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

[scott3x]

Scott, the film is not going to bite you, as your information is not going to bite me, as LC did not bite me. Your views of my intent are a personal matter and do not constitute the public record. SLC is the public record.

You seem to be missing the point; it's personal. I tend not to get upset the way you do, with invective and all. I just leave the scene if something irritates me too much. Such as the SLC film. As I have mentioned, feel free to excerpt any relevant part of its text. Or you could direct me to a particular minute or 2 in the film if you want to get a certain point across. But that's as far as it goes.

I cannot fathom why you would wish to run away from knowledge.

I'd call it deception, and irritatingly poor deception at that.

 

[GeoffP]

How exactly can you pronounce it so without seeing it?

Geoff

 

[scott3x]

Squibs for one. Scott I, and others, have posted articles which address his claims. You won’t read them.

You guys tend not to read my direct links either; post excerpts, with the link below it if I want to read more.

Originally Posted by scott3x

No; many alternate theory believers don't believe that a missile hit the pentagon. Right now, I'm going for what is mentioned in www.thepentacon.com; that a plane approached the pentagon but then flew over it, and that explosives were used on the pentagon.

Even though there isn’t one witness who saw that plane fly over the pentagon and there is no evidence for explosives….

You mentioned this idea that no one saw a plane fly over a while back as well as some other criticisms on the pentagon issue. I quoted your post (it wasn't that long, I'm hoping fair use covers it) and one of the creators of www.thepentacon.com, Aldo Marquis responded in kind. But to specifically address the point you mentioned:
************************************************
Wrong. Officer Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane banking away AFTER the explosion.

This is the problem with the internet and fear. He has no idea what he is even talking about he is merely googling his way to reaffirm his denial. This is why we went out there. You can't simply take internet accounts as forensic proof of an impact of anything. People deduce things. They saw a plane fly by then see smoke or a fireball rise the area of the Pentagon, the deduce an impact. People see light poles lying on the ground after the fact, they say the plane hit some poles.

You'll note he doesn't list any names.
************************************************

If you want to see the rest of his response to you, feel free to take a look:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=145313&t=732293

 

[scott3x]

How exactly can you pronounce it so without seeing it?

Geoff

I saw the first few minutes of it. I pointed out how even those first few minutes were horribly deceptive in this forum and left it at that.

 

[GeoffP]

What was? The title? First run of credits were deceptive then? "Ooh, I know that guy, and he never edited all that. Right, I'm done here then." What are you referring to?

Geoff

 

[scott3x]

What was? The title? First run of credits were deceptive then? "Ooh, I know that guy, and he never edited all that. Right, I'm done here then." What are you referring to?

Geoff

Geoff, you do have a capability to make me laugh sometimes . Because of this, I went digging for what I actually wrote way back at the end of August. At that point, shaman had been goading me about "Loose Change" and that I should see the screw(ed up) counter. Here's his goad and my response to him:

*****************************

I have; and Dylan Avery is a disingenuous twit. I recommend "Screw Loose Change", which goes through each of Dylan Avery's hypotheses and debunks them one by one.

4 minutes and change into it, I found it did no such thing. The first 4 minutes seem to be trying to establish that the director of loose change isn't connecting to 9/11 yet. Perhaps assuming he's preaching to people who want to believe him, he's countering the obvious comparisons to 9/11 that loose change is showing even as he's saying that there's no connections being drawn. A little after 4 minutes, the director of it seems to be either a very bad reader or deliberately lying when he says that a NORAD exercise had "nothing to do with planes being used as missiles", even as the article reads "One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center". I decided I'd stop watching at that point.
*****************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1988834&postcount=550

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
I imply no such thing. I'm only implying that if no plane hit WTC 7, it was even -less- likely to collapse then the WTC buildings if no explosives were used.

lol right.

Are you suggesting that my logic is flawed? If so, where?

Originally Posted by scott3x

Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse.

A theory which has been discredited even by NIST.

The point was that the crew there did not come to a conclusion that had anything to do with the amazing temperatures required for evaporating steel.

Your previous point was "Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse". I show that the article's reason for its collapse has been discredited even by NIST, and now you insist that your point was that the crew couldn't figure out how temperatures could have gotten so hot so as to evaporate steel (about 5000 Fahrenheit, give or take). It's not that I mind your new point- it actually adds weight to the case that explosives were used, which can certainly reach such temperatures. It's just that I mind when you say that your point is one thing and then, when the evidence refutes your point, say that it's another.

 

[scott3x]

I think the following statement sums it up nicely:
***************************************
Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1
***************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

The steel was at the site for six months! There was nothing hasty about it’s removal. The investigators had access to all the steel at the scrap yards. Leave the fantasy behind and come back to reality.

Apparently it's you and many official story believers who are in fantasy land. You argue with me as if I'm the one who came up with the above story. In fact, it was the New York Daily News. The article's main point is its belief that a certain recovered steel girder was key to the cause of the WTC collapse. Its conclusion on that count may be questioned, but do you honestly believe that they'd lie about fire experts telling congress that "80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage"?

I also note that they had something to say concerning the bolts of the WTC tower, suggesting that Geoff's recent claim that the bolts could have been the problem may well have been voiced previously after all. But the article discredits that theory, which is perhaps why I didn't see anything about it in my google search. Here's the relevant excerpt:
*************************************
Bolts stayed strong

Thick bolts fastened to the column more than 30 years ago - securing it to a much thinner structural plate - were still in place. But the plate ripped apart.
*************************************

The rest of the article, including the section I quoted previously, can be seen here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/04/16/2002-04-16_wtc_girder_is_key_to_collaps.html

 

[scott3x]

There have been claims but there still seems to be no photos or video showing molten steel.

With the exception I've already mentioned.

Post a link to the photos or video please.

The exception I had in mind is rather famous:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

However, thanks to the help of an alternate theory website's admin from letsrollforums.com, I now have a video of the molten metal that had landed on the ground, as well as a firetruck passing through it. The results are drastic, as can be seen.
***************************************

Here's the video with the flowing molten metal; Just found it. And I highly doubt this is a website of Christopher's as there is no mention of the concrete core, which seems to be his main area of interest. I have found many extremely excellent pieces of evidence and proof at this website, and I would recommend the website to people, with a weak disclaimer, about his humorous and comical approach to 911. Yet, this appears to be the websites main and only real drawback.

The part of the video which shows this is toward the end of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0
***************************************
http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=160519&postcount=2

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
There were claims that the thermate (or perhaps it was thermite, both may have been used) was still reacting with the metal. Also, I believe that the fact that much of the rubble was buried would have allowed it to retain its heat.

Supermegathermite doesn’t react for that long. Even if it did it would require a ridiculous amount to do so. So no not relevant.

It has been suggested that the fact that a lot of it was buried helped it to keep its heat. NIST hasn't speculated on how it might have preserved its extremely hot temperature, ofcourse, since it denies that anything other then molten aluminum could have been present, a theory that has clearly been discredited.

Originally Posted by scott3x
Extremely unlikely if fire was what brought down the building. Not so if it were explosives.

Extremely unlikely considering there is no reliable evidence for temperatures that high or for explosives.

There's plenty of evidence not only for explosives but for a controlled demolition. From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
*******************************************

...the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders
3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure
12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises
13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
*******************************************
http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

[scott3x]

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/10/47357

“Astaneh-Asl -- who has had access to 40,000 tons of scrap”

Access is not the same thing as being able to analyze it all. He had to go through 1,500 tons of steel a -day-. He makes it clear he was unhappy with the amount of time he was given to examine the evidence as well as some other things in a statement before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives:
********************************************
I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are:

1. Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.
2. Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

Such data has already been made available to ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team. If those are also available to us, we will be able to proceed further with our research.
********************************************

Later on, The Committee asks the following questions:
********************************************
Has the confidential nature of the FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team investigation made it more difficult to gain access to materials that might be useful, such as private videotapes?
********************************************

His response should be a concern to anyone interested in what happened on 9/11:
********************************************
I have not been provided with the information made available to the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team. This includes, videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11 and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort.
********************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/astaneh-wtc.htm

 

[shaman_]

Let's see one of Griffin's counters to this 'definitive debunker':
********************************************
My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey pgs 46-47

(See below for his criticism of my statements, cited by David Ray Griffin in Debunking 9/11 Debunking)
Why Have So Many Been Taken for a Ride?

One of the problems we have with the fraudulent claims that are made regarding the existence of self-crushing steel frame buildings is the fact that many people lack an intuitive sense of the strength and resilience of these structures. They have allowed themselves to become convinced by an alleged scenario that is physically impossible. My Erector Set illustration is intended to address this problem.

The Not-so-Plausible Impossible

I can still remember, as a kid, listening to Walt Disney explain the concept of the "Plausible Impossible." When a cartoon character runs off the edge of a cliff, for example, into mid-air, if he turns around and scrambles back fast enough he can save himself from falling. This is impossible of course in "real life," but a skilled animator can nonetheless make it seem quite plausible.

The self-crushing building theory is another example of the "Plausible Impossible," and tremendous effort has been expended — again involving skillful animation — to sell the plausibility of this notion. But self-crushing steel frame buildings do not actually exist in "real life."
********************************************
The article continues here:
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

What part of that convinces you? He is merely asserting, with a pathetic ramble involving cartoons, that a steel building cannot collapse. The vast majority of structural engineers disagree with him. The critical failure which caused the collapse have happened before.

That couldn’t even be called a counter.

I never said nano thermites were used before 9/11 to demolish something, only that its -capabilities- were proven.

It’s capabilities for demolishing a building have not been proven. What has been proven is how fire can weaken steel causing structures to collapse.

In comparison to the size of the building, they were small. Now compare that to the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/images/picture/windsor_tower_2.jpg

Clearly, -these- were not oxygen starved fires, where there was more smoke then flame.

Where did the oxygen all go?

Have you seen the Kuwaiti oil fires? See how much smoke there is? Would you then say that they were oxygen starved?

No there was clearly plenty of oxygen for the fires to weaken the steel.

If the WTC towers collapsed in less then a few hours, one might believe that these buildings would have collapsed even faster. Reporter Christopher Bollyn recounts his experience the morning after:
****************************************
I listened to the morning news on National Public Radio this morning to hear the news of the Windsor Tower in Madrid. Had it collapsed in a mushroom cloud of concrete dust? Had metal beams been thrown tens of meters sideways as the tower fell to the ground in a few seconds after burning "like a candle" for nearly 24 hours?

How odd. There were no news reports about the Edificio Windsor near the Corte de Ingles (note the connections to Rio Tinto, who owns the land they stand on).

This was incredibly odd. If the building was still standing after burning like a torch for 24 hours, then something is very wrong with either our building techniques in the USA - or something is very wrong with the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team study carried out by engineers with the American Society of Civil Engineers at the World Trade Center in 2001-2002.

If the building had fallen, well then the theory advanced by the BPAT, that fire can cause steel framed concrete building to fall into piles of rubble, would have been validated.

So, I listened. And I listened. Nothing. NPR was not interested in this event and what it had to say about 9/11.

I am corresponding with Dr. Gene Corley, team leader of the BPAT to see what he has to say about this fire.

What is very interesting about this fire is that it has resulted in exactly what I said should result in such an event. Even if some of the supporting trusses fail, the main central columns should remain, UNLESS cut by some other means (e.g. explosives) in the basement.
****************************************
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796


Here is how things looked at the ending:

"after many hours of burning the central support columns and concrete center are still intact but some of the trusses from the upper floors have given away and allowed parts of the top ten floors to collapse. Note how differently this event has progressed compared to 9/11."
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796

Once again, smaller building, not hit by planes, concrete core and the steel supports still collapsed…..

Perhaps you are a 'reverse conspiracy' believer. 9/11 Research explains just how much evidence would have had to be tampered with in order for no squibs to have actually been present:
******************************************
Squibs

High-Velocity "Demolition Squibs" Are Visible in the Twin Towers' Collapses

Squibs are "blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives." 1 In discussions of the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers, the term has been appropriated to describe the physical appearance of puffs or jets of dust emerging from buildings during a demolition, caused by the detonation of explosive charges. Several such "squibs" can be seen in videos and photographs capturing the collapses of the North and South Towers.

It has been suggested that the evident squibs could have been added to the photographs and videos after the fact, given that much of this evidence has found its way onto the web via undocumented routes. However, the squibs show up in many diverse videos and photographs, and we have not been able to find any showing the squibs to be absent. A conspiracy of incredible proportions would be required to forge such convincing evidence of squibs in such diverse sources.
******************************************
The article goes on here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html .

What the hell is this guy talking about? Who says the so called squibs are touched up photos?

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

The puffs of smoke were most likely caused by air being compressed downwards while a fairly large building was collapsing.

No one said the explosives were invisible, although I would certainly think that they were concealed.

Oh come on. There were explosives on every floor and no once noticed. … not likely.

Nano thermite is -very- effective when it comes to cutting into iron based metals (such as steel). Where are you getting your information from? .

jref.

So do demolition companies use it? They must considering how effective you say it is.

You're right about the timing. But it can be done with computers.

lol Computers can do everything nowadays!!

Yes, steel can be weakened by fire. But, as Kevin Ryan made clear when NIST was conducting its $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers:
****************************************
Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "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.

He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees) 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."" .

Kevin is wrong regarding the temperatures. The twisted steel, the bowing and the other examples conclusively prove that.

The collapse of the building was most certainly a great concern to many, hence the list of peer reviewed articles by the structural engineers.

If most of the evidence hadn't been pulverized to fine dust,

Not everything was dust.

with the remaining steel carted away before investigators could properly investigate it, they would have had a problem, yes.

The investigators had access to it at the salvage yard. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl had access to 40, 000 tons of steel. It was enough for him to determine what happened.

There is strong evidence that many within the government, firemen, police and perhaps even some lower level functionaries within NIST have questioned or outright disagree with the official story.

There are conspiracy theorists everywhere. According to you however these people actually know about the supoer conspiracy and aren’t doing anything about it for fear of becoming unemployed. lol

I contend that it doesn't take all that many people to concoct such a plan, so long as those people are in high places within the government (Rudi Giuliani, the Bush clan, the vice president...)

Then you have not really thought about how many people would be needed to execute this ridiculous ‘bombs in the building being hit by planes’ idea as well as the just as absurd ‘fly a plane near the pentagon and then fly it away and set bombs off making it look like a plane hit the pentagon while knocking over some light poles and throwing plane parts around, and then planting passenger remains in the wreckage (they were killed earlier) and then getting everyone to lie about what they saw’ plan.

Easy there shaman. I know that the 'no personal attacks' guideline is a joke, but losing your calm won't add anything to this discussion..

Scott 9/11 is your religion and no amount of debunking, reason or logic is going to change your conclusions which were reached without proper investigation. Instead of going to church you visit conspiracy sites and believe everything you are fed. Like religion, critical thinking is avoided and blind faith is embraced.

I would argue that the first 6 pictures in the above link are fine specimens, but I have a strong feeling that you won't agree..

That is what a 110 building looks like when it collapses from the top. It’s not pretty. A controlled demolition is completely different though and this has been pointed out to you multiple times. You will see what you want to see though.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Unlike the case of the firefighters, I haven't seen any FEMA employees saying that this was the case. A lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack...

No but when you are taking something to be true when there is a lack of evidence you are using blind faith.

Who said I was taking it to be true? I merely mentioned it as a possibility.

You are claiming that there was molten and evaporated steel though.

The claim of molten metal has been made by many people:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

As to the evaporated steel, I'm simply repeating what was reported in the New York Times:
***************************************
Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks....

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
***************************************
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63

 

[shaman_]

You guys tend not to read my direct links either; post excerpts, with the link below it if I want to read more.

You mentioned this idea that no one saw a plane fly over a while back as well as some other criticisms on the pentagon issue. I quoted your post (it wasn't that long, I'm hoping fair use covers it) and one of the creators of www.thepentacon.com, Aldo Marquis responded in kind. But to specifically address the point you mentioned:
************************************************
Wrong. Officer Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane banking away AFTER the explosion.

Ah so they actually claim to have a relevant witness now. When did he come out of the woodwork? Does Robert’s testimony match what he said in 2001?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3940436&postcount=3

Does his testimony even support what they are saying? Or are they just taking their own interpretation just as they did with all the people who claim to have seen it hit the pentagon?

I have posted the numbers of people who actually saw the plane hitting poles and hitting the pentagon. There are many of them and the testimony was taken straight away. If you think that is somehow invalidated by one questionable interpretation taken years later then you are leaning on your faith again.

This is the problem with the internet and fear. He has no idea what he is even talking about he is merely googling his way to reaffirm his denial.

:roflmao:

I like in Melbourne Australia. What am I scared of?

This is why we went out there.

That’s right they went out there with a belief already confirmed before gathering any evidence. They went out with preconceived notion and tried to shoehorn the evidence to fit it. They interviewed people who claimed to see the plane hitting the pentagon and then they interpreted what they wanted from the angles they described and concluded that the plane didn’t hit the pentagon!!

You can't simply take internet accounts as forensic proof of an impact of anything. People deduce things. They saw a plane fly by then see smoke or a fireball rise the area of the Pentagon, the deduce an impact.

People saw the impact!

People see light poles lying on the ground after the fact,

People saw the plane hitting the light poles!!!


These guys cling on to one witness account and discard the ones they don’t like. I’m now convinced that, of all the groups of conspiracy theorists, the pentacon guys are the most stupid.

 

[GeoffP]

*****************************


4 minutes and change into it, I found it did no such thing. The first 4 minutes seem to be trying to establish that the director of loose change isn't connecting to 9/11 yet. Perhaps assuming he's preaching to people who want to believe him, he's countering the obvious comparisons to 9/11 that loose change is showing even as he's saying that there's no connections being drawn. A little after 4 minutes, the director of it seems to be either a very bad reader or deliberately lying when he says that a NORAD exercise had "nothing to do with planes being used as missiles", even as the article reads "One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center". I decided I'd stop watching at that point.
*****************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1988834&postcount=550

And? The first four minutes of LC struck me as unreasonable too. Yet, I stuck with it.

Geoff

 

[KennyJC]

With something like the truth movement being a minority group with nothing established in mainstream science - How can they be taken seriously when even amongst them, there are vast condtradictions? The character of these people is in doubt....particularly when they try to establish something so remarkable that it would be the single most elaborate crime of all time. Look at what evidence they put fourth and ask yourself if these have a more mundane explanation; ask yourself if these people are motivated by truth; ask yourself if they are using their beliefs or fantasies to manipulate and deceive; ask yourself if these people are the least bit perturbed by the fact that all of mainstream science reject their claims.

Can Scott can look himself in the mirror and say that he is being truthful to us or even himself? Or is there a rational voice in his head knowing that with each copy & paste from truther websites he does not know or care if it is true? He will jump at the chance to say "no I genuinely believe what I'm telling you", at which point I would have to move from disgust to pity.

The sad difference between religious fundamentalists and truthers is that at least the religious have nothing to go on and just assert that they are right and you are wrong. With truthers, they can misrepresent actual physical happenings and smugly content that they are right and you are wrong based on their deceitful, ignorant and stupid interpretations of the physical world.

 

[MacGyver1968]

my extra large, mutant sized penis is unreasonable. I stick with it all the time.

 

[scott3x]

We have examined these ‘holes’ and they don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

I never said that Paul Isaac saw anything, although he may have, being stationed so close to the buildings. What the above report makes clear, however, is that he is claiming that other firefighters know there were bombs in the buildings. If you want a more in depth look at all the evidence that firefighters heard explosions, I suggest you take a look at the following articles:
http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

Scott, once again if other firefighters ‘know’ that there were bombs responsible for killing their friends then why don’t they say something? If you say because they are scared to lose their jobs I am going to reach though the monitor and slap you. I can do it.

I'd like to see you try, laugh . In any case, I didn't say it; Paul Isaac did:
****************************************
Also, Isaac directly addressed the gag order placed on firemen and police officers in Szymanski’s article:

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11.
****************************************
http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html

Despite this gag order, however, some firemen -did- speak. Paul Isaac is the most obvious example, but there were others, as is clear from the link I provided you last time:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

As a matter of fact, some of them wanted to testify to the 'independent' 9/11 commission, but they were excluded from doing so:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11_firefighters.html

Isaac has no actual evidence himself though does he? Please answer this question without cutting and pasting someone else’s work.

Perhaps not evidence admissible in a court of law, as I have seen no evidence that he himself heard the explosions in the building. But as far as I know, he has never stated otherwise. What he -has- stated is that -other- firefighters have heard explosions and testimony of those other firefighters is in the links I have provided.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7440129306993364432&pl=true

I’ve posted this before but I’ll do so again. He doesn’t seem to like the loose change guys. Go to 6:48

That guy is begging to get hit.

Just as there is disagreements within a political party, there is also dissent within the ranks of the alternate story believers. If you look at the video closely, you will see that Paul Isaac specifically stated that he didn't necessarily disagree with what many 9/11 alternate story believers believed, but rather with the way they expressed it that day (9/11). Or, to put it in his own words, it was the 'format' or the 'presentation' that he didn't like. Why he didn't like it, I didn't quite understand; it seems he was saying that he simply wanted to mourn without having to think of who did it. Perhaps at this point in time, he was not yet in the alternate story movement. Whatever the case, it's clear that he's in it now; differences can occur within a group of people but one thing that he and many alternate story believers concur on is that the building was brought down by explosions.

 

[Headspin]

Officer Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane banking away AFTER the explosion. ”

Does Robert’s testimony match what he said in 2001?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3940436&postcount=3

Does his testimony even support what they are saying?

The post you link to is a perfect example of JREF deceit.
the JREF poster claims that the original recording does not support a pentagon flyover.
he even provides a link to the original recording
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.afc/afc2001015.sr348a01

and yet the recording DOES support a flyover.
At 1:20 he clearly describes seeing another airliner fly over the pentagon AFTER an explosion at the pentagon. In a follow up interview by CIT he even clarifies stating the plane was a silver commercial airliner (clearly an AA airliner).

The point of the JREF post is to fool those who don't actually listen to the recording. I'm reminded of the line in star wars "these aren't the droids you're looking for"

 

[scott3x]

5- Janette also significantly contributed to our scientific understanding of the destruction of the towers, because she saved some of the dust that filled her apartment and passed it on to Steven Jones for analysis.

Ding ding! "Here's your trouble, sir: you've got an unprotected chain of evidence here." She collected dust for sentimental reasons? Unlikely.

What draws you to the conclusion that it's unlikely for an artist to collect WTC dust for sentimental reasons?

She believed that the official story was full of holes, as do I. What's your point?

That her story is full of holes. How do I know nothing was done to the sample?

The lack of motive, for one. The lack of know how, for another. On the issue of motive: how do you know the NIST individuals in charge of the investigation purposely didn't look for nano thermite because they -knew- that they'd find it? They, after all, are experts on nano thermite, and yet they failed to test for it and when pressed gave handily debunked reasons as to why they didn't do so.

Was it ever even submitted to NIST

I've already told you that NIST doesn't even want to talk to Steven Jones. Also, as far as I know, they still have their own samples they could test. And yet they don't.

Yes. She met him in what? 2003?

I already provided you with evidence that she met him in 2005.

It's far too suspicious to be considered evidence.

In your mind perhaps. I and others disagree.

...It is an unsupported chain of evidence handled by people with a keen interest in "proving" their theory. It would require substantially fewer people to concoct such evidence by salting the sample.

This implies a few things:
1- You actually know how to concoct nanothermite on your own and create these iron rich spherules.

2- You actually have a motivation for doing so.

What's more, she is not the only person who found iron rich spherules, as I have already mentioned.

Originally Posted by scott3x

You can't even come up with a theory?

You're right; I should have done. My theory is that she and Jones are not trustworthy about the work. Jesus in the Americas, eh?

Look, it's one thing to misinterpret data (Jesus in the Americas sounds a bit suspicious to me too). As you may know, Steven Jones is a mormon and mormons believe that Jesus did, in fact, come to America. I have found the religious beliefs, on the whole, have a whole lot of irrational beliefs. But religious beliefs and data on whether or not Jesus came to america is one thing. A thermate fingerprint is quite another.

Because their case is so full of holes and they constantly seem to want to obscure the truth.

Funnily enough, this is precisely the same argument that exists against Jones and MacKinlay.

Jones isn't withholding any of his evidence. The same isn't true in the case of the government.