims.

 

Were were discussing molten steel though.

The temperature was right for molten aluminum.

NIST reported "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

Don't you agree that there would have been molten aluminium in the WTC?

 

Then you haven't had a good think about it.

According to you there are at least 120 or so at the pentagon who lied about the plane. That is just the beginning.

http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm
This page is a little facetious but it is something for you to think about.

 

I've given my theories for this...

The who is answered somewhere (don't have the source on that right now though) and I believe the why is that they wanted to find out the truth.

Are you sure they even -knew- each other before the attacks?

How are you so sure he wouldn't? I'm guessing you have evidence that someone has actually asked for samples?

The only thing I'm thinking of is that perhaps he's afraid of losing the samples forever. If only the official investigators had taken more samples, instead of getting rid of so much so fast (relatively speaking)...

 

I took the first thing he said and have already pigeonholed it. He certainly doesn't get off to a good start:
****************************************
Merely stating that it was a "controlled demolition" is not enough for any meaningful discussion.
****************************************

Jim Hoffman already discredited this notion of his. The fact that he seems to be blind to his refutation makes one wonder how carefully Mackey actually read Jim Hoffman's work...
****************************************
In fact Dr. Griffin has made a compelling case for controlled demolition with a series of inductive and deductive arguments. In Chapter 2 of Omissions and Distortions Griffin makes the persuasive inductive argument, summarized below, based on the fact that the destruction of each of the WTC skyscrapers exhibited ten "standard features" of controlled demolitions. He provides a much more detailed exposition of this argument and provides many additional arguments in the 2005 essay The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True, which is reproduced in the 2006 book Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11. In contrast, Chapter 3 of Debunking 9/11 Debunking is framed as a refutation of NIST's theory. It appears disingenuous of Mackey to fault Griffin for not making a case for controlled demolition, when he does so very explicitly in other works that Mackey could have found with the most cursory research; and when Chapter 3 does indeed make such a case, if in a less direct manner.
****************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html



Mackey continues:
****************************************
While Dr. Griffin has not attempted to answer any of these questions, Mr. Hoffman has. There are two relevant calculations elsewhere on his 9-11 Research website. The first [335], by Mr. Hoffman himself, discusses his estimate of energy requirements to destroy the Towers. He concludes that gravitational potential energy is insufficient, and there is a shortage of at least 2.7 million kilowatt hours, or 9.7 terajoules. If we suppose this energy was supplied by explosives, as he suggests, this requires 2,300 tons of TNT equivalent, or an explosive approximately one seventh as powerful as the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, even if we assume optimum efficiency.

This result is not credible.
***************************************

It seems that no one but Mackey is claiming that alternate story believers think there was a single 'explosive'. Alternate theorists are (as far as I know) united in the idea that multiple explosives were used.

 

The refutations are discussed towards the end of the document.

 

John Lear is a retired airliner pilot and son of Bill Lear of Motorola and Learjet fame. Mackey is a "research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft.". What he knows about airlines and their actions on 9/11 seems to be informed by JREF, not his own previous knowledge. And I learned that from an alternate theory debunking site:
http://www.911myths.com/html/ryan_mackey.html

With certain NIST individuals involved in propagating the official story, there is no question that they know -tons- regarding nanothermite. For them, I think it's clear that they're simply lying. In Ryan Mackey's case, however, I can easily believe that he's simply relying on information posted in an alternate story debunking site.

I read some of it and can certainly read more as time goes by. From what I've read so far, he discredits Mackey handily.

 

That was his refutation towards the end of the document. I was quoting from Apendix D (page 238 to be precise). When I said that he certainly hadn't gotten off to a good start, I meant a good start in his latest refutation, which starts in Apendix D.

 

Alright, more towards the issue of molten steel as opposed to molten metal:
**************************************
First a little review.The dust Dr.Jones obtained from Mrs.McaNally's apartment, showed almost perfect spheres of iron of various diameters.Those spheres numbered in the billions.The analysis also showed sulfur levels about two orders of magnitude greater than what would have been present in the steel structure of the WTC Towers.Typically such steels contain 0.010 percent sulfur. Professor Jones' samples uniformly exceeded 0.15 percent sulfur.


Let us first look at what the spherical shapes and the wide ranging diameters mean. The spherical shapes mean that the steel spheres froze from a liquid state,the shape indicating that the liquids surface tension conferred the spherical shape.

The large number of sizes of these spheres indicate that the liquid from which they were formed were subjected to high pressures that atomized the molten steel.In fact such molten metal atomization is a very common method of making steel or iron powders.
**************************************
http://www.progressiveindependent.c...opic_id=9270&mesg_id=9270&listing_type=search

The following video clips show Michael Ware who is an assistant Professor from NIST, trying to recreate what was observed flowing out of WTC 2 just seconds before it collapsed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY


Apparently an official story defender did another test that seemed to vindicate the 'molten aluminum claim'. He failed. Jerry Lobdill, in his "Molten What?" article, explains why:
**************************************
Dr. Wood has claimed that the liquid metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of WTC-2 could be aluminum on the basis of her experiment, wherein a titanium ladle full of pure aluminum was heated until both the ladle and the liquid aluminum were orange hot. The aluminum, as it heated up, appeared to radiate with a less intense energy than the titanium, but the color was the same. As expected, the aluminum melted at 660 degrees Centigrade, and at that temperature the radiant spectrum and the emissivity of aluminum conspired to make the liquid aluminum appear silvery (no apparent glowing). As the temperature of the aluminum rose it began to glow with the same color as the ladle.

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum on the basis of Dr. Wood’s experiment is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum.

The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron.
**************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf

I'd think so (bits of the plane at the very least). But the above was clearly not part of that.

 

Neither this nor your following comments illustrate why someone send him this material a day after the attacks. This is highly unusual.

And how do you know it wasn't mixed with other materials?

By the by, I noticed this on nanothermite and why it isn't actually explosive:

Underwater explosive devices.

But that is not the same as evidence that the latter is an "inside job". I could bring up the literally thousands of islamic terrorist attacks since and before 9/11, but what would be the point? Even though they are far more common - including attacks on the WTC - they are not directly related to it. But perhaps I should mention this sort of thing more often.

Well, I believe you are incorrect. They would require people to deal with evidence at multiple crash sites, DNA evidence from all the passengers of the "crashed" airliners (which would require collaboration with those people, and/or their relatives).

That is speculation. "Unlikely" does not translate into "didn't happen". You yourself are pushing a similar scenario.

So they mailed it to an almost total unknown at Bring 'Em Young? Again: who did this? Why did they do it? Everything about this aspect of the case is starting to stink to high heaven.

This is what we need to find out. When did they know each other, and what did they know?

It's apparent.

Well, that simply can't be. If he's working with micro-samples, I think he should have enough to spare to give to NIST. A gram or so would be more than enough, I imagine. It also underscores the question: why did someone send him so much of this material in the first place? The whole thing begins to sound very fishy to me now. No validation and fortunate snail-mail.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

Y'all know..if we don't be careful...the mods just might move this thread to the "Linguistics" forum...since we're talking about word meanings so much.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yea no shit. I hate people that nitpick that crap. People understand the message that is being conveyed and instead of addressing the points they address the grammar mistakes. Its a bit silly.

 

First of all, can you cite where you got this 'day after' thing? I've been trying to find a reference to this 'day after' bit on google, but haven't found anything. Anyway, even if true, there are many plausible reasons. My guess is that it was a friend or atleast someone who trusted that Steven would analyze the sample and declare what he found regardless of what it would do to his career.

As I mentioned in my last post:
The following video clips show Michael Ware who is an assistant Professor from NIST, trying to recreate what was observed flowing out of WTC 2 just seconds before it collapsed. It's clear that he didn't get any 'orangy' glow until he held the torch directly in front of the aluminum while pouring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

Steven Jones did some experiments to try to test their theory as well with some others:
*****************************************
The day after reading the NIST fact sheet on-line, on 8/31/06, a group of us performed experiments to test this hypothesis -- that molten aluminum "mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) ... can display an orange glow," -- and we could NOT see any such orange glow in actual tests.

So we ask NIST to tell us how to do this trick -- how to get molten aluminum when poured out in daylight conditions, as at WTC2, to "display an orange glow."

(Even with organics mixed in with aluminum -- we did actual
experiments to test the NIST statement, and the experiments
demonstrated a silvery (not "orange") flow of liquid material. We observed that the organics tend to separate out from the aluminum, like oil separating from water).

A related question -- did NIST do any ACTUAL TESTS before issuing their Fact Sheet in August 2006, to determine whether molten aluminum "mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials" will actually display an orange glow?
*****************************************
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4542

 

Thermite vs. Nanothermite

I've already proven that nanothermite is explosive, but the proof is somewhere in this mighty tangle. I will if necessary attempt to fish it out (shiver), but I wish you'd just take my word for it this once. In any case, your article makes no mention of nanothermite, but it does mention nano aluminum and nano energetics. It also seems to be saying that -normal- aluminum powder produces incendiary effects; this is consistent with normal thermite. They seem to be saying that Nano aluminum is a material whose uses can -include- underwater explosive devices but by no means excludes other types.

 

you are stating an assertion that Jones had samples a day after the attacks. I'm calling you - Prove this assertion!

the discussion is whether such a mix would glow orange, not whether the metal was mixed with other things. NIST's response that other things caused its orange colour is speculation, not scientific and proven false scientifically.

the central claim that has spawned all the research is that the temperatures should not have been hot enough to melt steel or iron, so you are starting from a faulty premise.

This beggers belief!
you are suggesting it is not explosive because it is explosive...didn't you say you were a scientist?

You are acting like professor Jones is somehow selfishly guarding all the dust samples which is ridiculous. If NIST want to examine the dust, noone is stopping them, there were after all thousands of tons of the stuff spread all over new york! the story has been thus far that NIST do not want to examine the dust. Jones has been trying for years to get them to look at it but they are not interested. He has even offered some of his own samples. You should perhaps be a bit more sceptical of your own sources of information.

Because he put out a public call for samples in 2006. What on earth do you mean by "so much"?

not when you know the facts.