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

[EndLightEnd]

I never said that about anybody who questions the government. I believe everybody should question and criticize the government.

Just not about 9/11?:bugeye:

Because questioning the government is exactly what were doing and you dont seem ok with it.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

There's still a 'serious' debate about 9/11? Really? I thought foolishness was restricted to the religious forums. It appears I was mistaken. Perhaps you would also like to espouse the Flat Earth? Holocaust hoax? There never was a Roman Empire perhaps? The sentience of Bellybutton Lint? The rights of Virii as living organisms? Pedophilia is just a lifestyle choice, perhaps?
Just free thinking here.

 

[scott3x]

The question is, is there any evidence that this actually happened? Firefighters thought the fire was controllable from the 78th floor (page 51, "The Terror Conspiracy"); and yet there were fireballs getting all the way down to the basement? And, ofcourse, a fireball couldn't do all the damage that was found down there anyway.

In case you forget, there was also the minor matter of a hundred stories of building or so falling on it. But let's see this link.

"The Terror Conspiracy" is a book by Jim Marrs. I picked up my own copy at the local library network. Jim Marrs has been writing about conspiracies and other topics of interests since he wrote his first book, "Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kenedy", in 1989. If you want to know more about him, feel free to check out the article about him on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Marrs

Or visit his own page at:
www.jimmarrs.com/

If you momentarily assume that the powers that did this really did want to hide the fact that the building was brought down by demolition, they would obviously not want to bring the building down from the bottom.

So what possible good could such charges do, then? It's extremely obvious that it was the top part of the building, and the top part only, that fell.

I'm not sure why it was done, but I could imagine that explosives were set off there and apparently in other places before the building collapsed in order to weaken it and not necesitate so much explosives when it was finally weakened to the point that it collpased. This may have been done so that the sound wasn't as loud as it would be during a conventional demolition.

It simply fell like a mallet. Strength below it had little or nothing to do with it; how could an individual floor resist the falling of 30 or so stories above it?

The fallacy of the pancake collapse is explained more thoroughly here:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

But I see below that you're not a pancake theory supporter but rather a 'boulderist'. I've never heard of this theory before; does anyone else share your belief in this theory?

It sounds funny, but there was more then a janitor in the basement; 22 people heard the explosions in one of the towers. And there are a fair amount of testimonials which I have already brought up. And I never said that any of the explosions failed to do what it was supposed to do, namely, that when the building came down, it would do so in a way that would make it appear as a result of the plane crashes. And for a lot of people who don't have the time to do the research, they can (and have) been led to believe this. I and many others, however, don't fit that mold.

Well, I have some time to research this, and my expectation is that the explosions were transformers or the like going up.

Why do you always expect that it wasn't explosives?

But I'm not a pancake supporter. I'm a "boulderist". The upper thirty or so stories acted like a giant boulder once the supports collapsed at the strike point. Now, this is similar to the pancake theory (whether or not it's accurate), but hinged more on the point that as the mass above strikes something, it's not the entire building that's resisting as if it were a human bodybuilder or something, but rather that only the floor it meets provides any significant resistance. The upper mass was simply too large.

I admit I haven't heard anything of this boulderist theory before, but I've seen too much evidence supporting the idea that explosives were used to believe something else at this point.

The guy writing this hasn't even heard of James Randi. That doesn't bode well.

Considering that James Randi is simply a stage magician and scientific skeptic, I think that's understandable. I hadn't heard of him either until I googled him.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...ckeyLetter.pdf

I've no idea what these "shotgun tests" he refers to represent, but I infer that someone used a shotgun to take off fireproofing from a plate or something, to which the author objects. I'm unable to evaluate any of their claims or the author's counter-claims, yet it's hard to deny the importance of the fireproofing being able to be dislodged at all given the circumstances. To be blunt: we're talking about hitting it with a plane, here. If that isn't enough to exceed the manufacturer's standard for adhesion, it's hard to imagine what would be. A ship hitting it? A nuclear strike? Superman? It was struck by a passenger airplane. That's a substantial impact.

To me, while I believe David Ray Griffin that NIST can't support its own theories, it's rather irrelevant. As I point out in the post below, even without fireproofing, the structural steel shouldn't have melted (search for Kevin):
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1989933&postcount=172

Given the fact that Kevin was fired from his job for daring to speak without authorization from his company, I can see why other experts haven't been so forthcoming.

 

[scott3x]

"Those on the lower floors felt explosives "
or explosions?

Touché. Alright, explosions. But there was definitely evidence that explosives were used, as can be seen in the movie called Zeitgeist, starting at about the 54th minute. In the 56th minute, it states: "Through Electron Microscope Analysis of the melted WTC Steel & the Iron-Rich Microspheres in the dust, Dr. (Steven) Jones (Physics professor, BYU) found exact traces of not only the "Thermite" explosive compound, but, due to the high sulfur content, "Thermate" - a patented brand of Thermite used in the demolition industry."

its quality not quantity.

I'd argue that at times it's good to have both quality and quantity; things I think you official story types definitely lack ;-).

 

[John99]

ooohh.

 

[John99]

are you posting on another forum with the name slap nuts?

 

[KennyJC]

Touché. Alright, explosions. But there was definitely evidence that explosives were used, as can be seen in the movie called Zeitgeist, starting at about the 54th minute. In the 56th minute, it states: "Through Electron Microscope Analysis of the melted WTC Steel & the Iron-Rich Microspheres in the dust, Dr. (Steven) Jones (Physics professor, BYU) found exact traces of not only the "Thermite" explosive compound, but, due to the high sulfur content, "Thermate" - a patented brand of Thermite used in the demolition industry."

A report by the way which he refuses to have peer reviewed in any credible way. If he wants to impress the skeptics, he will have to do this. Until then, he has nothing.

 

[scott3x]

Fallacies and strawman.. haha. It really is ironic hearing truthers say these words. Reminds me of the debate at ground zero between Mark Roberts and Alex Jones when Alex Jones pretty much said nothing but “strawman” because he simply didn't know how to refute all the facts that Mark Roberts had to offer.

If this forum is any example, even within the truth movement, Alex Jones is regarded as off base. nietzschefan says that William Cooper, who died under controversial circumstances, exposed him for a CIA for misinformation (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1989038&postcount=170). Wikipedia gives quite an interesting story as to Cooper's life; apparently Cooper knew 3 months before 9/11 what was going to happen. nietzschefan has more to say about this in the link I provided above. Anyway, the wiki link to Cooper is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Milton_Cooper

Alright, I'd like you to cite a source that contradicts the claims that the noted author Jim Marrs has brought up in his book, namely what I brought up in my opening paragraph in a post a little earlier in this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1987002&postcount=205

Noted fictional author in my opinion.

You're free to believe whatever you wish, but many people believe otherwise. In case anyone else is reading, he writes books classified as non fiction.

Aside from the fact investigators were in ground zero from 9/11, they also knew where the steel was being stored. However, if it was a demolition, then examining ground zero for demolition materials would have been more important than investigating the metal in a scrap yard were demolition materials were not.

Actually, they found demolition material there, as I've mentioned in an earlier post. Anyway, I find it highly doubtful that so many people are upset that the scrap metal was removed so quickly with only a superficial investigation if there was no merit to it.

Yes I think you’ve made it quite clear that you are dishonest enough to claim that the sound of a 110 story falling is supposed to be the sound of bombs.

So now you seem to believe that I'm being dishonest. Look, I can believe that when you hear the tower fall, you believe the only sound is coming from the tower collapsing. Why can't you believe that I believe that that same noise includes explosions? The fact that no steel structure has ever collapsed due to the collision of planes or fires before 9/11 doesn't help the case that that's what happened either.

There are no distinct sounds when the tower is collapsing, just a singular rumble.

Or atleast that's what you believe to hear.

Even in controlled demolitions, pulverization isn't caused by explosives, it's caused by the more destructive downfall and collision with the ground and other parts of the building...

I don’t need to cite a source, because it’s common sense.

I don't believe so. Anyway, if you can't or don't want to cite a source, fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Watch an actual controlled demolition, and you will see that the building is more or less intact as it falls until it comes in contact with the ground or other parts of the building. WTC 1 & 2 was different from a controlled demolition as it was obliterated in mid-air due to the nature of a pancake collapse were a lot of impacts are taking place.

The pancake collapse has been discredited:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

If you don’t think that a pancake collapse was what caused this obliteration of building materials, then the bombs required to do such tremendous damage would no doubt be heard over the noise of the tower falling.

Which I and others believe we can hear.

So not only would you need bombs to initiate a collapse, but you’d also need extra bombs to account for the extra building damage in mid-air that you claim was apparently nothing to do with a pancake collapse.

I believe there were plenty of explosives used..

The clip I gave you was from a reporter live on the scene. He heard a noise, looked up, saw smoke (more accurately: dust) coming from the building. His account in no way contradicts what I am able to see with my own eyes and ears. Again, it’s really dishonest of you to try and use this to your gain. If I was standing where he was standing and watching the whole thing live for the first time, I may even call it an “explosion” in the first few seconds. That however, wouldn’t make it so. There's a difference between watching and hearing it on the day and watching it and hearing it with hindsight.

So true. When I saw the building collapse, I didn't think it wasn't bombed. Perhaps if I'd been so close as that reporter, it might have been different. But I knew so little back then. That's changed.

I never said silent bombs, just bombs that make less noise then a typical demolition; I'm fairly convinced that essentially the World Trade buildings had a lot of smaller bombs instead of just a few big ones to mitigate the sound.

I say that is not possible. If you have a column you want to blow up, adding lots of smaller bombs instead of one big one does nothing to reduce noise.

I think it does if they don't all go off at the same time.

Hell, I’m not sure if lots of smaller explosions would even get the job done.

Well, atleast you're not sure.

This is where we really need an expert in controlled demolition to answer these specific claims. Since you have no experts in controlled demolition on your side, I guess they side with me on this one.

I've already mentioned that some firemen have been intimidated into not speaking up. I also wrote regarding the firing of the site manager/director of Environmental Health Laboratories, a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), who dared to speak up against NIST's federal probe conclusions without authorization from his employer (here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1988341&postcount=214 . Search for "Kevin"). A newspaper article even went out about it, titled "South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe"

Kevin Ryan didn't take this sitting down, however. He's pursuing legal action against his Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) and has set up a site speaking of his ordeal:
http://www.ultruth.com/index.htm

Anyway, don't you think these types of things would discourage others who disagree with the official findings from speaking up?

Even if it was more smaller bombs, then that means you have to use waaaay more materials in the set up making it far more conspicuous and risky for the conspirators.

Assuming bombs were in fact used, the conspirators had 2 choices; misdirect the public into thinking that the planes alone brought the towers down or make it obvious that bombs were used. If it were obvious that bombs were used, the next step would be to look for who planted the bombs. From what I have stated in the past, it seems clear that the most likely suspects were in charge of security on the towers. I speak of it at length here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1988341&postcount=214 (search for "unnoticed"). I think it's clear that it would make more sense to take a little more risk in the planting of the bombs then get a lot of people thinking it was bombed from the start.

We’ve already established that people witnessing this event in real time said the word “explosion” to pretty much describe anything that made a noise.

I don't remember establishing that.

Since we actually have very good video footage of the collapse of the towers we can get a better understanding of the “explosions”. I don’t see or hear explosions typical of demolitions in the tower.

I agree that it doesn't sound like the demolition example that someone (perhaps you) showed me in this forum. But it's clear that this isn't a typical demolition, because if it had been, it would have collapsed from the bottom up. Clearly, if this was a demolition, it was done in such a way that would make it appear as if the planes might have been responsible.

The dust is both from air being compressed and blown out away from the tower, and also from the breakup of building materials.

Or it could be aluminum oxide. I'd advise you check out Zeitgeist, from minutes 52 to 56 approximately. Anyway, for the purposes of explaining the dust:
"Thermite is so hot, that it'll just cut through steel; through structural steel, for example, like a knife through butter. The products are molten iron and aluminum oxide, which goes off primarily as a dust. You know those enormous dust clouds? You can imagine when you assemble these chemicals on a large scale."

Directly after this is the quote you've already seen:
"Through Electron Microscope Analysis of the melted WTC Steel & the Iron-Rich Microspheres in the dust, Dr. (Steven) Jones (Physics professor, BYU) found exact traces of not only the "Thermite" explosive compound, but, due to the high sulfur content, "Thermate" - a patented brand of Thermite used in the demolition industry.""

You claim that Dr. Jones refuses to have his findings of Thermate peer refused. Considering the behaviour of certain peers (perhaps some from NIST?), I think I may understand why. I'm assuming they would require him to say where he got a sample of the closely guarded debris and he might not want to put his source in jeopardy. Anyway, I think I'll take a break from responding to this for now..

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by KennyJC
I never said that about anybody who questions the government. I believe everybody should question and criticize the government.

Just not about 9/11?:bugeye:

Because questioning the government is exactly what we're doing and you dont seem ok with it.

Good point End...

 

[scott3x]

Yes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_pUQnU7Eoo&feature=related

Watch from the 2 minute mark. It shows a 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire. Note the subsequent dust cloud.

Noted. I must admit I'm impressed. However, while this proves that a fair amount of dust can occur even in a building wherein explosives aren't used, there is plenty of evidence which shows that explosives were used on 9/11.

I also read a quote from a firefighter saying he could hear the floors slam into each other and described no explosives.

I think the only thing that can be clear is that he heard successive bangs. If the official story is that the building pancaked, he might take the successive bangs to mean this, instead of what many believe to be the truth, namely that the building was riddled with explosions.

I never said that it went unnoticed. I brought it up in an earlier post in another thread here; there were some emergency drills before 9/11 that were in fact used to place bombs throughout the building. Again from ""The Terror Conspiracy":
"..if there were bombs in the towers, how did they get there?

With the buildings turned to powdered ash and the metal quickly hauled away, no one will ever be certain but some interesting theories have been advanced...

..[a] theory emerged after Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, told People magazine that in the weeks preceeding 9/11 there were numerous unusual and unannounced "drills" in which sections of both towers as well as Building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons." These drills could have provided a perfect cover for persons planting explosives.

This is total bullshit. Your dishonesty is once again revealed when apparent security breaches were infact used to placed bombs throughout the building. Note how you confidently state something there is no evidence for.

When dealing with such a complex topic, one can say something that might appear to mean something one didn't intend. Jim Marrs says what I was trying to say:
"These drills could have provided a perfect cover for persons planting explosives".

So lets examine this claim. How many evacuations were there? How long did they last? Let’s remember that demolition experts say it takes months to rig a 30 story building for demolition, and also remember that this is with abandoned buildings were they don’t have to worry about concealing the massive amounts of materials.

The drills may have been the finishing touches. I admit that how this security firm might have placed these explosives isn't something that has been dealt with in much depth, but I definitely think it's a possibility to explore.

These were 110 story buildings, and they had to worry about the materials being noticed. You also state there were smaller bombs used, thus lots more work would be required, lots more materials, more miles of detonation cord. At this point I think the people “in on it” would just say “To hell with this, just crash a plane into it and that’ll be enough to get us in Iraq”.

The first WTO bombing didn't affect things enough. Perhaps they felt that a couple planes crashing into some buildings just wouldn't do it. You must also remember that there were potential motivations for taking out WTC 7; but if only a plane had crashed in the World Trade towers, it would probably have been a very hard sell to have people believe that WTC 7 would have collapsed as a result.

In short, I get a headache when I imagine how impossible it would be to demolish two 110 story right under peoples noses without them suspecting a thing. No 9/11 truther has ever said how this would be remotely feasible.

I just gave you a scenario that a noted non fiction author has stated.

To say it could all be done in some brief security checks is a vast over-simplification.

Do you know how long the security drills were?

Reporting in The American Reporter, an electronic daily newspaper, Margie Burns cited President Bush's younger brother, Marvin P. Bush, as a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm.

Securacom has since changed its name to Stratesec, but is still backed by KuwAm. Marvin Bush, who did not respond to repeated interview requests from The American Reporter, is no longer on the board of either company and has not been linked with any terrorist activities. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down

Debunked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh8hErn2UZU

Hm.. It does look like Jim was mistaken on a few details here..

So you are turning this into something sinister? Was this announcer supposed to have a crystal ball and predict that another plane would hit the South tower? Or that any of the buildings would have collapsed? Or would you rather assume was he some guy with a trench coat, sunglasses, a gentleman’s hat whilst smoking a cigarette?

Laugh . Alright, I'll grant you that perhaps the announcer really did think that things would be fine.

Dan Nigro the fire commander that day ordered an evacuation area around the building because the “buildings integrity was in serious doubt”.

Why did he feel that way?

There are many other quotes from firefighters stating how bad the condition of WTC7 and that they didn’t like the idea of going in there and they thought it would come down.

Well, after the collapses of the 2 towers, I can understand they'd be somewhat jittery. I can also imagine that it's possible a little preliminary explosive softening up of the building might have been done as I believe happened to the towers.

I’ve posted all these quotes when debating Ganymede. I really don’t want to have to go get them again as I’m suffering quote fatigue. Take my word for it, or read my previous posts to Ganymede, or look them up yourself. I’ve done this before ad-nauseum.

I've quoted a lot of things repeatedly myself. I really do think that there is some truth in that the person who tires last can win the argument, even if said person isn't the one who's right.

True. However, if they felt they might get fired from their jobs if they were to disagree with the party line to much

Baseless assertion. Reminds me of when Jason Bermas said the firefighters were paid off.

I never said the firefighters were paid off. But my assertion is based on Jim Marrs' "The Terror Conspiracy" book. From page 48 of said book:
*****
Auxiliary Fire Lt. Paul Isaac, Jr., also mentioned bombs, telling internet reporter Randy Lavello that New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. "Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings", he said, "but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of the fact." Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD's antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. "There were definitely bombs in those buildings", Isaac added.
******

***as was Kevin R. Ryan, they may be more cautious about drawing certain conclusions. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 53-54:
"A number of experts have disputed the claim that melting structural steel brought down the Twin Towers.
Kevin R. Ryan, was a site manager from Environmental Health Laboratories Inc. in South Bend, IN, a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), the giant product safety testing firm. In 2003, Ryan wrote to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, challenging the theory that burning jet fuel weakened the towers' structural steel, causing them to fall.
In this communication, Ryan wrote: "As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings... the samples we certified met all requirements... the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
Ryan went on to question the conclusions of "experts", including Dr. Hyman Brown, who have claimed that the towers collapse was caused by structural steel melting at temperatures of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Reiterating that his company had certified the steel to withstand temperatures of 2000 degrees for several hours, Ryan wrote: "I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not metl until reaching red-hot temperatures of 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all"
"This story just does not add up", Ryan concluded. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be a great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.***

Note when he says “2,000F would melt high grade steel”. That’s not what any expert says.

You would think so, wouldn't you? And yet, Dr. Brown of NIST implies that it does. Or did you mean to say "wouldn't"?

2,000F reduces the strength of steel by 50%? I forget by how much percentage, but it’s significant.

Alright, but weakening something is not the same thing as melting it.

Then you have the towers bowing in at the areas most affected by heat which just proves that the trusses were losing their strength and this, strangely enough, is where the collapse is silently initiated.

The collapse wasn't silently initiated.

I am still waiting on a single 9/11 truther explaining why this happened if they want us to believe in the “bomb” hypothesis.

I've already stated that most truth movement people believe that the demolition was made to look like the planes were the reason it collapsed. It was done badly to anyone who knows enough about this type of thing, but to someone who hasn't read up on such things, it could definitely fool them.

Even the Loose Change crew had to concede in a debate with Mark Roberts that the collapse initiated from fire weakening the steel.

Can you give a citation to this?

Well I have to agree that they would probably lose their jobs. Just like any biologist would probably lose their job from a respected company if they said evolution didn’t happen. To say something stupid when there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary would mean you have no access to the best jobs in a scientific field.

I would argue that it's a mountain of fallacious arguments, arguments that have been countered by the truth movement...

Perhaps these “explosions” in the basement or in the lobby were elevator cars free falling then crashing into the ground floor?

Not a chance. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 40:
*****
Many have wondered about the witnesses who claimed to have heard multiple explosions within the buildsings. One such witness was the head of WTC security, John O'Neill, who stated shortly before he himself became a victim that he helped dig out survivors on the 27th floor before the building collapse. Since the aircraft crashed into the 80th floor, what heavily damaged the 27th floor?

Another of those mentioning bombs was Louie Cacchioli, a fifty-one-year-old fireman assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. "We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck", recalled Cacchioli. "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." The fireman became trapped in the elevator but managed to escape with the use of tools.
****
From Page 43:
****
Mike Pecoraro told The Chief Engineer magazine he was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the lights flickered. This was followed by a loud explosion. Pecoraro and a coworker made their way up to a C level machine shop but fout it "gone." There was nothing there but rubble", recalled Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press- gone!"
****
And then there's the 2000F molten metal that was found, 500F hotter then jet fuel even burns. Thermite, on the other hand, can.

These explosions did nothing to "weaken the building". The fact that all of the lower floors remained standing should tell you this. The basement played no part in the collapse of the tower. Each floor was perfectly intact until it was pancaked from the floor above. Your ‘weakening’ claim is absolutely irrelevant and a very thin justification for a serious and farfetched claim.

I keep on repeating that the pancake scenario has been discredited, but you seem to ignore this. Since the pancaking scenario has been discredited, your argument doesn't hold up.

Watch a video of the collapse, retard.

I'd advise against breaking the rules/guidelines there Kenny. Perhaps you haven't read them, so I'll excerpt the relevant portion:
***No Cat fighting (Hairpulling, scratching and biting is not permitted);
[Cat fighting can also be translated as "No Personal Attacks"]***

You've broken the rule more then once now. You've brought up a lot of good points and I'm happy you have, but I believe there's a good reason that the moderator put this rule in; it has the clear potential of emotionally hurting the person insulted and it draws away from the actual discussion.

I notice you didn’t include this part of his quote:
Pecoraro says he only later hears that “jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby.”

I didn't include it because that sentence is another paragraph into the book. I try to limit my quotes to some extent, for 2 reasons:
(a) I'm afraid that if I quote too extensively, a moderator won't approve and (b) I'm aware that the patience of an audience is limited, so I try to only quote the most relevant points. I think it stands to reason that after a certain amount of time he would have heard the official explanation for what he experienced. In any case, I'm not sure if you have the book or got that part from somewhere else I've written. I'd hope that you have the book yourself.

Evidence my friend… The 9/11 truther movement has no credible evidence.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

I have not heard any that is credible, and I value evidence over anything else.

I'm not so sure of this.

Believe me, I am not biased towards the government. I have a scientific mind and I would blindly follow the facts ignoring all else. When I read truther material, I constantly see lies and deception.

As some have stated here, there are some within the truth movement that are apparently involved in misinformation. However, I believe there are many with solid evidence as well.

I see quotes taken out of their full context, I see facts misinterpreted and serious claims which are conjecture.

When you don't have all the evidence, you must make do with what you have. However, in the case of the WTC demolitions, I think there is plenty of evidence showing that the WTC towers were indeed demolished.

The facts have already dictated the argument. I mean we’ve all seen videos of truthers arguing at the top of their voices at ground zero

I've seen Alex Jones do so, no one else.

but the louder you shout does not mean it becomes more true.

I can agree with that.

I can spot propaganda when I see it.

I don't agree with that.

If it really was a controlled demolition, then I and the demolition companies would know about it and voice it.

A lot of experts have voiced the fact that they don't believe the pancake theory and supported the demolition theory. And yet you keep on stating the pancake theory as if it were accomplished fact. Now, I will grant you one thing: in general, figures close to the government seem to go with the pancake theory. I ask you to think of the following quote, taken from zeitgeist:
"They must find it hard,
those who see authority as the truth
rather then truth as the authority."

 

[scott3x]

are you posting on another forum with the name slap nuts?

If you're referring to me, the answer is no. Assuming you were referring to me, what I'm wondering is if you're just trying to insult me or someone out there actually posts in a way similar to myself. Which is it?

 

[scott3x]

A report by the way which he refuses to have peer reviewed in any credible way. If he wants to impress the skeptics, he will have to do this. Until then, he has nothing.

I've addressed this point of yours in another response to you in "Conspiracy Theories".

 

[John99]

If you're referring to me, the answer is no. Assuming you were referring to me, what I'm wondering is if you're just trying to insult me or someone out there actually posts in a way similar to myself. Which is it?

that is one of your comrads then. i dont want to link to another forum unless the mods give the ok. your post are a mirror of the same ones being debunked there so instead of posting and wasting bandwith i could just link to the forum and show you that slap nuts (i am not kidding) is posting identical to you.

 

[Sock Puppy]

"The Terror Conspiracy" is a book by Jim Marrs. I picked up my own copy at the local library network. Jim Marrs has been writing about conspiracies and other topics of interests since he wrote his first book, "Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kenedy", in 1989. If you want to know more about him

I checked out his site, and given that he churns out a conspiracy theory a day, no thanks. I would certainly never buy anything proferred by a Troofer. Could you provide a precise statement of his backing your point?

I'm not sure why it was done

You should have left your statement there.

, but I could imagine that explosives were set off there and apparently in other places before the building collapsed in order to weaken it and not necesitate so much explosives when it was finally weakened to the point that it collpased. This may have been done so that the sound wasn't as loud as it would be during a conventional demolition.

Oh, please. Enough. Enough. What does "not necesitate so much explosives when it was finally weakened to the point that it collpased" mean? Do you understand what you're arguing here? The entire collapse was predicated on the area above the impact point. The floors of the impact point crumbled, and the mass of the building above them rode the towers right to the ground, steamrolling through the building below it.

But I see below that you're not a pancake theory supporter but rather a 'boulderist'. I've never heard of this theory before; does anyone else share your belief in this theory?

Why would that matter? Argument from authority?

Why do you always expect that it wasn't explosives?

Because no evidence of explosives exist. Why not merely blame it on aliens, or the Sun King?

I admit I haven't heard anything of this boulderist theory before, but I've seen too much evidence supporting the idea that explosives were used to believe something else at this point.

In other words, your mind is closed. You operate on a belief system, not a scientific one.

Considering that James Randi is simply a stage magician and scientific skeptic, I think that's understandable. I hadn't heard of him either until I googled him.

To those of us who do work in the area of logical inquiry, James Randi is well known.

To me, while I believe David Ray Griffin that NIST can't support its own theories, it's rather irrelevant. As I point out in the post below, even without fireproofing, the structural steel shouldn't have melted (search for Kevin):

Even in the pile, covered and smouldering? Even on the bridge, where the gas truck crashed? Even if it were aluminium?

It's a funny thing. We go over these things again and again, round and round, in circles. We debunk the evidence, and you hold it out again, covering your eyes. It's more like arguing religion, really; contemporary faith is falling by the wayside (except among the arguably insane or extraordinarily dangerous), so a new faith picks up the slack of belief-imagination. Were you religious as a child? What was the religion of your parents?

Given the fact that Kevin was fired from his job for daring to speak without authorization from his company, I can see why other experts haven't been so forthcoming.

You have answered your own question.

Go in the peace of Dylan,

SP

 

[Sock Puppy]

I've addressed this point of yours in another response to you in "Conspiracy Theories".

Post it here also. Let's see his evidence.

 

[shaman_]

I already posted the source: the book "The Terror Conspiracy", by Jim Marrs. As to more specific, it's on page 40. I got my copy from the local library network. Anyway, if you want to know more about O'Neill, you can check out his wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill.

I said that about that point because people on the lower floors were injured as well. The whole tower was damaged and helping people on the 27th floor may have not been strange at all.

Yes, various parts of the building were indeed damaged before it went down. Those on the lower floors felt explosives and I've already cited lots of evidence that makes this clear, but I guess you can continue to contend that what did most of the damage was the planes, despite all the evidence that the most likely explanation are explosives..

You have posted witness testimony of people hearing explosions and there would have been plenty of them.

Or maybe they were afraid for their jobs and persuaded themselves that it couldn't have been explosives.

Oh come on why would they have thought they would lose their jobs? The building was bombed a few years earlier. If they thought it was happening again at the time it would have been no surprise.

Last I heard, explosions don't come from buildings collapsing, by the way.

Apart from hearing the initial collision and explosion, also hearing it in the other tower - "In the towers there were partial floor collapses, falling elevators, likely debris falling down elevator shafts, fuel vapors igniting, bursting pipes, and perhaps steel failing, electrical systems shorting, and pressurized containers from the buildings and aircraft exploding."
From http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

Apparently when the Windsor tower burned in Spain many explosions could be heard. There were no aircraft or jet fuel involved there either.

My source is "The Terror Conspiracy". What's your source stating that Isaac never said it?

It was debunking911.com. Looking around for more info though it seems he was a regular poster on the jref forums. If it's the same guy (Sentinel) his posts weren't particularly coherent.

As I said in a previous post it is entirely possible that there are firefighters who are CTers. Where is the real evidence though?

Nietzschefan seems to have pointed out a case where that's not the case:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1989038&postcount=170

Whether or not that is related is certainly debatable as Cooper said many things. However it is irrelevant becuase what Cooper acheived is nothing when compared to what has been released in recent years. No one is getting killed are they?

I have pointed out that firemen were afraid of losing their jobs for speaking out and there was a case wherein someone actually did lose his job for questioning the NIST's findings in the "Conspiracy Theories" thread here. I'll repost the material in this one. Again, From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 53-54:
"A number of experts have disputed the claim that melting structural steel brought down the Twin Towers.
Kevin R. Ryan, was a site manager from Environmental Health Laboratories Inc. in South Bend, IN, a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), the giant product safety testing firm. In 2003, Ryan wrote to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, challenging the theory that burning jet fuel weakened the towers' structural steel, causing them to fall.
In this communication, Ryan wrote: "As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings... the samples we certified met all requirements... the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
Ryan went on to question the conclusions of "experts", including Dr. Hyman Brown, who have claimed that the towers collapse was caused by structural steel melting at temperatures of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Reiterating that his company had certified the steel to withstand temperatures of 2000 degrees for several hours, Ryan wrote: "I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not metl until reaching red-hot temperatures of 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all"
"This story just does not add up", Ryan concluded. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be a great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."
Although Ryan made it clear that he was speaking only for himself, not his company, his employers' reaction was decisive. On November 2004, the South Bend Tribune carried this headline: "South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal prove". UL officials denied any testing of the WTC steel and said Ryan was terminated because his letter was written "without the UL's knowledge or authorization."

I'm not even going to bother looking that guy up as the numbers there are stupid. The steel only needed to lose it's strength. Steel loses half it's strength at 1100 degrees and jet fuel gets hotter than that.

You clearly haven't seen the videos that have been annotated by conspiracy theorists who believe the government played a part.

Scott I have seen plenty of them.

Zeitgeist's video would show you a thing or 2,

Cite me one source that states that it's "generally accepted by all".

It makes perfect sense and I have seen it in many articles and wasn't aware that CTers denied it happened. I shouldn't be surprised though.

I have seen no evidence, but if you have some, I would certainly like to see it.

From popular mechanics -

"The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film. "

Yes, this is exactly what is claimed by some people. Having seen the videos, with highlights to direct my gaze at certain parts, I myself feel I have seen this. Again, from "The Terror Conspiracy", page 41:
"Ross Milanyth watched the horror at the WTC from his office window on the 22nd floor of a building a couple of blocks away. "[I saw] small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all that was left of the buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail shape. The structure was just completely gone", he said.

Show me the footage of what he is describing.

No, it just means there were explosives on many floors, if not all of them.

So the explosives were on the floors hit by the plane? Then they detonated each one in perfect timing with the collapse just to give the impression of a natural collapse? Is that what you are saying?

Ok, what's your theory? The discredited pancake collapse?

It's discredited now because a professor of theology said so?

What evidence do you have that the fuel spread around anyway? From what I heard, the fires were barely maintaining their own where the planes hit. Firefighters thought the fires were controllable ("The Terror Conspiracy", page 51, title of section)..

True
In magic tricks, it's called misdirection. The argument is that the people who planted the explosives didn't want the public to know that, because the people who did it don't want to get caught. Currently, the most plausible explanation that I've found were that they were members of the security apparatus for the WTC. I wrote about it in the "Conspiracy Theories" thread, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1988341&postcount=214 (do a search for unnoticed).

If you are capable of pulling off this amazingly implausible super conspiracy surely you could just plant the bombs in the building and get away with it. Think about what you are suggesting.

Yes, but nowhere near the damage that was actually caused. The first time the World Trade Center was bombed, it didn't do nearly the amount of damage that those who planned it (and I have heard that it was an inside job that time too) had hoped for. The argument is they wanted to do a lot more damage this time so that they could wage wars in foreign lands, acquire some oil reserves and restrict american freedoms with things such as the patriot act.

What's your point? I'm not a professor of anything and yet I'm doing fairly good in this discussion. Being an expert only means that you were taught by an official school on something. There are many other ways of learning things.

Because the behavior of buildings is more the field of structural engineers not professors of religion.

Some very successful people didn't even finish a post secondary education and yet are doing just fine; Bill Gates, for instance. Similarly, if you're afraid that drawing certain conclusions may get you demoted, stagnate your position in a company or even get you fired, you may find it prudent to avoid such conclusions, regardless of your expertise. And then there are those who actually have benefitted from the consequences of 9/11, such as Ryan Mackey. He's put a lot of effort into criticizing David Ray Griffin, but then, he seems to be profiting nicely from the consequences of 9/11 as well, as can be seen here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf
His criticisms are shot down anyway, here:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

Yes, I'm serious, and no, I'm not going to rummage through your last few posts to try and figure out which theories you had in mind. If you don't want to answer the question, just let it rest.

There I would disagree with you. While it's not so hard for a few fanatics to board a plane, it's another story entirely for them to be entrusted with the security of the World Trade Center.

What do you mean entrusted? All they had to do was sneak in and blow up the building. If they could sneak on to four planes it is entirely plausible that they could do this.

Yes, rapid removal, given the sheer volume of it. We're not talking about the demolition of a house here.

... sooo it was there for a while wasn't it.?...

Or are you implying that trying to clean up New York quickly was somehow suspicious? Yes they should have just relaxed and taken their time, a bit of rubble doesn't matter. If you could really plan this massive conspiracy why would you do so in a way that the evidence was just lying around afterward and required a suspicious clean up?

I highly respect Michael Ruppert, as do the directors from Zeitgeist and I would think that Jim Marrs does as well. As I've mentioned before, Jim isn't infallible and it may well be that he was fooled in this particular case. Are you saying that you're a fan of Michael Ruppert as well?

What is the relevance to the point being contended - that your main source of information is full of mistakes. ?

I have heard that some pieces of metal were indeed taken for analysis, but the argument is that it was far too little. I'm also curious to know why you think the rubble's destination was so guarded that they had to track it via GPS and fire a guy for taking a 1 1/2 hour lunch break?

The steel was taken to a scrapyard where it was analyzed further. The location was not a secret so I don't know what you are talking about. So what if someone got fired. Maybe his boss was a jerk I don't know.

Fine, but how many were allowed to actually analyze the rubble?

I don't know the number of people. It doesn't matter who or how many analyzed it as the CTer will always say that it wasn't enough and those who did just have government links anyway.... Should it have been left there or in the worlds largest pile of scrap so that every conspiracy nut in the world can come and have a look?

I advise that you take a look at the movie zeitgeist, at 54:40.

Is it going provide me with evidence as rock solid as the links you have posted?

If that were so, you wouldn't still be debating things with me.

Is this your first internet forum?

One thing I do notice, however, is that you're a lot thinner on sources then I am.

This isn't the first 911 debate I have been in but I don't save my links. There are a lot more conspiracy websites than there are skeptical ones just as there are more religious people than atheists but fortunately the truth is not a popularity contest. But your point is typical of CTers. You have seen lots of sites (and a book) that appear to have a large quantity of evidence so you are sure that you have the truth on your side. Quantity evidence is not a substitute for quality. If the best you have is the references to Zietgiest, a book you read once, a professor of religion and cherry picked testimony then no you don't have quality.

And you base this conclusion on what, exactly?

You bring up stuff which has been debunked before but you don't seem to realize that. Instead of posting it here do a search for the skeptical response and them decide which sounds more plausible.

 

[scott3x]

that is one of your comrads then. i dont want to link to another forum unless the mods give the ok. your post are a mirror of the same ones being debunked there so instead of posting and wasting bandwith i could just link to the forum and show you that slap nuts (i am not kidding) is posting identical to you.

Just tell me the name of the forum, I think I could take it from there.

 

[scott3x]

I checked out his site, and given that he churns out a conspiracy theory a day, no thanks.

He doesn't churn out a conspiracy theory a day; he does believe in a fair amount, but he backs them up with copious amounts of gathered evidence. His 'Crossfire' book was a source for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK". I was just looking on his site and found a link to an X-files episode, called "The lone gunmen": he states: "Here is the 9/11 plot broadcast six months beforehand". The link is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ205ccX8M&NR=1

I would certainly never buy anything proferred by a Troofer.

I check out sources that official story believes cite. And you might not have to buy it; I got my copy from my local library network.

Could you provide a precise statement of his backing your point?

From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 51-52:
*****
Firefighters thought the fires were controllable

An audiotape of New York firefighters at the scene, unpublicized until mid-2002, indicated that fire officials managed to reach the 78th floor of the South Tower- very near the crash scene, which was at the 80th floor- and seemed convinced that the fire was controllable.
The tape was briefly mentioned by the New York times, but was kept from the public by the US Justice Department, which claimed it might be needed in the trial of the "twentieth hijacker", Zacarias Moussaoui, even though Moussaoui was in custody at the time of the attacks.
The audiotape was a recording of radio transmissions made on the morning of September 11, 2001. The tape reportedly was discovered two or three weeks after 9/11 in offices of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey at WTC Building 5. Apparently, Port Authority personnel were monitoring and recording the New York Fire Department (NYFD) channel.
Two fire officials mentioned by name in the tape were Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal ronald P. Bucca, both of whom perished when the South Tower collapsed along with 343 other firefighters, the greatest single loss of firefigthers in one incident in history.
According to the Times article, both firemen "showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control... At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them."
****

There's more and it's good but I'm not sure what the excerpt limit is and so I'll leave it at that for now.

I'm not sure why it was done, but I could imagine that explosives were set off there and apparently in other places before the building collapsed in order to weaken it and not necesitate so much explosives when it was finally weakened to the point that it collpased. This may have been done so that the sound wasn't as loud as it would be during a conventional demolition.

Oh, please. Enough. Enough. What does "not necesitate so much explosives when it was finally weakened to the point that it collpased" mean?

It means that the initial explosives may have been used to soften up the structure, so that the secondary explosives wouldn't need to be so loud to get the job done.

Do you understand what you're arguing here? The entire collapse was predicated on the area above the impact point.

You're going for the 'boulderist theory', one I have never even heard before, by anyone but you.

But I see below that you're not a pancake theory supporter but rather a 'boulderist'. I've never heard of this theory before; does anyone else share your belief in this theory?

Why would that matter? Argument from authority?

I imagine you're alluding to a statement I made in another post:
"They must find it hard,
those who see the authority as truth
rather then truth as the authority"

I'm not an engineer, but there are a lot of non governmental sources who claim that the idea of the planes getting their buildings to collapse just doesn't fly. Your theory isn't that far off from the pancake theory, so I'll roll with that one for now. From Zeitgeist:
***********
Pancake theory, according to which the fires, while not melting the steel, heated it up sufficiently to cause the floors weakened by the airplane strikes to break loose from the steel columns, and this started a chain reaction.
"So, you would expect then, from that theory, which is the official theory, to see a whole stack of floors, piled up on top of each other, and then a spindle of core columns standing too."
The core of the twin towers consisted of 47 massive steel columns. If the floors had broken loose from them, these columns would have still been sticking up into the air a thousand feet. The plane did not cut all those core columns.."
Les Robertson, WTC Structural Engineer:
"We designed the buildings to take the impact of the boeing 707, ah, hitting the building at any location."
Frank A. Demartini, Manager, WTC Construction:
"The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners."
Interviewer questioning Aaron Swirsky, WTC Architect:
"Interviewer: So you're saying that the plane was actually designed to cope with a hole like that?
Mr. Swirsky: Yeah, it was, it was."
*********

Because no evidence of explosives exist. Why not merely blame it on aliens, or the Sun King?

Lots of evidence exists that explosives were used. Here's an excerpt from the other thread on this subject here, "Conspiracy Theories":
From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 40:
*****
Many have wondered about the witnesses who claimed to have heard multiple explosions within the buildsings. One such witness was the head of WTC security, John O'Neill, who stated shortly before he himself became a victim that he helped dig out survivors on the 27th floor before the building collapse. Since the aircraft crashed into the 80th floor, what heavily damaged the 27th floor?

Another of those mentioning bombs was Louie Cacchioli, a fifty-one-year-old fireman assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. "We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck", recalled Cacchioli. "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." The fireman became trapped in the elevator but managed to escape with the use of tools.
****
From Page 43:
****
Mike Pecoraro told The Chief Engineer magazine he was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the lights flickered. This was followed by a loud explosion. Pecoraro and a coworker made their way up to a C level machine shop but fout it "gone." There was nothing there but rubble", recalled Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press- gone!"
****
And then there's the 2000F molten metal that was found, 500F hotter then jet fuel even burns. Thermite, on the other hand, can.

I admit I haven't heard anything of this boulderist theory before, but I've seen too much evidence supporting the idea that explosives were used to believe something else at this point.

In other words, your mind is closed. You operate on a belief system, not a scientific one.

I operate on a scientific one. If your belief stood muster against people who actually know of these things, I could believe it. But so far, you seem to be the only one to even come up with it, which gets me to believe that your idea was long ago discarded as impossible. However, if even someone from a government agency would pick it up, I'm sure that non governmental experts would notice it and then either agree with it (which I would deem unlikely) or refute it.

Considering that James Randi is simply a stage magician and scientific skeptic, I think that's understandable. I hadn't heard of him either until I googled him.

To those of us who do work in the area of logical inquiry, James Randi is well known.

By which you seem to be implying that I don't work in the area of logical inquiry. Well, whatever floats your boat.

To me, while I believe David Ray Griffin that NIST can't support its own theories, it's rather irrelevant. As I point out in the post below, even without fireproofing, the structural steel shouldn't have melted (search for Kevin):

Even in the pile, covered and smouldering? Even on the bridge, where the gas truck crashed? Even if it were aluminium?

What are you talking about? What pile, what bridge, what gas truck, what aluminum?

It's a funny thing. We go over these things again and again, round and round, in circles. We debunk the evidence, and you hold it out again, covering your eyes.

I would argue that the 'truthers' as you call them, are the ones succeeding in debunking the government's official story, but you are ofcourse free to believe that it's the anti-truthers who are debunking the truthers.

It's more like arguing religion, really; contemporary faith is falling by the wayside (except among the arguably insane or extraordinarily dangerous), so a new faith picks up the slack of belief-imagination. Were you religious as a child? What was the religion of your parents?

You'd probably have a field day if I told you more then a bit. Suffice it to say that my father has been a skeptic on religious institituations since I was born and my own religious beliefs are now eclectic. How about you?

Given the fact that Kevin was fired from his job for daring to speak without authorization from his company , I can see why other experts haven't been so forthcoming.

You have answered your own question.

I don't recall having asked a question. You seem to be implying, however, that Kevin was fired for speaking without authorization from his company. I never argued otherwise. But think of what kind of an effect that would have with people who are even closer to the government. As few old adages explain things here:
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you" and for those closer still to certain covert government agencies: "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".

Go in the peace of Dylan,

SP

Bob Dylan? Well, I can certainly believe that the answers to all the 9/11 questions are blowin' in the wind, as it were. It's just very hard for people to accept that there are elements within their own government that could do such things.

 

[scott3x]

Post it here also. Let's see his evidence.

Alright. From the bottom of this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1990163&postcount=221

"You claim that Dr. Jones refuses to have his findings of Thermate peer refused. Considering the behaviour of certain peers (perhaps some from NIST?), I think I may understand why. I'm assuming they would require him to say where he got a sample of the closely guarded debris and he might not want to put his source in jeopardy."

 

[scott3x]

I already posted the source: the book "The Terror Conspiracy", by Jim Marrs. As to more specific, it's on page 40. I got my copy from the local library network.

I said that about that point because people on the lower floors were injured as well. The whole tower was damaged and helping people on the 27th floor may have not been strange at all.

Yes, people on lower floors were injured as well before the fall. This all suggests explosives, though, as even the pancake theory can't work here because the building hadn't even started to collapse.

You have posted witness testimony of people hearing explosions and there would have been plenty of them.

Yes. So I guess your case is that the explosions were from things other then explosives, which I would consider a weak argument to make before the building started to collapse.

Oh come on why would they have thought they would lose their jobs?

I just told you, but once more:
******
Auxiliary Fire Lt. Paul Isaac, Jr., also mentioned bombs, telling internet reporter Randy Lavello that New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. "Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings", he said, "but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of the fact." Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD's antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. "There were definitely bombs in those buildings", Isaac added.
******

Apart from hearing the initial collision and explosion, also hearing it in the other tower - "In the towers there were partial floor collapses, falling elevators, likely debris falling down elevator shafts, fuel vapors igniting, bursting pipes, and perhaps steel failing, electrical systems shorting, and pressurized containers from the buildings and aircraft exploding."
From http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

In terms of the partial floor collapses, before the collapse of this building, this would point to explosives. As to the rest, why should it happen on the 27th floor, so many floors below the crash, or in the basement of all places? Not to mention that the type of damage done was way more then the things you mention could have done.

Apparently when the Windsor tower burned in Spain many explosions could be heard. There were no aircraft or jet fuel involved there either.

Apparently the Windsor tower was taken down by arson; I wouldn't be surprised if a few explosives were added into the mix. However, I think the most interesting thing about the Windsor tower is that, despite the fire being -much- bigger then the ones on 9/11 and firefighters needing almost 24 hours to put it out, the only thing that collapsed were the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors.

It was debunking911.com. Looking around for more info though it seems he was a regular poster on the jref forums. If it's the same guy (Sentinel) his posts weren't particularly coherent.

I rest my case .

As I said in a previous post it is entirely possible that there are firefighters who are CTers. Where is the real evidence though?

You mean, why are firemen afraid of the likes of former CIA director James Woolsey? The guy was trying to connect 9/11 to Iraq -on- 9/11 and he has certainly profited from the US going into Iraq. From The Washington Note (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000775.php):
****
Woolsey was the first person on national television on September 11, 2001 to allege the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda without disclosing on these shows his legal relationship representing Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress.

He is also someone who seems to see no conflict between being a pro-war pundit pretending to be on objective commentator and a war profiteer who is pocketing a lot of money from contracting related to war activities.
****

Will respond to the rest in a bit.