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

  1. #1461
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Another question: a day after the attack, Jones says someone sent him samples of dust and debris for analysis. To Jones. A fellow, according to Wiki, whose interests were:
    Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University.

    Jones' interests also extend to archaeometry, solar energy,[2][3] and, like many professors at BYU, archaeology and the Book of Mormon.[4] For example, he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas,[5] and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America.[6]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
    His current work was all on energy issues. Why exactly is someone sending him pieces of a collapsed building which is clearly an engineering issue? He'd been out of that work for 15 years before 9/11 and in Idaho, not New York State. This doesn't sound right at all.
    Geoff, the buildings were brought down via some form of energy, whether it was fire or whether it was a controlled demolition. Steven Jones also has a bit of a history of going to where the evidence leads, regardless of its political correctness. In one case, he challenged the theory of an eminent scientist; and proved to be right. But it took a decade before people felt this way. Perhaps it will take a decade before the majority of scientists believe him when it comes to his theories on 9/11. All I know is that despite the fact that he was essentially given the boot from the university where he was a professor for going against the official story grain, he is still going strong. And while people may criticize him for his religious beliefs (yes, I know, he believes that Jesus Christ made it to America, something that I think is dubious), I believe that sometimes it takes something like a belief in a higher power and in the virtues of what some call altruism to be so criticized and yet continue to repeat his findings.

  2. #1462
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    Do you think the government will interfere in matters of global warming and such like, and yet they wouldn't interfere with scientific issues concerning 9-11?
    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...s-condemn.html
    And did they succeed in covering up global warming? Ah, no. There is worldwide consensus on global warming. Do you think they can silence or derail the scientific community on matters regarding 9/11? Hundreds of thousands of experts at the top of their field who would be relevant to the collapse of the WTC and all you have is a handful of people who barely have any relevant expertise.
    Kenny, I am -very- curious as to where you are getting your numbers from. While I have seen a petition from Architects and Engineers saying they doubt the official story (511 and counting), I have never seen a similar list of architects and engineers who believe wholeheartedly in the official story. Or scientists for that matter. And yet, you apparently seem to be privy of such a list that includes hundreds of thousands of them. By all means, do share.

    In any case, yes, there is -finally- beginning to be a consensus on global warming. You know when the first scientist believed that the actions of humans was dramatically effecting the earth's climate? In the 1950s:
    http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx

    Those in the 9/11 truth movement can certainly hope that it doesn't take half a century before the majority of scientists finally agree that 9/11 was an inside job. After all, the internet didn't exist in the 1950s.. but perhaps a while yet.


    You know what; Stephen Jones has been debunked so much that it's not even worth reading what he has to say anymore.
    I know that there are some scientists that claim to debunk him. But let me put it to you this way; I've been debating with you and others here for over a month. And yet, despite all of this time, I have yet to persuade you guys that you're mistaken. You have likewise not been able to persuade me. What I'm getting at here is that the issues are complex. And if you are of a certain persuasion, you might easily be fooled into -believing- that he has been debunked, when, in fact, the arguments that supposedly debunked him where themselves flawed.
    Last edited by scott3x; 10-18-08 at 12:22 AM.

  3. #1463
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    No that's inaccuarte. in 2005 he had heard of the molten steel at the world trade centre from witnesses and first responders. he began studying it and in 2006 he was sent a molten metal sample from a piece of wtc steel. using XEDS he found it to be composed of the elements iron, aluminium, sulphur (and from memory other smaller amounts of manganese, potassium, copper and oxygen). this he hypothesized was thermite residue - which is the molten gunk produced from a thermite reaction. In 2007 he was sent a dust sample which was found to contain molten iron-alumino spheres, with other unusual elements. In 2008 he has now recieved 4 samles of dust which corroborate each other. USGS and RJ Lee also confirm the molten spheres but they have not studied them. In 2008, Jones has discovered nanothermite "chips" in the wtc dust as discussed in the 2 video clips.

    if that is the firefighter picture, it is not known when the picture was taken. He did not present that as evidence, it was presented to illustrate a hypothesis in an early presentation.

    you have been on the debunking sites too long. that is simply not he case. A professor does not get fired for "flawed" science. The academic world is not run by nazis. He retired because of political pressure put on BYU.
    He was put on paid leave because he was embarrassing his university by pushing flawed theories out on the internet that where outside his field of expertise. The engineering department at his own uni were certainly quick to denounce his work. If you want to call that politics and not someone making an arse of themselves then fine it was politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    I don't know how you could have missed it, it was pretty obvious in the 2 short video clips. see my post above.


    from the video clips:
    1st sample collected from apartment 1 week later
    2nd sample collected 3 days after event.
    3rd sample collected 1 day after
    4th sample colected on 9-11 within 20 minutes of towers collapse
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e



    he has had papers published and peer reviewed by relevant journals:
    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...1/35TOCIEJ.SGM
    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/ge...e=35TOCIEJ.pdf
    No that doesn't answer my question again. If he has these amazing 'smoking gun' samples then why isn't research being submitted? Why doesn't he give them to a scientist who is actually respected?

    The bentham paper only mentions that NIST didn't test for thermite as the last point. Well they didn't test for kryptonite either..... I think even you will admit that Bentham paper is pretty tame.


    Bentham is something of a sham journal if we are to believe the word of Ryan Mackay.
    http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

    "The author has confirmed through personal contact with the publisher and the editor-in-chief that this paper, in fact, was not properly peer-reviewed. To be more specific, the publisher and not the editorial board handled reviews, and the editor-in-chief was unable to acquire a list of the reviewers from the publisher afterwards. Regarding this paper, its strange treatment explains but does not excuse its contents. While also failing to articulate a hypothesis or in fact any solid criticism of the NIST Report, it nevertheless departs from ordinary scientific communications. It has no results or discussion; it includes of references to unreviewed and unreliable works, such as those in the journal of 9/11 Studies; and it features combative language including unsubstantiated allegations of negligence at NIST. "

    The article still makes claims about the towers being "essentially in free fall" and "No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…" ! How stupid are these people?


    An environmental journal? Thats it? According to you he has actual physical proof and this is all he does?

    A quick scan sees that he is still dishonestly quote mining Erik Swartz. Debunkers pointed that one out years ago... The guy is a crackpot.

    If this is the best the troothers can do after seven years then I think you guys need to find another conspiracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    I don't know what you mean by "keeps changing", investigation towards discovery is a process of change, unless of course you have the conclusions prior to investigation!
    That's my point. Jones most certainly has a conclusion here and is just taking what he can get as evidence to lead to his preconceived notion. This much was clear early on when he would only accept thermite as an explanation for the elements he found. It doesn't matter how many of his theories are debunked, or how many times people point out the problems in his work he will keep coming up with new ideas to push his beliefs. Did you read his first document? It was bad. Debunkers tore holes in it. Now he claims he has actual nanothermite in samples. A fool would just instantly accept what this guy says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    ...and the clip you used to make out jones didn't have anything peer reviewed was from 2006, barely a year after he started studying 911.
    Even still, if he actually had sound evidence on his side why was he so evasive? He was a scientist, he knows the deal with peer review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    from what i can tell the debunkers and most of the official theories have never been peer reviewed or published,
    What an odd thing to say.

    This is the only list I can find at the moment. It's from jref.

    "
    2001/12 - Thomas W. Eagar, Christopher Musso - Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation - JOM (Vol. 53, No. 12) - full article

    2002/01 - Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou - Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 128, No. 1) - full article

    2002/07 - David E. Newland, David Cebon - Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse? - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 128, No. 7)

    2002/08 - Bernard Monahan - World Trade Center Collapse—Civil Engineering Considerations - Practice Periodical On Structural Design And Construction (Vol. 7, No. 3)

    2002/10 - James G. Quintiere, Marino di Marzo, Rachel Becker - A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers - Fire Safety Journal (Vol. 37, No. 7)

    2002/11 - Lu Xinzheng, Jiang Jianjing - Simulation for the Collapse of WTC after Aeroplane Impact - Proceedings of the International Conference on Protection of Structures Against Hazard, 14 − 15 November 2002, Singapore - full paper

    2003/05 - Venkatash K. R. Kodur - Role of fire resistance issues in the collapse of the Twin Towers - Proceedings of the CIB-CTBUH International Conference on Tall Buildings, 8 - 10 May 2003, Kuala Lumpur - full paper

    2003/07 - Tomasz Wierzbicki, Xiaoqing Teng - How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center - International Journal of Impact Engineering (Vol. 28, No. 6)

    2003/10 - Asif S. Usmani, Yun Chi Chung, Jose L. Torero - How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory - Fire Safety Journal (Vol. 38, No. 6) - full article

    2003/11 - Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl - World Trade Center Collapse, Field Investigation and Analysis - Proceedings of the Ninth Arab Structural Engineering Conference, 29 November – 1 December 2003, Abu Dhabi - full paper

    2005/01 - Yukihiro Omika, Eiji Fukuzawa, Norihide Koshika, Hiroshi Morikawa, Ryusuke Fukuda - Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks - Journal of Structural Engineering (Vol. 131, No. 1)

    2005/01 - Howard R. Baum, Ronald G. Rehm - A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics - Proceedings of the Combustion Institute (Vol. 30, No. 2) - full article

    2005/03 - Genady P. Cherepanov - September 11 And Fracture Mechanics - A Retrospective - International Journal of Fracture (Vol. 132, No. 2)

    2005/06 - Asif S. Usmani - Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 131, No. 6)

    2005/07 - Jeremy Chang, Andrew H. Buchanan, Peter J. Moss - Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses - Fire and Materials (Vol. 29, No. 4)

    2005/10 - Mohammed R. Karim, Michelle S. Hoo Fatt - Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 131, No. 10)

    2006/09 - Genady P. Cherepanov - Mechanics of the WTC collapse - International Journal of Fracture (Vol. 141, No. 1-2)

    2007/03 - Zdenek P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure - Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 133, No. 3) - full article

    2007/11 - Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, Andre Marshall - Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1 - Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities (Vol. 21, No. 6)

    2008/01 - Ayhan Irfanoglu, Christoph M. Hoffmann - An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1 - Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities (Vol. 22, No. 1) - full article

    2008/03 - Keith A. Seffen - Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 134, No. 2) - full article

    2008 - Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson - What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 134, in press) - full article

    Of these twenty-two, six were written after the release of the NIST report. Three of these mention the NIST report and make no objections to its conclusions (Bazant, Irfanoglu and Bazant), one does not mention the NIST report (Seffen) and two I don't have access to anymore (Cherepanov and Wang).
    "

    If you want the original papers (I'm sure you'll want to read them all) here is the original post.

    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=317

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    so stop with the double standards here!
    Clearly you have made a mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    not to mention continually raising the bar and moving the goalposts.
    I think the request has always been to see Jones' work in a relevant, respected science journal. You know.. like the ones above.

  4. #1464
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    fedr, are you aware that even NIST doesn't believe that the fires melted steel? True, in doing so, they have to ignore the fact that there was a lot of melted steel..
    There has been molten metal and soft steel. I have yet to see evidence of melted steel.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    even some evaporated steel.
    So, once again, can you please back this claim up?

  5. #1465
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman
    "I think the request has always been to see Jones' work in a relevant, respected science journal. You know.. like the ones above."

    I think the 'real' request, has always been; is it possible to debunk Jones's work
    to the point that his goal of a proper investigation is no longer reasonable?

    MM
    Last edited by Miragememories; 10-18-08 at 10:20 AM.

  6. #1466
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    You can't debunk Jesus.

  7. #1467

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    You can't debunk Jesus.
    If you say so .. but Jesus isn't debating with us.

  8. #1468
    Quote Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
    I think the 'real' request, has always been; is it possible to debunk Jones's work to the point that his goal of a proper investigation is no longer reasonable?

    MM
    Well said.

  9. #1469
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    There has been molten metal and soft steel. I have yet to see evidence of melted steel.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ltensteel.html


    So, once again, can you please back this claim up?
    **************************************************
    2. A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.
    **************************************************
    http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones

    Below is the original article from the New York Times. Yes, in the article, it blames 'diesel fuel', a theory long since discredited even by the official story, but the observation of evaporated steel is the important point here:
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63
    Last edited by scott3x; 10-18-08 at 10:21 AM.

  10. #1470
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman
    "He [Dr. Steven Jones] was put on paid leave because he was embarrassing his university by pushing flawed theories out on the internet that where outside his field of expertise. The engineering department at his own uni were certainly quick to denounce his work. If you want to call that politics and not someone making an arse of themselves then fine it was politics."

    It's difficult to hold any respect for a person who resorts to constant slander as a means of discrediting the responses of individuals, especially brave public people like Dr. Steven Jones.

    shaman. You are just stating spin as fact.

    Understandably, Brigham Young University was concerned that the controversy surrounding Dr. Jones's revelations would have a negative effect on the university's reputation.

    Given the world attention a BYU-based science news story attacking the Official Story would have received, it was not a surprise when BYU chose to avoid a long expensive investigation of Dr. Jones's findings, instead agreeing to Dr. Jones's retirement, while allowing him to continue to use BYU facilities for independent research.

    16 months later, Dr. Jones, as of May 2008, was still sharing a BYU office with several professors.

    He was doing research in a BYU lab as an outside user and a student works with him.

    Obviously, there is no acrimony between BYU and Dr. Steven Jones.

    MM

  11. #1471
    Quote Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
    It's difficult to hold any respect for a person who resorts to constant slander as a means of discrediting the responses of individuals, especially brave public people like Dr. Steven Jones.

    shaman. You are just stating spin as fact.

    Understandably, Brigham Young University was concerned that the controversy surrounding Dr. Jones's revelations would have a negative effect on the university's reputation.

    Given the world attention a BYU-based science news story attacking the Official Story would have received, it was not a surprise when BYU chose to avoid a long expensive investigation of Dr. Jones's findings, instead agreeing to Dr. Jones's retirement, while allowing him to continue to use BYU facilities for independent research.

    16 months later, Dr. Jones, as of May 2008, was still sharing a BYU office with several professors.

    He was doing research in a BYU lab as an outside user and a student works with him.

    Obviously, there is no acrimony between BYU and Dr. Steven Jones.

    MM
    I'd like to add that Steven Jones -welcomed- the possibility of an investigation, as he felt it to be a good chance to clear his name. I was not aware that Steven Jones was still working at BYU, however.

  12. #1472
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Bentham is something of a sham journal if we are to believe the word of Ryan Mackay.
    http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

    [I]"The author has confirmed through personal contact with the publisher and the editor-in-chief that this paper, in fact, was not properly peer-reviewed. To be more specific, the publisher and not the editorial board handled reviews, and the editor-in-chief was unable to acquire a list of the reviewers from the publisher afterwards.
    Perhaps the reviewers weren't interested in being put on 'paid leave', as was Steven Jones, or outright fired as was Kevin Ryan. Ryan Mackey himself has been thoroughly discredited:
    ************************************************
    Maintaining the Mirage:
    A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory
    of the Demolition Deniers
    A critique of Ryan Mackey's essay: "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism
    of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation"
    ************************************************
    http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html


    ************************************************
    John Lear vs. Ryan Mackey on Flying Boeing

    767s Really, Really Fast Near Sea Level by John Lear
    Posted September 24, 2008

    Editor's note: this email exchange below from August 28, 2008 provides some important information on the question of whether a Boeing 767 could really fly at 542+ mph near sea level as NIST and other official/media/propaganda sources say it did on 9/11, based on the study of [fake] videos.

    Anthony [Lawson, allegedly a British ex-pat and director/producer of TV commercials]:

    Well, well, well!

    Ryan Mackey's piece confirms the research done for my video: "Impossible Speed and Impact -- Busted!"


    John Lear, retired airliner pilot and son of Bill Lear of Motorola and Learjet fame:

    Good afternoon Anthony,

    My comments are in blue...
    ************************************************
    http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php...vs_Mackey_0908

  13. #1473
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,970
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    God, that so needed to be said. Steven Jones as well as many others (the producer of 9/11 mysteries and myself included) originally believed the official story. It was only after a careful examination of the evidence that we began to see that the official story didn't hold water.
    Then why was he sent materials immediately after the attack? That's what he said in the video. This raises a bigger question: why was Stephen Jones, who had no association with proper engineering studies in over 15 years, sent samples from the WTC a day after the attack?

    I firmly believe that one day, people will realize that 9/11 was an inside job, just as most people now realize that the burning down of Germany's Reichstag was an inside job
    These two crimes are not associated. It is a bit of a misnomer to pick them up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    You are completely ignoring the science, why?

    Aside from the massive 1500 Celcius temperature required to melt iron which would not have been attained in the wtc fire, the significance of finding previously molten micron sized iron spheres containing iron, aluminum, oxygen, potassium, silicon is that they could not combine naturally from a collapse from steel beams and aluminium cladding - that is obviously an absurd proposal.
    Not. In. The. Slightest. Aluminum cladding is not adjacent to the steel girders? How do you know?

    As for the melting, very simply:

    Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction)

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...401-holden.htm
    In other words, in the pile, as I've already said. Thermite, or nanothermite, or megananoPowerRangers thermite is not going to keep the steel molten after literally months of being underground. What you have is almost certainly a simple kiln effect. Bury the fire with enough air in a constricted space and it will burn hotter. Direct and reasonable.

    "This rapidly explains Dr. Jones' "red chip/gray chip" item also."
    I don't think so, can you explain why you think the observations reported by Jones are explained by anti-corrosion paint?

    6:20 Kevin Ryan has ruled out paint using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis (FTIR)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&
    Then I'm sure he'll be happy to give his material to an independent lab to investigate.

    "we know it is ultra fine because we have looked at the finest scale we can reach in the electronmicroscope we have, we still see iron and aluminum, we can't see them seperately, this is a very fine powder, its called nanothermite"

    he says they looked at 25nm and still could not distinguish between iron and aluminium, below 25nm nanothermite is explosive.
    You have provided no links to any reference material that I could use to evaluate your claim. Nor, moreover, has Mr Ryan excluded other possible sources of these materials. Nor has Dr. Jones provided his samples to other laboratories. Which all combine to make me very suspicious: is it not a more reasonable scenario for a small conspiracy to exist with one or two partners, than for a larger one with thousands?

    I am not interested in personal attacks on Jones, which only demonstrates you recognise the weakness of your own position.
    Ah. Then you will refrain from making 'personal' attacks on the government of the United States? After all, this also corresponds to Cicero's dictum.

    Yet, I feel I have to explore this in more detail. Why was Jones sent these materials a day after the attacks? Who collected them, and why? What is or was Dr Jones' involvement with Kevin Ryan, before the attacks? Why will he not provide them for independent verification?

    Best,

    Geoff

  14. #1474
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,970
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Below is the original article from the New York Times. Yes, in the article, it blames 'diesel fuel', a theory long since discredited even by the official story
    I'm sorry: where is this true? Refrain from colouring the argument, please.

  15. #1475
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Not everyone holds NIST in such high regard. I'll bet many of the architects and engineers over at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth don't think so highly of them. From their site:
    "511 architectural and engineering professionals and 2606 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation."
    http://www.ae911truth.org/
    Only 511 (ambiguous) experts? That's not much when you consider the WTC was the most viewed collapse in history. How many of those 511 are even top of their field?

    I have yet to see an 'official story' number of architects and engineers that is as large as that.
    Take the sum total of highly qualified architects and engineers on the entire planet, then subtract 511 from it. That is assuming those 511 are even highly qualified in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    But if truth seeking individuals hadn't 'infiltrated' the scientific community, then brave people such as retired physicist professor Steven Jones would never have raised their voice in dissent of the official story. However, most scientists who disagree with the official story don't want to be thrown out from their post (or put on 'paid leave'), and so are a bit more quiet in their opposition, perhaps only signing a petition as many architects and engineers have done:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/
    Look, it's quite simple. In science, if there is compelling evidence for something, it earns consensus. For you to say it requires bravery to establish a theory is simply stupid. You can't use this assumption to explain the lack of support in intellectual circles for your silly paranoia. Many experts ARE retired and still don't exactly come out in support. If retired people aren't doing it, well then there's obviously isn't any controversy about 9/11 in scientific circles.

    To suggest that the government could not only organize and coverup the events of 9/11, but get all the experts that matter to be silent from now till far into the future is really stretching even your warped reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    While I have seen a petition from Architects and Engineers saying they doubt the official story (511 and counting), I have never seen a similar list of architects and engineers who believe wholeheartedly in the official story. Or scientists for that matter. And yet, you apparently seem to be privy of such a list that includes hundreds of thousands of them. By all means, do share.
    Why would you expect there to be such a list of skeptics? There is simply no controversy in scientific circles about 9/11, so it's not like the experts need to be proactive on this matter like you would with nutjob conspiracy theorists.

    The fact you have a list of only 511 ambiguous 'experts' is a speck of dust in the overall scientific community. It's nothing.

    In any case, yes, there is -finally- beginning to be a consensus on global warming. You know when the first scientist believed that the actions of humans was dramatically effecting the earth's climate? In the 1950s:
    http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx
    I guess we will wait to see if truthers make an impact in science in 2050. I'm not holding my breath.

    I know that there are some scientists that claim to debunk him. But let me put it to you this way; I've been debating with you and others here for over a month. And yet, despite all of this time, I have yet to persuade you guys that you're mistaken. You have likewise not been able to persuade me. What I'm getting at here is that the issues are complex. And if you are of a certain persuasion, you might easily be fooled into -believing- that he has been debunked, when, in fact, the arguments that supposedly debunked him where themselves flawed.
    The issue is far from complex. It is really simple. You are a fantasist who continually lies to keep the fantasy going.

    Stephen Jones is unscientific. Let me give you just a couple of examples off the top of my head:

    He states that angled cut beams originated during collapse. Now consider that we have numerous images of clean up workers cutting beams AFTER the collapse. An honest and rational mind concludes that the one picture Stephen Jones used is a picture from a beam cut after the collapse by workers in ground zero.

    In another picture, Stephen Jones shows firefighters hiddled over a hole in ground zero which seems to be emitting a light. Steven Jones claims that this is proof of molten steel. A rational mind would ask why it could be molten steel if firefighters are hovering their faces over the hole? Have you ever hovered your face over a barbeque? It's highly uncomfortable. Now imaging hovering your face over a heated pool of molten steel...

    Stephen Jones claims that things like Sodium being found in the WTC dust is proof of thermite/thermate. Yet a rational mind will say that sodium was commonplace throughout the WTC even without thermite/thermate.

    This is only scratching the surface of Stephen Jones lies which can easily be debunked by laymans. I'd really like a bunch of experts to look at his work closely and debunk it much better than I ever could. Perhaps it's already been done...

  16. #1476
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    They are anecdotal reports of glowing and liquid metal where it is referred to as steel. How did the people know it was steel? Firemen and other rescue workers are not able to distinguish molten steel from molten aluminum from looking at it.

    Some of the reports are dubious as to whether it was glowing metal or molten metal. For example, pulling on a beam which is supposed to be near or at melting temperature? The metal would be glowing hot and getting extremely soft. It would not be a matter of just pulling it out.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    **************************************************
    2. A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data
    That's WTC7. We are talking about WTC1+2. Evaporated still is a ridiculous claim. Do you realize the temperatures needed for that? Logically if there was some evaporated steel we would have plenty of evidence of melted steel, which we don't.

    There are quotes there from an article but no link to the source. I want to see where the claim comes from originally.

  17. #1477
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Perhaps the reviewers weren't interested in being put on 'paid leave', as was Steven Jones, or outright fired as was Kevin Ryan. Ryan Mackey himself has been thoroughly discredited:
    ************************************************
    http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
    As usual you have done a few minutes work at your favorite conspiracy site but have not understood what you are reading. Mackey addresses these criticisms in the document I originally linked to.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post








    ************************************************
    John Lear vs. Ryan Mackey on Flying Boeing

    767s Really, Really Fast Near Sea Level by John Lear
    Posted September 24, 2008

    Editor's note: this email exchange below from August 28, 2008 provides some important information on the question of whether a Boeing 767 could really fly at 542+ mph near sea level as NIST and other official/media/propaganda sources say it did on 9/11, based on the study of [fake] videos.

    Anthony [Lawson, allegedly a British ex-pat and director/producer of TV commercials]:

    Well, well, well!

    Ryan Mackey's piece confirms the research done for my video: "Impossible Speed and Impact -- Busted!"


    John Lear, retired airliner pilot and son of Bill Lear of Motorola and Learjet fame:

    Good afternoon Anthony,

    My comments are in blue...
    ************************************************
    http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php...vs_Mackey_0908
    Someone disputing one of Mackey's posts regarding flight 77 doesn't constitute a thorough discrediting. If that were the case we would have stopped discussing Jones after the first paragraph of his first document and ended the thread on page 1.

  18. #1478
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    As usual you have done a few minutes work at your favorite conspiracy site but have not understood what you are reading. Mackey addresses these criticisms in the document I originally linked to.
    If that's true, can you repost that link?


    Someone disputing one of Mackey's posts regarding flight 77 doesn't constitute a thorough discrediting.
    John Lear is more then just a 'someone' when it comes to planes. But I believe most of the thorough discrediting was done by Jim Hoffman in the first link I gave:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html


    If that were the case we would have stopped discussing Jones after the first paragraph of his first document and ended the thread on page 1.
    I'm certainly willing to hear any claims of Mackey's that you believe have merit. With Jim Hoffman's critique of his work, I think I'll be able to make easy work of them. To tell you the honest truth, I wish I'd taken a closer look at it before, as it would have helped with some of the arguments that official story believers have used in the past...

  19. #1479

    Why the molten metal wasn't aluminum

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3xThey are anecdotal reports of glowing and liquid metal where it is referred to as steel. How did the people know it was steel?
    Alright, let's see what we can agree on. I assume you agree with the following. Even official story believers don't have a problem with it:
    "A spout of orange molten metal seen just before the South Tower's fall in videos of the Tower's north face around the crash zone "

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal.../thermite.html

    The official story argument is that it is assumed to be aluminum. Christopher Bollyn makes a compelling case why this can't be so in the beginning of his "Open Letter to the NIST 9/11 WTC Investigators *PIC*":
    *************************************
    MOLTEN METAL IS NOT ALUMINUM

    The composition of the unknown molten metal is discussed:

    "The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum." (p. 375)

    Having seen molten aluminum at the temperature suggested by the NIST report, i.e. about 650 degrees Celsius, I learned that molten aluminum appears silvery-gray in daylight. In fact it appears to have the same color as aluminum foil due to its low emissivity in daylight conditions.

    The flowing molten metal coming from the eastern corner of the 81st floor of WTC 2, however, appears distinctly yellow or bright orange in the daylight and when it breaks up, it appears white. Therefore, the photographic evidence proves that this molten metal cannot be aluminum.

    So, I should ask, exactly what is it about the behavior of this molten metal that "suggests it could have been aluminum," as the NIST authors wrote?

    The "molten metal" seen spilling from the WTC 2 is mentioned 27 times in this appendix alone and it is usually accompanied by a phrase "assumed to be aluminum." Elsewhere it is described as "possibly aluminum," and sometimes, simply as "molten aluminum." (e.g. pp. 412-413)

    How can the WTC scientists at NIST assume for one minute that this molten metal is aluminum?

    Is it not, in fact, much more likely that this is molten iron?

    The color of the molten metal falling from the 81st floor of the WTC 2 proves that the metal is NOT aluminum but is more likely to be iron.

    Molten aluminum appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, as professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University wrote in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":

    http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

    The approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, at all temperatures whether in solid or liquid forms. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly, so that in broad daylight conditions in air, it appears silvery-gray according to experiments done at BYU. [Jones, 2006])

    In his paper "Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Jones wrote that the use of Thermite, or a derivative such as Thermate, is consistent with the observation of yellow-white hot molten metal observed falling from the northeast corner of WTC 2 (the South Tower) prior to its collapse.

    We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well – and it appears silvery. Aluminum at about 1000 C will emit yellow light (incandescence) the same as iron, but in daylight (as on the morning of 9/11/2001), the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.) Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the Thermite reaction.
    *************************************

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...mes/read/89093

  20. #1480

    Steven Jones knowledge of energetic materials and scientific methodology...

    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Then why was he sent materials immediately after the attack? That's what he said in the video. This raises a bigger question: why was Stephen Jones, who had no association with proper engineering studies in over 15 years, sent samples from the WTC a day after the attack?
    I already answered this, but you may not have seen it yet...
    **********************************
    Geoff, the buildings were brought down via some form of energy, whether it was fire or whether it was a controlled demolition. Steven Jones also has a bit of a history of going to where the evidence leads, regardless of its political correctness. In one case, he challenged the theory of an eminent scientist; and proved to be right. But it took a decade before people felt this way. Perhaps it will take a decade before the majority of scientists believe him when it comes to his theories on 9/11. All I know is that despite the fact that he was essentially given the boot from the university where he was a professor for going against the official story grain, he is still going strong. And while people may criticize him for his religious beliefs (yes, I know, he believes that Jesus Christ made it to America, something that I think is dubious), I believe that sometimes it takes something like a belief in a higher power and in the virtues of what some call altruism to be so criticized and yet continue to repeat his findings.
    **********************************
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1461

Similar Threads

  1. By Jozen-Bo in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PM
    Replies: 81
  2. By Tnerb in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PM
    Replies: 33
  3. By Thoreau in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PM
    Replies: 18
  4. By Lord Hillyer in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PM
    Replies: 11
  5. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •