yes, a simple typo (or what the debunkers would call "A LIE!!!!"
October 2001, thanks scott.
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
October 2001, thanks scott.
It might appear so, but that's not exactly the case...
************************************************
At the time as the first plane impact the World Trade Center North Tower, explosions occured in the basement, killing and injuring people, destroying walls over several levels. The official explanation for this is that fireballs from the jet-fuel came down elevator-shafts and caused the damage.
But despite that some eyewitnesses state that an explosions occured shortly before the plane impact, the physical damage and the arrangement of the elevators refuse the official explanation.
Furthermore, at the same time an explosion occured on the 22nd floor, where the SCC (Security Command Center) was located. The explosions resulted in lost of control over the elevators, the HVCA (Heat, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) system, produced additional chaos to emergency responses, destroyed water lines and made the MER (Mechanical Equipment Rooms) unaccessable, hence pumps providing water for firefighting efforts could not have been activated.
For that, firefighters were prevented from existinguishing the fires even if they had reached the firezones, like firefighter Chief Palmer did.
Another aspect is the suspicious behaviour of the Secret Service on that day and its relation to the basement explosions.
Read the full article here...
************************************************
http://loosechange-911.blogspot.com/2007/11/wtc-basement-explosions.html
Thermite seems less credible than even jet fuel as a source of heat for creating pools of molten metal. Cutting girders would not require that much explosive. Simple economy would dictate that the conspirators would use enough to do the job and not try to cart in enough to also melt the girders.
At the same time, I haven't read government claims that simple impact could melt metal. They should know this. That's a lot of joules of stored energy. Take a lead sinker some time and beat it with a hammer and see if it gets hot. It does. Heat doesn't escape so well from steel buried in rubble.
At the same time, I haven't read government claims that simple impact could melt metal. They should know this. That's a lot of joules of stored energy. Take a lead sinker some time and beat it with a hammer and see if it gets hot. It does. Heat doesn't escape so well from steel buried in rubble.
do you mean the "show me your papers" kinda way, or do you mean the usual scientific process, which can take years to realise a full published paper? I think you must mean the later. the answer is of course that it is ongoing research, and whilst the scientific community does not demand inspection of works in progress, Professor Jones is making his research open because of its critical nature. Papers no doubt will be forthcoming. An article which gives you some insight into the peer review process.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/18196
(go on mac - give it a click)
the only people who disrepect Jones seem to be the people who don't like his findings.
No, it covers many things.
No, it is an open access civil engineering journal, in this matter it is more important that information is readily available, rather than buried in a pay-per-view journal.
so you've backed away from your original position that Jones has no peer reviewed papers.
so in response to "from what i can tell the debunkers and most of the official theories have never been peer reviewed or published", you present a list of peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed papers not even written by debunkers or used by debunkers", most if not all of these papers are simple theoretical analysis and seem not based on empirical data.
the bar seems to be raised yet again, I note now that the words "relevant" and "respected" have crept into the language. so it seems now the witch hunters are now going after the journals rather than the scientists.
Last edited:
It was particularly humorous to read their "personal 9/11 statements".
There is no "list" of experts who agree that the Earth is round. It would be easier to get a "list" of so-called experts who think the Earth is flat. It should go without saying that the civil engineering community agree with the "official story" as you like to call it. Why do I know this? Because they are not voicing their disagreement about it in large enough numbers.
If you want to say they are scared of being fired or killed or whatever, then go right ahead. It would just be yet another unsubstantiated claim made by yourself.
Scientists will lose their job if they are incompetent. This happened with Jones and Ryan. There was nothing sinister behind it. No conspiracy theory can extend beyond the government and include all universities, respected civil engineering and demolition organizations.
Evidence of global warming was accumulative over time. More evidence came in all the time. But with truthism, you aren't gonna get much more than what you already have.
If Steven Jones was right, he would not be relegated to conspiracy websites. He would actually be in the scientific arena.
The greatest embarrassment to any truther is that their "experts" are relegated to these whacky websites instead of making progress in a credible scientific arena.
Not that I wish to place such great importance in experts, as I fully believe the bulk of 9/11 conspiracy theories can be debunked by people like me or anybody else who just does a little bit of research. But still, the lack of consensus in the scientific community about thermite or controlled demolitions on 9/11 speaks volumes.
I think it is not so easy to melt steel by "pounding".
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf
Its been 7 years since 911, the half-life of uranium is 4 billion years, the sun will swallow planet earth before new york would give up that radioactivity.
Really? How are the statements of doubt or downright disbelief of the official story of 512 Architects and Engineers humorous? I'll grab the first 'personal 9/11 statement' I found:
******************************************
Richard Gage
AIA, Architect
Lic: C19220 CA
B. Arch.
S.F. Bay Area, CA
• Bio: I've been a practicing Architect for 20 years and have designed numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. More recently I've performed construction administration services for a new $120M high school campus including a $10M steel-framed gymnasium. Currently working on the design development for a mixed use urban project with 1.2M sq. ft. of retail and 320,000 sq.ft. of high-rise office space - altogether about 1,200 tons of steel framing.
• Personal 9/11 Statement: The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will, with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a new truly independent investigation with subpeona power. A/E's must now become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!
******************************************
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_#999959
By all means, elucidate us on how this statement brings you mirth...
There's also no "Earth is flat" truth movement; that argument essentially died a long time ago.
My father once told me a story that a 'round earther' challenged a 'flat earther'. The 'round earther' asked the 'flat earther' woman what supported the earth. She said that the earth was supported by a turtle. He asked what supported the turtle. "You're very clever, young man", said the old woman, "but it's turtles all the way down!"
The sad part of this story is that it's the government that is now going for these circular arguments, in the same way that the church used to pronounce that the earth was flat and people had to be burned at the stake for heresy. Case in point; NIST didn't search for thermite because no evidence for thermite was found. It was asked of them, if you didn't search for thermite, how do you expect to find it? The NIST spokesman stumbled a bit but managed to slip out of the argument. When it comes to 9/11, NIST, who developed nanothermite, is not to be swayed by logic... or perhaps, more likely, it knows perfectly well that nanothermite was used and is doing everything it can to avoid lines of investigation from going that way...
Look, most people don't spend their time arguing what happened on 9/11. They occupy their time in other ways. It falls to people who abhor what happened on that day to sleuth it out. Those people are people like you and me, a decided minority. The rest are more interested in other pursuits. But don't mistake disinterest with agreement. I've already put statistics up which show that the american people are deeply disatisfied with the Bush administration and many don't trust him on a great deal of things, from the economy, to Iraq to the reports on 9/11.
If I were you, I wouldn't be so smug with your idea that 'only' 512 Architects and Engineers have signed the AE petition. Because while the people who speak up on 9/11 issues may be a minority, I maintain that it is this very minority that has forced the government to do all the reports it has done, much as it has wanted to bury the whole thing long ago. I firmly believe that one day the truth will be known to the general public, just as today we abhor many of the acts of our forebears (the inquisition, the european way of 'discovering' america, etc.). I'm not going to claim that it will happen by the end of this decade. I honestly don't know when it will happen. I just feel that one day, it'll happen, and it'll happen because of the minority of people who care enough to try to find the truth. And Kenny, believe it or not, I include you in this. I could hardly do all this arguing if I didn't have someone to argue -with-. If you were like many, you wouldn't care enough to respond and this whole discussion might have died out long ago...
ok, so this is the source of your belief that Jones "had samples immeditely after the attack", i think the videos say the samples were collected immediately after the attack. you can check yourself what the facts are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e
and the potassium? the silicon? the quantity of microspheres (6% of the entire dust cloud) ? Fe-O-K-Al-Si chemical fingerprint signature matching the same chemical fingerprint signature as commercial thermite. You surely understand what a genetic fingerprint is and why a genetic fingerprint for a turtle cannot occur by putting a rabbit and a fox in a blender.GeoffP said:
the dust samples were collected within minutes of the collapse, and above ground.
can you tell us who is interested in looking at it?
I don't recall attacking the US government.
But they don't mention these types.
Actually, he said he was sent samples a day after the attacks. It's in your video, part 5. Maybe Steven should prove his assertion? And just where did his samples come from?
"Proven false scientifically"? I'm calling you - Prove this assertion!
Nope. Kiln effect.
It's "beggars". They don't mention it being an actual explosive itself. It only assists the reaction. Don't you understand this difference? Why didn't Jones test for the presence of other explosives, then?
Proof?
Best regards,
Geoff
Come now, Kenny. Surely you are aware that 2 of the brightest stars in the 9/11 movement were both essentially given the boot from their jobs: Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. Are you saying that you have no idea how that would be received by other potential whistleblowers?
These people were already small stars even -before- 9/11; Steven Jones was a respected professor who'd already earned his 5 minutes of fame with his work on a type of cold fusion (he prefers the term muon catalyzed fusion) that wasn't fakery and his experimental results have been validated. Kevin Ryan was a director in Underwriter Labs, the company that, despite their denials, certified the WTC steel. But their positions alone aren't what made them stars. It was their conscience.
In the case of Steven Jones, it's clear that someone turned to him for help in resolving what happened on 9/11 by sending him some samples from the Ground Zero area. Someone who probably felt that Steven would follow the evidence, wherever it might lead.
In the case of Kevin Ryan, it seems that it was simply a matter of conscience. He could have kept quiet and held on to his job, but it seems clear to me that he simply couldn't do that in good conscience. I believe he was aware of the risk he was taking to some extent, because in the email that got him fired, he said this:
**************************************
You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support.
**************************************
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
That man was David Ray Griffin, who had already come out against the official 9/11 story.
Incompetent to whom? One of Merriam Webster's definitions of incompetent is: inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose.
I think it can safely be argued that people like Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan certainly aren't suitable for covering up the truth on 9/11. And so they were removed from their posts. I've read that the Bush administration has actually -removed- protections for whistleblowers but no links on that one for now.
I could say that the top dogs at NIST are incompetent at revealing the truth regarding 9/11, but if you look at it from an insider point of view, they have proven to be fairly competent at doing the opposite, that is, ignoring, obscuring and sometimes downright denying certain inconvenient truths.
Sure one could, but that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that high up officials can selectively put pressure on companies or institutions to get desired results. Let me show you the beginning of some correspondence that Steven Jones got -before- he was put on paid leave...
***************************************
4. From a mechanical engineer with ‘government contacts’, sent to Prof Jones and BYU administrators:
[Nov. 2005, shortly after Prof. Jones’ article first appeared on the web] "The publication of this [Jones] article can be stopped on the basis of endangerment, and I have the contacts to make this happen if necessary, but I prefer to give you the opportunity to consider the consequences - which you have not addressed. You need to give this very serious consideration. [Endangerment to whom? The current administration?] This is an issue that is more important than any individual career, [I think he means Dr. Jones’ career] or whether or not you believe that you are correct. …The molten metal may be the best evidence that local conditions in the fire where [sic] hotter than the post-test evaluation of specific points… your theories are likely to be subject to intense scrutiny and criticism. As painful as it may seem now, perhaps it may be less painful than could occur after publication."
***************************************
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4
Last edited:
No, he says precicely this: "about a week later <after 911> she entered and collected some dust which she sent to me, this was our first sample"
2:15 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&
Scott has already displayed a video in this thread showing an experiment mixing the materials which NIST stated would glow orange, the materials were heated and poured - and they were silver, not orange.
post 1494 - http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2055506&postcount=1494
you could email your questions to him. he posts on 911blogger too. I'm not in a position to say what he's done and hasn't done, more than what i know anyway.
Last edited:
I can definitely agree that some are trying to obscure the facts. I can also believe that some proponents of the official story are true believers, but, as you say, don't completely understand the material.
You could say that
I'll be honest with you; for all I know, you could be correct. I really don't know too much on such things. What I -do- know, however, is that there is a fair amount of evidence that thermate was used. In this case, I really do think that we've simply got to follow the white rabbit (matrix reference, I'm a bit of a fan) of evidence, regardless of where it leads us.
Thanks for tracking that one down for me. So a week later she sends him this stuff. Why? Why some energy-physics nobody at BYU who's been out of the biz for 15 years?
For starters, you were talking about nano aluminum, which is an ingredient but not the sum total of nano thermite. In any case, in regards to nano aluminum, they say "include underwater explosive devices". The fact that they say "include" makes it clear that they also have other types. Did you figure that the only other way it would work would be in the air or something? In any case, do you honestly think that if nanothermite couldn't be used as a building explosive that the government and/or other official story believers wouldn't have pounced on that fact by now?
I will include the following quote, in the hopes that it will be sufficient to persuade you. This is from a report that has "April 10, 2000" on its cover and was apparently submitted to the International Pyrotechnics Seminars that took place from July 17-21, 2000 in Grand Junction, Colorado:
********************************************
We have invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry
********************************************
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf
he says she "collected" it a week later, not "sends him" a week later.
Jones did not get the sample until 2006 or 2007 I believe. but whatever, he does not say what you claim in the video. He recieved one sample only this year i think, which was collected within minutes of the collapse.
"Why some physics Professor at BYU?" because he was investigating already, and he put out the call for more samples at the June 2006 LA conference.
Ok, wait a second there. Can you cite where you get this "energy-physics nobody" from? I already made it clear that Steven Jones was not just a professor, but one who challenged an eminent physicist on a theoretical point regarding muon catalyzed fusion.. and proved to be correct.
I'm also quite curious as to why you are so interested in why she sent it to him? Why aren't you focusing on why the government didn't test it themselves? We talk and talk about the particulars of why x woman sent a sample to x man when, or when she sent it precisely. And yet we seem to be completely bypassing the point that if the government had been doing its job, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place.
I think it was you that once asked why Steven Jones didn't submit a sample to NIST. Are you even aware that NIST doesn't even want to talk to him? This despite the fact that an alleged mechanical engineer with 'government contacts' started corresponding with Steven Jones and the BYU administration, telling them that Jones shouldn't publish his work because, "As painful as it may seem now, perhaps it may be less painful than could occur after publication."
Or his second correspondence with Jones where he tells him "[Dec. 2005, following answers and detailed responses by Prof. Jones]: "I… have learned to appreciate the value of silence, even in the case of superior data and information…. [He seems to be telling Dr. Jones to shut up!] "
As 9/11 Truth Seekers states:
"The reader can judge for her/himself the statements and tactics used by this man with "contacts." Note that his comments and efforts to thwart publication of the Jones paper did not succeed, but may have influenced the statement by the BYU Fulton College of Engineering which follows."
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4
In the fall of 2006, he was put on paid leave and on October 20, 2006, he announced his retirement.
Last edited:
- Status