WTC Collapses

[Ophiolite]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Can Scott and his fellows explain how Vladimir Putin was able to call Bush the day before the attack to warn that Al Qaeda were planning a major attack for the following day? Or is Putin in on the conspiracy too?

.
I could not care less.

psik

And that is precisely why you are not worth listening to. That is precisely why any objective observer will ignore everything you say. That is precisely why you are a self indulgent, self righteous little prat, pretending to play big boys games on the playing fields of your mind. Wake up, smell the stench. It's coming from your rotting brain cells.:shrug:

 

[(Q)]

Here's a good excerpt from an article in prison planet, Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries:

And at the bottom of that 3 year old article we find:

"The public release of Professor Jones' scientific analysis is imminent - watch this space for the story as soon as it breaks."

Anything yet?

 

[scott3x]

And at the bottom of that 3 year old article we find:

"The public release of Professor Jones' scientific analysis is imminent - watch this space for the story as soon as it breaks."

Anything yet?

In September of that year, he published Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? in the peer reviewed Journal for 9/11 studies.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Can Scott and his fellows explain how Vladimir Putin was able to call Bush the day before the attack to warn that Al Qaeda were planning a major attack for the following day? Or is Putin in on the conspiracy too? And that is precisely why you are not worth listening to. That is precisely why any objective observer will ignore everything you say. That is precisely why you are a self indulgent, self righteous little prat, pretending to play big boys games on the playing fields of your mind. Wake up, smell the stench. It's coming from your rotting brain cells.:shrug:

.
Oh sure, people that can BELIEVE that a <200 ton airliner can destroy a 400,000+ ton building in less than 2 hours but not ask about the distribution of steel are SO OBJECTIVE.

Arab terrorists just happen to hijack 4 airliners on the day that the US military is doing multiple hijacking simulations but we are supposed to get excited about a rumor of Putin calling the day before. Is that supposed to explain Bush's behavior in that classroom on 9/11?

I have heard more sources saying there was a very unusual number of stock puts the week before on the airlines that just happened to get hijacked.

Seven years after the event and millions of people can't determine whether the physics of the event are even possible. That rumor is only relevant if it is possible for a airliners to bring the towers down. Because if airliners couldn't then....

If you don't want to know what people think then don't ask. Or at least tell us the answers you want to hear ahead of time.

psik

 

[(Q)]

In September of that year, he published Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? in the peer reviewed Journal for 9/11 studies.

A veritable who's-who of woo-woos.

 

[Uno Hoo]

your right. i see how much you guys care. send me a pm and we can discuss it.

I paraphrase Johnny Cash from one of his songs.

(original): Johnny99 went lookin for a job. But he couldn't find none.

(my upgrade paraphrase): John99 went lookin for another victim to troll. But he couldn't find none.

At least, couldn't find me. John99, alias johnny99, is now in ignore option.

I feel so much more peaceful now.

 

[Uno Hoo]

You're welcome




That's fine. Since the debate must have 2 sides, and I want to take the inside job side, that would leave you with the official story side. You'd just have to mention the elements of the official story that you currently think have merit. If you agree to post one simple post of this nature within a week of me opening the debate thread that I will create, then by all means simply say "I accept" in this thread:
Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job?

One thing; the debate will focus primarily on things -not- related to the WTC collapses, as there are currently 2 threads discussing the WTC collapses- this one and (what I believe to be a more civil one) over in the Formal Debates forum:
Discussion: How did the WTC buildings collapse?


Anyway, in terms of the 9/11 debate, I could start it off, mentioning the points that support an inside job. We only have to do 1 post each- as a matter of fact, I specified that that would be the length of the debate part of it- after that, an discussion thread can be opened in the formal debates forum and I'd invite anyone who cares to join in a civil manner to do so.




That's fine- I don't think that in a debate one has to be sure about an issue, just to take a particular side initially.




I think a post of this size would have been more then enough for your side of the debate. I'm hoping that the real discussion can go on in the discussion thread which can be opened once the debate begins.




I'm not sure if it can wait a year in the debate forum- as a matter of fact, James said to give the proposal 2 weeks to produce a debate and today is 2 weeks- I'm going mention that you're interested and ask for an extension and hope I get it .




I think there is some truth in the idea that there is disinformation. I think there is also truth that disinformation is most effective when people don't have:


And even when one does, the answer may still not be apparent.




That's fine. Here's to hoping we open that debate thread today or atleast soon ;-).

I am certainly interested in doing such a thing. You have really caught me flat footed with the news that the two week deadline is TODAY. For me, it is a one day ( wait, I think it is a no day deadline from my reference frame ) deadline.

Perhaps James the benevolent and merciful administrator would grant another two week extension for me to collect my thoughts? I am not prepared to engage in a serious debate exchange on either side of the issue, but would probably see fit to give one nice kick off post for the initiation. But not on one minute notice. I am not that quick witted. My mind is not like a quick little waterfall. it is more like a glacier with the tenacity of a bulldog, it is slow but it will grind up anything in its path.

If James the merciful will give another two weeks then i will agree to provide a kick off post which will try to cover some of the most important points as i am presently aware of, that work in favor of the establishment position.

 

[Uno Hoo]

regarding the lack of debris at the pentagon:
the jet is travelling at 800 KPH, that's 497 MPH.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1496440/f4_fantom_jet_concrete_wall_test_crash/

The famous F4 Phantom crash test is spectacularly informative. However, it leaves a lot of questions.

How large were the particles provided by the impact?

How large was the debris field?

Were any of the really durable aircraft parts left intact ( such as the toughest engine parts, the robust landing gear parts ( Phantoms had a terrible glide ratio and landed normally in such a way that the vertical component of their landing was that the plane was falling out of the sky at 40MPH straight down. )?

And, you cannot have it both ways. If the 9/11 aircraft(s)(?) and its fuel poofed into aluminum confetti at contact with the wall, and did not get inside, then what did cause all the destruction and fires, and alleged aircraft parts inside the wall?

This thing is on too large of a scale to fantasize that it was a Schroedinger's airplane, in two simultaneous states, both confined outside the wall and also allowed entry through the wall at the same time.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Evidence of explosives used in WTC collapses

This post is in response to leopold99's post 1849 in this thread.



There's the red chips that Headspin has mentioned in the past. The molten metal seen to be pouring from one of the twin towers is also a definite smoking gun for the use of thermite class materials:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

Here's a good excerpt from an article in prison planet, Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries:
******
The material that was first brought into question on the back of photos and video clips of the twin towers showing a dripping molten substance and floating white ash can now be confirmed as being thermate, combining thermite which is used as an incendiary device to bring down structures and sulfur, which cuts through steel quicker and leaves a yellow residue.

Pools of molten yellow metal were also found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

"The evidence points directly to controlled demolition which means an inside job brought these World Trade Center buildings down," Jones told radio host Alex Jones in a video interview.

Jones says that, "using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate."

"In order to have thermite in these buildings in this way, to help bring the buildings down, that means that thermite had to be planted in the buildings which of course implies directly an inside job - someone had to have access into the buildings," said Jones.
******

Jones' has conducted over 40 peer reviewed scientific studies, one of which was published in Nature, while another was published in Scientific American.

Yellow melted or molten metal could have been copper. Copper? Yes, copper. Electric wires. Plumbing pipes. Maybe other sources of copper in a building which we will think of a little later.

 

[John99]

Yellow melted or molten metal could have been copper. Copper? Yes, copper. Electric wires. Plumbing pipes. Maybe other sources of copper in a building which we will think of a little later.

There are many errors in that video. I would really prefer to debate the person in the video.

 

[Uno Hoo]

A veritable who's-who of woo-woos.

Any serious researcher would not give a *hit-*hit if a jerk called him a woo-woo. Such interaction is a sad reflection upon the jerk, not upon the serious researcher.

Congratulations. You have just won a place in my ignore Hall of Fame-Fame.

 

[John99]

what are you going to ignore everyone who disagrees with you?

 

[Uno Hoo]

there were about fifteen foreign intelligence agencies that warned the united states of impending attacks.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4663137/Foreign-Intelligence-Agency-Attack-Warnings-911

Putin did not telephone the day before on september 10th as far as I know. I suspect the bbc are twisting the facts with that one, or maybe you are just mistaken with the actual date? The russians informed the US in August 2001, some weeks before the attacks.

where does putin or the FSB mention "al qaeda" in their warning?

your logic is that if elements of the US government were involved in the attacks, then russian intelligence would have no knowledge of the attacks, I think this is a misplaced belief.

If a deception was being perpetrated in order to blame muslims as a pretext for oil conquest wars, then it would be logical and easy enough to put out warnings into the intelligence community prior to the attacks, which would obviously echo back, just as was done with Douglas Feith's OSP Office of Special Plans in the pentagon with saddams wmd "intelligence" and iraq linked to al qaeda "intelligence".

I have read report that Putin called Bush on 9/10 to warn of serious unspecified attack next day.

If Putin was innocent bystander, why would Putin not call friend Bush to give alert?

 

[leopold]

How large were the particles provided by the impact?

How large was the debris field?

Were any of the really durable aircraft parts left intact ( such as the toughest engine parts, the robust landing gear parts ( Phantoms had a terrible glide ratio and landed normally in such a way that the vertical component of their landing was that the plane was falling out of the sky at 40MPH straight down. )?

i have no idea about none of the above.
i found the video and posted it.

And, you cannot have it both ways. If the 9/11 aircraft(s)(?) and its fuel poofed into aluminum confetti at contact with the wall, and did not get inside, then what did cause all the destruction and fires, and alleged aircraft parts inside the wall?

good question. i suppose that the wall in the video was much thicker than the wall at the pentagon.

This thing is on too large of a scale to fantasize that it was a Schroedinger's airplane, in two simultaneous states, both confined outside the wall and also allowed entry through the wall at the same time.

my best guess is that the engine parts and landing gear is what punctured the wall at the pentagon.

 

[leopold]

Congratulations. You have just won a place in my ignore Hall of Fame-Fame.

uh uno, (Q) is a moderator. moderators can't be put on ignore.

edit:
after viewing the list of moderators i've discovered that (Q) is no longer on it.

what happened (Q)? pee in plazmas cornflakes?

 

[Stryder]

uh uno, (Q) is a moderator. moderators can't be put on ignore.

edit:
after viewing the list of moderators i've discovered that (Q) is no longer on it.

what happened (Q)? pee in plazmas cornflakes?

Actually (Q) stepped down some time back due to someone's Intellectual Dishonesty. I'm sure he's been enjoying himself not worry about the petty will of some of the posters here and also able to actually "Ignore" people without having to worry about not doing a moderators job properly.

 

[Headspin]

I have read report that Putin called Bush on 9/10 to warn of serious unspecified attack next day.

then you need to present the evidence for this. How do you yourself even know that you are not simply mistaken if you do not have the evidence to check?

Putin had the FSB inform the US in August of intelligence regarding an attack on the US.
(link already provided).

Putin called bush on 9/11 (not 9/10) after the attacks, to inform him that his bombers on exercise over the arctic would be standing down.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801175_5.html

If Putin was innocent bystander, why would Putin not call friend Bush to give alert?

you are assuming Putin knew the exact date of the attack, intelligence reports are by their nature opague collective information. you are also projecting your own reasoning into Putin's head, unless you can demonstrate that you know exactly what putin's thoughts are and you had the exact information that putin had at the time, then any such projection is worthless.

 

[scott3x]

I am certainly interested in doing such a thing. You have really caught me flat footed with the news that the two week deadline is TODAY. For me, it is a one day ( wait, I think it is a no day deadline from my reference frame ) deadline.

Perhaps James the benevolent and merciful administrator would grant another two week extension for me to collect my thoughts? I am not prepared to engage in a serious debate exchange on either side of the issue, but would probably see fit to give one nice kick off post for the initiation. But not on one minute notice. I am not that quick witted. My mind is not like a quick little waterfall. it is more like a glacier with the tenacity of a bulldog, it is slow but it will grind up anything in its path.

If James the merciful will give another two weeks then i will agree to provide a kick off post which will try to cover some of the most important points as i am presently aware of, that work in favor of the establishment position.

I have quoted your request over in the formal debates forum:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2171901&postcount=47

 

[scott3x]

In September of that year, he published Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? in the peer reviewed Journal for 9/11 studies.

A veritable who's-who of woo-woos.

I'm dissapointed at how blithely you dismiss so many distinguished people in the 9/11 truth movement. Prior to 9/11, Steven Jones had been published in such respected journals of science as Scientific American and Nature. As psikeyhackr says in his Mass Interaction Test video that he posted back in 2007, "It has been 6 years since 9/11 and arguments rage on the internet which regularly degenerate into name calling and sound bites...". You can tack another year and a bit onto that statement and it'd work just as well today. I seriously think that if we spent more time on the evidence instead of name calling we would get further.

 

[Headspin]

Yellow melted or molten metal could have been copper. Copper? Yes, copper. Electric wires. Plumbing pipes. Maybe other sources of copper in a building which we will think of a little later.

copper wires or pipes could not account for the amount of material flowing from the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOq3HYRiG7Y

the problem of the temperature of the metal is still the same, whether you consider it to be iron, aluminum or copper.