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

[shaman_]

Can I quote your post on Loose Change again? Aldo Marquis may respond once more (he told me he tried to get an account here but couldn't; the admins told me that it may have been that he didn't have javascript on or something but I haven't heard from him since).

Sure you may quote me.

I'm not sure what his thoughts were on the matter. Perhaps you are afraid to face the truth. As Jack Nicholson said in "A few good men": "You can't handle the truth!" ;-).

The possibility that radical Muslims could do that is no less scary. In fact I would be comforted if I was ruled by a government capable off pulling off the ridiculous conspiracy you believe in. Has Bush done anything anywhere near that competent in his time in office?

They went there with the belief that the plane might not have come -at- all or if it did, to have been a much smaller one. They had no idea that the witnesses would say that there was a plane, but that it's flight path didn't comform to the official one and that, therefore, it couldn't have crashed into the pentagon because the damage would have had to have been different.

They went out sure there was a conspiracy and they took the interpretations they wanted. They interviewed people who thought they saw the plane hit the pentagon, ignored that and decided the plane didn’t hit the pentagon. If these guys had interviewed people at the WTC they would probably convince themselves the same thing.

Now's the time when I think it'd be good for me to just quote you on this and see what he says.


Well you can believe that but so far what they've said has made sense to me. I can't refute everything you say here, but I attribute this to simply not knowing enough or perhaps having forgotten what I used to know on it. Aldo Marquis, on the other hand, could probably refute it all with ease.. if he were here. As it is, like I said, I may be able to get him to respond if I quote in the loose change forums..

You don't seem to be able to refute any of our arguments but your blind faith in the conspiracy prevents you from seeing reason.

Sorry, no . My exact words were "If anything, the temperature should have been -less- there if it was caused by office fires alone. After all, no plane hit WTC ". Considering all the work I've put into demonstrating that even with planes, the temperature of the office fires could never have reached temperatures to collapse the WTC buildings, I'm surprised that you'd jump to the above stated conclusion.

My comments weren’t only directed at you. "No plane hit this building” is like a stupid troother catchcry.

After digging a bit further, it appears I mistook your "Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse" to mean that you -agreed- with the stated reason for the collapse, something which now seems clear you didn't. My apologies. But don't you find it... interesting that the recently released report makes "no mention of evaporating steel or temperatures even remotely near what would be needed to evaporate steel"?

Yes it is interesting it confirms that the temperatures did not in fact reach that high.

 

[fedr808]

You guys do remember that there was a subway station under the towers, that could produce some of these irregularities.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I've already seen non controversial controlled demolition videos, thanks. As to the WTC collapses, there were some characteristics that definitely were consistent with a normal CD (Controlled Demolition). There are also some that make it unusual for a CD. However, these unusual characteristics can still be accounted for by simply setting up an unusual CD.

Can you not see the desperate rationalizing you are employing here? You have a deep belief that it was a CD so the fact that this collapse had little in common with a controlled demolition you just explain away with the line “However, these unusual characteristics can still be accounted for by simply setting up an unusual CD”. The building did not fall like a controlled demolition. Deal with it.

I think it would be better if you 'dealt' with the fact that 521 architects and engineers have publicly questioned the official storyline regarding 9/11. Their arguments as to why the WTC collapses were in fact demolitions can be seen on their page on the right hand side:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Originally Posted by scott3x

It also exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

… like sagging floors

As I have mentioned before, Steven Jones has dealt with NIST's deplorable 'evidence' as to the sagging floors. Once again:
***********************************
The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,...the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)
***********************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf , page 36

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

Gravity tends to pull downward. Though the collapse was not symmetrical. Remember the lean and the top hitting WTC7.

Yes, but objects also follow the path of least resistance; my understanding of this is that when one of the floors collapsed, it would have been easier the debris to have fallen off the side of the building into the air, instead of breaking the floors below it. I remember seeing a buliding collapsing on its own (poor construction I imagine, not a problem that the WTC towers had) and it definitely collapsed in a certain direction and it wasn't a complete collapse either.

And yes, the tower leaned a bit before it was pulverized in mid air. Did gravity do that too?

Originally Posted by scott3x

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Yes never mind the raging fires started with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Kevin Ryan, who has fired from his job for disagreeing with the official story, had this to say:
***********************************
Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included:
To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events [no interception of hijacked planes by the military on 9/11, etc.], gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas...” (Ryan, 2005).
***********************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf , page 40


But perhaps you'd like a second opinion, from a site of architects and engineers, perhaps? From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site (complete with some very educational pictures):
http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

 

[John99]

Yes, but objects also follow the path of least resistance; my understanding of this is that when one of the floors collapsed, it would have been easier the debris to have fallen off the side of the building into the air, instead of breaking the floors below it. I remember seeing a buliding collapsing on its own (poor construction I imagine, not a problem that the WTC towers had) and it definitely collapsed in a certain direction and it wasn't a complete collapse either.

You are imagining incorrectly. The floors in the vicinity of the collision were structurally weakened by the intense heat and explosion itself and the floors fell straight down. Also remember that these floors were not empty and the further down it went the heavier the weight became.

Hence, no controlled demolition. The whole notion is imbecilic and impossible anyway.

 

[John99]

To add to that i dont think you know how the joints were fastened at the floors anyway. Do you think it was a complete steel shell?

 

[MacGyver1968]

Yes, but objects also follow the path of least resistance; my understanding of this is that when one of the floors collapsed, it would have been easier the debris to have fallen off the side of the building into the air, instead of breaking the floors below it. I remember seeing a buliding collapsing on its own (poor construction I imagine, not a problem that the WTC towers had) and it definitely collapsed in a certain direction and it wasn't a complete collapse either.

And yes, the tower leaned a bit before it was pulverized in mid air. Did gravity do that too?




Kevin Ryan, who has fired from his job for disagreeing with the official story, had this to say:
***********************************
Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included:
To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events [no interception of hijacked planes by the military on 9/11, etc.], gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas...” (Ryan, 2005).
***********************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf , page 40


But perhaps you'd like a second opinion, from a site of architects and engineers, perhaps? From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site (complete with some very educational pictures):
http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

You need to bone up on your Newtonian physics. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. The only force involved is the downward force of gravity. Objects don't "look for a path of least resistance"..That is a term used with electricity and fluids. It's like dropping a bowling ball on a house of cards. It just tears right through it.

 

[scott3x]

Smaller buildings with concrete cores that weren’t hit by planes…..

There have been good arguments made that the effect of the planes and their jet fuel was negligible. Some have argued that the Windsor tower in Madrid, because it did partially collapse, "validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

However, in the case of the WTC buildings, 9/11 Research states this:
"Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses. "
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

Cases of steel structures collapsing from fire have been presented and ignored.

Steel structures is not the same thing as steel-framed sky scrapers:
"Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

 

[John99]

Stay stupid then.:shrug:

 

[KennyJC]

the complete core was not the last thing to collapse. if you do the measurements you'll see that only 30 floors height remained briefly, and the columns on the outside of the inner core were not there.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154

In the cases of both towers, there was more than enough of the core still standing to rule out charges placed in the core of the towers themselves. If the charges were placed in the core, then how come the floors around the core collapsed leaving much of the core momentarily intact?

Nist refuse to release most of the video recordings, there are not many in the public domain that were filmed close, nothing like as close as the top down demolition video, the top of the towers were half a kilometer from the ground. I would expect the tight grid that was the external columns would dampen and reflect back inwards any shock waves to a degree.

I don't know what you are basing your statement on that NIST are holding on to "most" (if any) video recordings.

In any case, there are enough cameras filming very close to the WTC which are on YouTube. I can think of 3 off the top of my head which the people filming were so close that they had to run for their lives. In all three videos there were no punctuated sounds which you would expect to hear from a sequenced demolition. Just a slow steady rumble.

no, you're probably thinking of some debunker speculation, this is the analysis of the testimony of the 118 firefighters describing explosions and flashes of light, which mysteriously you say wasn't picked up on any cameras.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

Most of which are taken out of context/using similies ("like a bomb")/describing the sound of the collapse of the building/planes hitting the building/bodies impacting the ground/fuel exploding through elevator shafts etc etc.

How many of these 118 people believe bombs were actually used? Judging from their continued silence, probably none.

windows were broken in the surrounding buildings. Let us not forget that explosions 1/3 mile up in the sky are not comparable to any other building that was ever demolished.

Yes, windows that where hit by debris and typically on the lower floors. If it was bombs that caused these windows to smash, we would expect window breakage to be more uniform up and down the tower and not just where it would have been hit by debris.

I would suggest the sound that was the "roar" of the building coming down cannot be fully appreciated by sound recorded on cameras, this has to do with the limits that a camera has on recording amplitude.

And yet the poor quality video you presented of your top down collapse, you could clearly distinguish punctuated explosions in conjunction with flashes. This, despite the fact the camera appears to be quite a distance away. Make no mistake that bombs would be above and beyond the sound of the background rumble of the collapse. It would be unmistakable to not only the cameras, but everyone in lower Manhatten. You would have a much larger list of witnesses, except that this list would not consist of misleading out of context testimony.

perhaps you need to look again in the smoke at the top and in the middle. unmistakable sparkling flashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&e

You think those are explosive flashes? Haha!

Most of these flashes appear to be ABOVE the actual collapse point and in NO WAY are the explosive in nature. It looks more like peices of debris reflecting sunlight.

It's no wonder I missed these "flashes" the first time...

 

[scott3x]

Welcome to the discussion voyager. Be prepared to repeat yourself many times when discussing with Scott.

I've found that I've repeated myself many times myself. I strongly believe that if we could divide this thread into different components, such as the WTC collapes, the pentagon collapse and another for other events, we'd do better, but the powers that be seem to think that any theory that doesn't conform to the official 9/11 storyline is somehow all one and the same. When challenged on this, they seem to enjoy saying that all 9/11 theories that don't conform to the official storyline are silly and then wander off. To me, this speaks more of their lack of knowledge concerning said theories then anything else, but they -are- the powers that be and all we can do is take it or leave it.

 

[MacGyver1968]

I've found that I've repeated myself many times myself. I strongly believe that if we could divide this thread into different components, such as the WTC collapes, the pentagon collapse and another for other events, we'd do better, but the powers that be seem to think that any theory that doesn't conform to the official 9/11 storyline is somehow all one and the same. When challenged on this, they seem to enjoy saying that all 9/11 theories that don't conform to the official storyline are silly and then wander off. To me, this speaks more of their lack of knowledge concerning said theories then anything else, but they -are- the powers that be and all we can do is take it or leave it.

No, because this is a science board, not a 9/11 conspiracy board. No offense, you could use some science. Try looking at my "what is inertia?" thread in the physics forum. It might give you an idea of why objects do not "follow the path of least resistance". Don't worry, I'm the one asking the questions, it's the smart guys that are answering them.

 

[GeoffP]

if you are right then i will agree with you.

I pray you're not saying the top part exploded.

 

[scott3x]

In terms of the rapid removal of the steel:
*****************************************
The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed. 4

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5 One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.
*****************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Thanks. Now here's my question:

How did the cleanup people sort so much steel so fast for the criteria you're alluding to? By this, I mean: on what criteria were they able to separate the suspicious pieces from the non-suspicious pieces so quickly? Did they have a little portable thermite detector or something? This is hundreds of thousands of pieces of steel. Did they check every little one? All the surfaces?

I highly doubt they bothered to do that. Perhaps they took out some -very- suspicious pieces (perhaps pieces of steel that clearly show that they were melted or even evaporated). As to the thermite, much easier to simply not test for thermite at all, which NIST has clearly admitted to. As far as I know, they could -still- test for thermite. And yet they have maintained for quite some time that it's unnecessary using easily debunked arguments.

Oh, and give one guy 'access' to around 1,500 tons of steel a day before it's carted off, presumably to china for recycling. And if he finds the tasks of properly analyzing so much in so little time a burden, ah well, that's life, right? Here's where I talk extensively about it:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2067319&postcount=1771

And are they all in on it? Wouldn't this have been rather a lot of people?

I have already mentioned that it doesn't really take all that many people to pull this off, only that the people who are are in a position of making certain decisions, such as what evidence was allowed to be seen by the investigators and how much time they had to analyze it.

The amount of the steel retained for analysis is no great surprise either: one doesn't sample every snail in the stream, you realize. We get a few dozen out of the thousands and thousands that are there. Moreover, wouldn't all the steel lying around interfere with rescue and recovery?

They could have easily moved it to a more appropriate location, as 9/11 research makes clear:
*************************************
Destruction of Evidence: WTC Steel

The pattern of destruction of physical evidence is nowhere more apparent than in the rapid removal and recycling of the steel from Ground Zero. The structural steel was the most important evidence regarding the mass murder of September 11th. No amount of indulgence of forelorn hopes of finding survivors in the rubble, nor urgency of uncovering human remains for speedy identification, can justify the destruction of the evidence.

* If it was necessary to remove steel to another location to accommodate rescue and recovery efforts, the steel easily could have been preserved.
* Any steel pieces to be removed should first have been meticulously documented through the use of coordinate grids and photographs. This is standard practice in archeological excavations.
* Building 7 was evacuated long before it collapsed, and it fell into a tidy rubble pile that did not even block adjacent roadways. There was no urgency in removing its rubble, and certainly not in destroying it.

The remains of the Twin Towers should have been afforded at least the same level of respect as the artifacts in an archeological dig, or remnants of an aviation disaster. Instead they were treated as garbage to be disposed of as quickly as possible. That the authorities hid their crime behind talk of rescue and recovery is exploitation of the most reprehensible kind. In fact, families and friends of the victims vocally protested the destruction of the Ground Zero evidence.
*************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/evidence.html

 

[scott3x]

I've heard this glass make up. Let's see your evidence. .

Certainly you may have it.
*********************************
Other glass fragments are present which contain mostly Si with trace amounts of Na, K, and/or Al. The majority (> 90%) of glass spheres, generally less than 500 μm in diameter, are of slag wool composition.
*********************************
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

Aside from iron and oxygen, that's all the elements in the thermite signature. Or thermate. Or nanothermite. Or nanothermate.

Yes, yes, very funny . Steven Jones claims to have found thermate, which is also known as nanothermite. From this I understand that thermite is ruled out and I believe that nanothermate doesn't exist. In any case, Steven Jones seems to focus on the fact that his spheres are indeed iron rich. But he also mentions that certain USGS spheres were -also- iron rich:
"Micrograph from USGS report confirms presence of iron-rich spheres in the dust produced during destruction of theWorld Trade Center."
www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf , page 25

 

[scott3x]

Further to the glass-and-aluminum issue:

Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

So this theory accounts quite nicely for the whole thermate argument.

Actually, it only addresses the issue of what metal was coming out of the WTC tower before it collapsed. Note that he is speculating as to whether it was aluminum with copper oxides. Steven Jones isn't arguing that it was molten steel, but rather molten iron. It may even be that if the molten iron came from thermate, then it wouldn't have to have come from the structural steel at all; yes, I'm speculating at this point as well, but it seems both sides are. In any case, I will make a note of trying to consult with others in the truth movement concerning this.

 

[scott3x]

No, they aren't. Those ideas are relegated to the fringe of the alternate story movement and some suspect that misinformation agents may be spreading them.

Oh, lord, here we go. "Those crazy ideas? Well, they're from government plants! And if you disagree with me...well, you're a government plant!

Laugh . I didn't say that. I simply think that some theories seem to be too dumb to continue going on without some misinformation agents actively working on them.

Or at least you might well be. I haven't decided. Since the CD must have occurred (Prophet Steven swears it so by the gods of Thermate), it's the only explanation!

Gods of Thermate, laugh .

It couldn't possibly be that the whole theory is crazy." Who thinks that? Some think that. Who are some? Some people know. It is rumoured. The scuttlebutt agrees. The leaves swirled just so. The entrails were blackened. The stars gave us a poor omen for conspiracies born in the month of September. Come on, Scott.

You make me laugh, but I'd say that it's the official story that relies more heavily on the aforementioned qualities. As for myself, I certainly cite my sources.

Stephen Jones only goes where the speaking money leads him.

Do you have actual proof of that or do you just like accusing people?

:shrug: A bit of both, to be honest. Yet, Steven Jones is intricately involved with the theory; he's tacked his career to it. I wouldn't want him punished for that - and in a properly communist nation he wouldn't be - but you can't deny he's got a monetary interest in it. I feel bad for him, really.

I feel bad that he was put on paid leave in the university he worked for, but atleast things seem to have worked out relatively well there, all things considered. I wish we all had such noble means of making money as trying to speak up concerning the truth regarding 9/11.

I'm just saying that cooking up some thermate isn't exactly easy. Then there's the other issue that you have no motive for him to do so.

Are you being serious now? No motive? None? Come on, Scott.

I should have said that you have mentioned no possible motive. Clearly you think he may have one. So, by all means, speak up; what have you speculated?

 

[scott3x]

Of course I was.

For the love of God, man, whatever my political beliefs, you do realize that the history of the dialectic has not exactly been 100%? Stalin, Pot bloody Pot, China; communism has had its share of dictators and more. The fact that I can criticize my own system does not alienate me from that system, although it may alienate me from those blind to the faults of that system.

Ok.

That being said, is capitalism better? Absolutely not.

I disagree, but this -really- has nothing to do with 9/11 as far as I can tell. I could discuss it I suppose, but I'm thinking we should move it to politics or something.

It is a form of utter economic slavery, period, with countless lives broken in the mad, stupid chase for the same bloody dollar. "Trickle-down", my arse.

Did you see the movie Zeitgeist? The first part talks about religion (not sure where you stand on that). I imagine you wouldn't agree with the second part (it supports the alternate theory regarding 9/11), but you may agree with some of the third part, which talks of international banking cartels and the like.

But this doesn't mean I can't laugh at my own dialectic. I think history will prove Marxism-Leninism right, but I'm not going to pretend there were no gulags, no crackdown of dissidents, no massacre of the Ukrainians. I could hardly force my opinions on anyone or muzzle criticism of my beliefs; nor even muzzle my own criticisms. To do so would be the height of immorality and hypocrisy; should I damn Pinochet and cover my eyes to Stalin?

Sounds good . I'm left wing myself, but not sure if I'd classify myself as a marxist/leninist.

 

[scott3x]

However, I think the findings themselves are far more important then how long it took for him to get them.

Regrettably, that isn't so in this case.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

No, it's a fact.

That so? Show me the evidence.

Why was the delay so long? For what reason? Jones had the smoking gun all this time, and only chose to show it now?

He got it near the end of 2005 if memory serves. Why it took him the amount of time it did (if it's true that he got the results sometime in 2007, it'd make it atleast a year and a bit), I don't know. If I ever find out, I'll try to let you know. But I stand by my conviction that what's more important is the results that he got, not how long it took him to get them. It took official 9/11 reports forever to get results as well. But while much ado has been made about that as well, I personally have focused on -their- results, not on how long it took them to come up with them.

If there was, I'd agree. As it stands, we don't even know if there was. Even if there was, I believe the reason would be perfectly justifiable.

In other words: I don't care what the reason was. I believe too strongly in CD to think otherwise. Listen to yourself, Scott.

Sigh. I'm just saying that I trust Steven Jones to not have tampered with the evidence, which you seem to believe he may have done.

 

[scott3x]

When have I said you shouldn't question?

When you tell me the only reason I poke holes in this nonsense is because I don't want to question the official story.

Where did I say that?

I should question it, but not you? This seems to be your thesis: I believe everything about 9/11 Troof is troo, and I cannot be convinced otherwise, so you will have to change your beliefs.

Appearances can be deceiving. I would argue that I go where the evidence leads me.