PDA

View Full Version : The Scientific Process says "You're an Idiot".



Riddeck
24th August 07, 05:30 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5393675030313324244


When I started posting here again, I almost believed that, since there was melding of two or more boards, there would be people with open minds, free from the control and corruption of those who's bane is free thinking...but alas I was wrong.

While trying to exclaim my thoughts on certain things, in this case 9/11, I was simply attacked and ridiculed, and, truthfully, I was disappointed. Well, I am not so much anymore, and this post, is directed at the few individuals who went out of there way to pose the opposite side of the point I was expressing. You know who you are.

So, watch this video, it took place in April of this year. Take the time to actually watch it, and ignore the retarded song at the end of the video.

Then tell me if you still really believe the official story of what went down, and that your liberties and freedom are still safe.

WarPhalange
24th August 07, 05:31 PM
It's a fucking hour long.

And nobody believes that our liberties and freedoms are safe.

Zub-Zub
24th August 07, 05:36 PM
It's a fucking hour long.

And nobody believes that our liberties and freedoms are safe.

Except those lacking in brain cells......and there are plenty of them.

Neildo
24th August 07, 05:43 PM
While trying to exclaim my thoughts on certain things, in this case 9/11, I was simply attacked and ridiculed, and, truthfully, I was disappointed.

link (for lulz) plz kthx.

Antifa
24th August 07, 05:52 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5393675030313324244


When I started posting here again, I almost believed that, since there was melding of two or more boards, there would be people with open minds, free from the control and corruption of those who's bane is free thinking...but alas I was wrong.

While trying to exclaim my thoughts on certain things, in this case 9/11, I was simply attacked and ridiculed, and, truthfully, I was disappointed. Well, I am not so much anymore, and this post, is directed at the few individuals who went out of there way to pose the opposite side of the point I was expressing. You know who you are.

So, watch this video, it took place in April of this year. Take the time to actually watch it, and ignore the retarded song at the end of the video.

Then tell me if you still really believe the official story of what went down, and that your liberties and freedom are still safe.

are you doing that thing with your mouth again...

that talking thing?

didnt we tell you to not do that?

Riddeck
24th August 07, 06:16 PM
It's a fucking hour long.

And nobody believes that our liberties and freedoms are safe.


You're one of em. Take the time. Do yourself a favour.



are you doing that thing with your mouth again...

that talking thing?

didnt we tell you to not do that?

Yeah, someone has to point out the fact that you're wrong and what you say means shit.

jubei33
24th August 07, 06:21 PM
why don't you give a summary of the video for us. That would really help a lot of us not just dismiss you out of hand as a crank. I'm pretty sure most of us don't have a spare hour lying around to in all probability shit it away on a conspiracy theory.

ThaiBoxerShorts
24th August 07, 06:33 PM
Of course 9/11 was a conspiracy. It's just that the conspirators were radical Muslim terrorists and not a secret cabal of European bankers or some silly shit like that.

WarPhalange
24th August 07, 07:06 PM
You're one of em. Take the time. Do yourself a favour.

Yeah yeah... I'm already half an hour into it.

I realize from the last vids you posted that there are some holes. I don't have an opinion on anything, but I'd like some answers.

Antifa
24th August 07, 10:28 PM
You're one of em. Take the time. Do yourself a favour.



Yeah, someone has to point out the fact that you're wrong and what you say means shit.

ummm... shitbag....

what part of the detailed response to you that I wrote in the other thread is wrong exactly?

no... I'm not going to watch your little video.

I want you to explain it to the class in your own words.

WarPhalange
24th August 07, 10:34 PM
The video is pretty good, actually. None of it is sensationalist garbage, it's all evidence pertaining materials in building 7 of WTC. Stuff like what the dust was made of when it collapsed, what came from the towers after the planes hit, etc.

Things that are brought up are why a check for thermite was never done, despite it always being done when there is a fire and especially a fatality, and it specifically being part of the law. I'd suggest you watch the movie.

downinit
24th August 07, 11:29 PM
It's a good video. Not your typical 9/11 conspiracy video with Alex Jones yelling on a megaphone and generally acting like a buffoon. Although I'm more convinced now that the WTC attack was in fact a controlled demolition, the implications are virtually nil for me; I already distrusted the US government establishment about as much as one possibly could.

Olorin
24th August 07, 11:46 PM
Popular Mechanics Magazine already debunked this silliness.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

WarPhalange
24th August 07, 11:49 PM
Popular Mechanics Magazine already debunked this silliness.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

No, they didn't, because the video has nothing to do with this and has new evidence, as in, THEY FOUND MELTED STEEL.

Olorin
25th August 07, 12:22 AM
and has new evidence

Ok, first off, I am not wasting an hour of my time watching this video. It seems that with all the work Popular Mechanics and others have done to refute this nonsense and paranoia, building 7 in all the conspiracy idiots have left. But recently Popular Mechanics teamed with the History Channel and produced a documentary that addressed the issue of building 7 as well as the other myths about 9-11.

Let me see if I can find it...

edit, it's called "9/11 Conspiracies" a two hour program in cooperation with Popular Mechanics. I can not find a video online, so just look it up if you want to watch it. It shows again here Sunday, August 26 12:00 AM

.

bob
25th August 07, 12:23 AM
Can someone summarise this all for me?

The planes hit the buildings and then 'the government' raced in with explosive charges and took them down? Is that the theory?

Olorin
25th August 07, 12:33 AM
Can someone summarise this all for me?

This about covers it...

http://www.bullshido.net/gallery/data/500/Ill_believe.jpg

Olorin
25th August 07, 12:38 AM
After watching the video and doing a little diggin' online, I now have the truth about 9/11. I really feels great to be one a "warrior of truth" battling against an X-Files like cabal of mysterious men who seek to destroy the nation.

Dam I'm heroic!

http://www.bullshido.net/gallery/data/500/Dance_TT.gif

ThaiBoxerShorts
25th August 07, 12:58 AM
This about covers it...

http://www.bullshido.net/gallery/data/500/Ill_believe.jpg
What's wrong with believing in frisbees?

Riddeck
25th August 07, 01:36 AM
Ok, first off, I am not wasting an hour of my time watching this video. It seems that with all the work Popular Mechanics and others have done to refute this nonsense and paranoia, building 7 in all the conspiracy idiots have left. But recently Popular Mechanics teamed with the History Channel and produced a documentary that addressed the issue of building 7 as well as the other myths about 9-11.

Let me see if I can find it...

edit, it's called "9/11 Conspiracies" a two hour program in cooperation with Popular Mechanics. I can not find a video online, so just look it up if you want to watch it. It shows again here Sunday, August 26 12:00 AM

.

*Edit* Yeah Olorin, the work they put in to refute this stuff was work of storytelling, not the actual scientific process, since that is what seems to be put to the test. You should do us a favour and not post on this thread again.*

Popular Mechanics is probably the last place you would want to look. I watched a portion of that program the other night *I love how you used the word "teamed with the History Channel*, and it was a fine example of what the debunkers do, which is, providing alternate theories for what has happened, but never actually doing any experiments. In court I would repeat constantly "Objection, Heresay" if they were on the stand. Most the debunking beings with 'Experts believe this" or "Experts believe that", and that program did nothing but tear at the credibility of "conspiracy theorists". They would state "Conspiracy Theory : Thermate was used to bring down the buildings"...when it came time to show the other side it was "Expert this" or Expert that. The entire show was designed to defame the other side's argument...be it sub conscience to most. (Conspiracy Theory vs. Expert Statement, which in itself implies that if you believe a conspiracy theory, you cannot be an expert).

As for the video I posted, Poop Loops pretty much summed it up. EVEN if that bit of evidence does not clearly show that the U.S. masterminded the entire deal, and committed treason, it does show that there was negligence at the scene of the crime, by not testing for Thermite/mate. It also *already is this* shows that Rudy Guiliani should be tried for removing evidence from a crime scene, because this video's content is grounds for a criminal investigation, specially since it 'debunks' the NIST report on what the molten metal was.

Now this whole 9/11 thing is an important subject to me, because it really does reveal that there powers at work here that do not care for you and I, or for anyone, in that matter, and they are in the captain's chair, and you are stuck under the poop deck. Our country, this world, is going to head to a point, of forced change, be it in government, society, or people as a race. The country has been formed into what it is becoming today, by a group of people with the love of money and power.

What is it becoming you ask? Well there are people who believe many different things about this entire subject. I suppose my only point, is that I cannot seem to sit back and wait to see what happens. People need to be taken down from their thrones. People need to understand there is more to life than being a slave. Be it to them, or yourself.

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 01:52 AM
Can someone summarise this all for me?

The planes hit the buildings and then 'the government' raced in with explosive charges and took them down? Is that the theory?

There is no theory about who did it, only what happened. That's the whole point.

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 01:54 AM
Ok, first off, I am not wasting an hour of my time watching this video.

Then fuck off, because this has nothing to do with what Popular Mechanic did.

I can't believe someone can say "I don't believe the scientific consensus! They have something to hide! Global warming is fake!" and then say "I was spoon fed this info, therefore it must be true. I mean, the government has never deceived us like this before!"

No wonder your students think your class is shit.

Riddeck
25th August 07, 01:55 AM
And actually, the dust, is from the towers themselves. As for the melted steel that was found, and actually tested.

Truculent Sheep
25th August 07, 08:25 AM
So farewell then,
Occam's Razor.
We hardly knew ya.

And if truth be told...

The most obvious
Explanations
Are
So...

Passe.

wintermute
25th August 07, 09:19 AM
Wikipedia has an article on Steven E Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones) with a section about his views on 9/11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#WTC_collapse_controversy). For all the risks of misinformation, smear etc. in wikipedia stuff I'd still guess that this section gives a fairly good summary of what he was probably talking about in the video.

EDIT: There's also an article on the controlled demolition hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_ of_the_World_Trade_Center), this one probably works better as a summary.

downinit
25th August 07, 10:55 AM
So farewell then,
Occam's Razor.
We hardly knew ya.

And if truth be told...

The most obvious
Explanations
Are
So...

Passe.

Occam's Razor is only valid when two competing theories are considered equal in every respect other than succinctness. In this case, we have a scientific study which indicates that there was a large presence of thermate in the towers--something that would only be present for a controlled demolition, and not a plane crash. What would you say the most parsimonious explanation is?

Cullion
25th August 07, 11:09 AM
This about covers it...

http://www.bullshido.net/gallery/data/500/Ill_believe.jpg

Reality Check: You and I, unlike most people here are willing to believe that academics who are members of prestigious institutions are kidding themselves and us about manmade global warming.

It is therefore not fitting to mock people who disagree with you about 9-11 with jokey frisbee pictures.

My take:

The Bush family are violent crooks. Without doubt.

Really. No doubt. I consider everybody who voted for him a clown.

That means you.

However, I think they aren't capable of persuading enough people to keep quiet to pull off a large scale assault on US citizenry.

Pearl Harbour is a model here. It wasn't done by the US, but it was a damn convenient opportunity to enter WWII.

This was a case of opportunism rather than long-term planning.

Arhetton
25th August 07, 12:03 PM
Does anyone know who marvin bush is?

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 12:58 PM
However, I think they aren't capable of persuading enough people to keep quiet to pull off a large scale assault on US citizenry.

Pearl Harbour is a model here. It wasn't done by the US, but it was a damn convenient opportunity to enter WWII.

This was a case of opportunism rather than long-term planning.

The video doesn't discuss who did it. It might have been other terrorists who did it and the jets flying into the building were just an exlamation mark.

Secondly, governments have faked terrorist and regular attacks on their nation in order to go to war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Riddeck
25th August 07, 01:18 PM
Reality Check: You and I, unlike most people here are willing to believe that academics who are members of prestigious institutions are kidding themselves and us about manmade global warming.

It is therefore not fitting to mock people who disagree with you about 9-11 with jokey frisbee pictures.

My take:

The Bush family are violent crooks. Without doubt.

Really. No doubt. I consider everybody who voted for him a clown.

That means you.

However, I think they aren't capable of persuading enough people to keep quiet to pull off a large scale assault on US citizenry.

Pearl Harbour is a model here. It wasn't done by the US, but it was a damn convenient opportunity to enter WWII.

This was a case of opportunism rather than long-term planning.

Project Northwoods was a design in which America would fly their own airliners into certain buildings in the country (Riechstaag-esque?) in order to then blame it on Cuba, and go over and wreck that shit. Kennedy veto'd this, then threated the CIA, and then got shot in the fuckin head.

This Document is a matter of public record, signed by our government. If thermate was used in bringing down the WTC North, South, and 7, what are the odds it was done by anyone that was not on the inside.

Especially when Marvin Bush was in contract of the buildings Security until Sept. 11, 2001.

You can believe, if you would like, that it was a convience factor, much to the like of Pearl Harbor *Where we knew we were going to be attacked, but did nothing about it*, however, I feel in this case, PH was a 'case of opportunism' and 9/11 was in fact, a created event.

*Edit* http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5165329836988233816&q=norman+mineta+9%2F11&total=56&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2 just five minutes ago over the phone.


Someone PM me on how to embed a video here, plz and thx.

Truculent Sheep
25th August 07, 03:14 PM
Occam's Razor is only valid when two competing theories are considered equal in every respect other than succinctness. In this case, we have a scientific study which indicates that there was a large presence of thermate in the towers--something that would only be present for a controlled demolition, and not a plane crash. What would you say the most parsimonious explanation is?

You're talking bollocks?

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 03:46 PM
He's not. When you have evidence that all is not well, you can't just say "Occam's Razor!" and and ignore everything that doesn't add up.

Truculent Sheep
25th August 07, 04:12 PM
He's not. When you have evidence that all is not well, you can't just say "Occam's Razor!" and and ignore everything that doesn't add up.

Sigh...

Eleven or so months ago I had a similar discussion with a 'troofer' who was doing an MA in Popular Knowledges, with Conspiracy Theories being his area of speciality. He didn't get far, as I out-argued him, and he instead staggered out of the kitchen after half an hour (he'd had a few), ranting on and repeating the same points verbatim. I remained unconvinced, which is a problem as the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, who only have half-baked hypotheses to offer.

Or to put it another way, 747s crashing into large buildings in New York are not regular events, and so many things happen which don't follow the laws of 'common sense', as we have - by definition - no prior experience of such events. This opens new, unexplored areas of research into metallurgy, architecture, political and social science, and, indeed, the study of frothing Wahabi loons with small knobs.

Nonetheless, all the events on 9/11 can be explained rationally, whereas the conspiracies require controversy, paranoia and emotion to support them. Or to put it another way - look at the politics of the people bandying these conspiracy theories about: it's hardly grounds to consider them reliable.

ThaiBoxerShorts
25th August 07, 04:45 PM
He's not. When you have evidence that all is not well, you can't just say "Occam's Razor!" and and ignore everything that doesn't add up.
Why not? Creationists do it all the time.

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 04:48 PM
Sigh...

Eleven or so months ago I had a similar discussion with a 'troofer' who was doing an MA in Popular Knowledges, with Conspiracy Theories being his area of speciality. He didn't get far, as I out-argued him, and he instead staggered out of the kitchen after half an hour (he'd had a few), ranting on and repeating the same points verbatim. I remained unconvinced, which is a problem as the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, who only have half-baked hypotheses to offer.

lol? What is this supposed to show? That someone who gets an MA is an idiot? I already knew that.


Or to put it another way, 747s crashing into large buildings in New York are not regular events, and so many things happen which don't follow the laws of 'common sense', as we have - by definition - no prior experience of such events. This opens new, unexplored areas of research into metallurgy, architecture, political and social science, and, indeed, the study of frothing Wahabi loons with small knobs.

The laws of "common sense"and the laws of physics are two different things. Moreoever, the people who "debunk" these things aren't doing any experiments to find out how it could happen. They are just saying "oh it was probably blah blah" whereas the "conspiracy theorists" are doing experiments and getting results.

Moreoever, we have had substantial tests with bombs and planes ramming into other things (military tests). Ramming a jet into a building isn't ZOMG WTF NEW. There are still laws that have to be followed.


Nonetheless, all the events on 9/11 can be explained rationally, whereas the conspiracies require controversy, paranoia and emotion to support them. Or to put it another way - look at the politics of the people bandying these conspiracy theories about: it's hardly grounds to consider them reliable.

Rationally meaning no attempt to experiment and just making guesses? The guy in the video isn't rallying anybody or doing anything emotional. Just showing the evidence he has gathered through experiment. Watch the video before spewing the same line verbatim.

Look, I understand where you are coming from. UFO conspiracy theorists, ghost people, etc. all have shitty claims with no support and claim that you need to disprove them. This isn't the case here. He's giving proof and publishing it. NIST gave their view and he is proving them wrong with data and experiments. It's science. He's not even saying who did it, just what happened. Anybody could have done it. That's not what he's trying to figure out.

NoMan
25th August 07, 05:26 PM
I am an ardent anti-Bush and Anti-Imperialism supporter, but I think the evidence is bunk. Thermite burns incredibly fast and very violently, it's noticeable to put it lightly.

"Melted Metal" doesn't prove thermite was used. Additionally, burning thermite looks like a goddamn fireworks display. You *would* see huge sparks flying across everywhere. Go ahead, do a controlled experiment, and see what thermite looks like. Actually, I'll help. Here's what a tiny amount of thermite burning in a pan looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thermite_skillet.jpg

and again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Utah-thermite.jpg

Better yet, really do your homework and look for an online video of a building being demolished by thermite. Look it up. And keep looking. Have you done it yet? Good, here's what you'll notice. When thermite melts steel, it runs down everything. Again, it's obvious.

You're telling me the massive amounts of thermite needed to destroy a building, PLUS the initial charge reaction required would not be very obvious from outside? Bullshido. The military uses it in its incindiary grenades, when one of the soldiers looked directly at the explosion, it burned his retina. You would have to lace the entire building with it, (since you wouldn't know where the plane would hit), hope no one suspected anything, (since thermite is a highly controlled and dangerous substance), have someone either on hand to detonate it who wouldn't mind getting collapsed, (it has a high set point for reaction, so most detonation is done manually with someone supervising, because otherwise, even high heats won't be enough to initiate the reaction. So, who do you think was standing around inside a building to demolishit with thermite?

Now, while it is possible to go on and say that "yes, well, Steven Jones says that many different types of explosives could have been used, not just thermite, so that doesn't disprove it." Well, pick one. The controlled demolition hypothesis would require a very very large amont of people working on it, and if we've learned anything from the history of U.S. attempts at CIA operations, we suck at them. We can't assassinate anybody without people finding out about it, and this is in third world countries which most Americans don't care about. It seems to strain credibility to say that large groups of experts of explosives could plant them throughout a building, know exactly when the towers would be hit, and then cause a demolition.

Too many actors and agents involved. "Three men can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." 9/11 conspiracy books and theories went out almost immediately after the explosion, which seems to suggest to me that people immediately thought the government did it and some later went looking for evidence to assertain that thought. (At least one 9/11 conspiracy theorist claims, this too, was part of the government cover-up, to make easy to debunk claims sound like conspiracy theories, thus locking in legitimate theories with illigitimate theories).

Additionally, Osama bin Ladin has sent repeated messages for why he did it, which hint at stuff that we all know very well, (troops in Saudi Arabia, the Shah installed, the policy of Israel towards Palestine and occupation, etc., etc.), and require no elaborate conspiracy theories with multiple hinging parts. Neither the conspiracy theorists nor the non-conspiracy theorists have done anything close to a full-scale replication of the attack. I would like to see that and see an investigation done. Maybe the govt. did it, but I think they're a bunch of idiots who couldn't take over a country held up with scotch tape from a long-since destroyed by sanctions tin-pot tyrant. Our govt. couldn't respond effectively to Katrina. Our current govt. can't make a decent Medicare policy. To assume they could actually orchestrate something with intelligence is giving them credit where I think they deserve none.

Riddeck
25th August 07, 05:28 PM
Sigh...

Eleven or so months ago I had a similar discussion with a 'troofer' who was doing an MA in Popular Knowledges, with Conspiracy Theories being his area of speciality. He didn't get far, as I out-argued him, and he instead staggered out of the kitchen after half an hour (he'd had a few), ranting on and repeating the same points verbatim. I remained unconvinced, which is a problem as the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, who only have half-baked hypotheses to offer.

Or to put it another way, 747s crashing into large buildings in New York are not regular events, and so many things happen which don't follow the laws of 'common sense', as we have - by definition - no prior experience of such events. This opens new, unexplored areas of research into metallurgy, architecture, political and social science, and, indeed, the study of frothing Wahabi loons with small knobs.

Nonetheless, all the events on 9/11 can be explained rationally, whereas the conspiracies require controversy, paranoia and emotion to support them. Or to put it another way - look at the politics of the people bandying these conspiracy theories about: it's hardly grounds to consider them reliable.

A airplane did slam into the Empire state building, which is the reason the Towers were over designed to withstand such an event. So, there was an event, albeit not many events.

And yes...that is how the debunking works. They speak factually, and discredit "Conspiracies" without actual experimentation or recreation.

bob
25th August 07, 05:57 PM
Poops, you can't just say that the 'who' is irrelevant. As I read this theory, if there was a controlled demolition, the only possible 'who' is the US government, or a very large section of it. If you believe the theory, you believe the government did it.

Riddeck
25th August 07, 06:01 PM
Poops, you can't just say that the 'who' is irrelevant. As I read this theory, if there was a controlled demolition, the only possible 'who' is the US government, or a very large section of it. If you believe the theory, you believe the government did it.


But this is not what the video is claiming. However, when you put it into perspective, of almost any sort, you see there are limited options as to who could actually do it.

Conceding the fact that thermate is used to bring down buildings, and was used in the towers, you only then have to realize what it would take to do such a thing. Months of planning, careful computing to make sure it goes down, and goes down all the way. Then the actual execution of bringing the materials into the building, and actually placing them, where they need to be. Might take a few weeks.

Given all that, who could possibly have that kind of access? If you take off the blinders, other facts, and other such 'theories' seem to hold just a bit more water than any official story.

Riddeck
25th August 07, 06:13 PM
I am an ardent anti-Bush and Anti-Imperialism supporter, but I think the evidence is bunk. Thermite burns incredibly fast and very violently, it's noticeable to put it lightly.

"Melted Metal" doesn't prove thermite was used. Additionally, burning thermite looks like a goddamn fireworks display. You *would* see huge sparks flying across everywhere. Go ahead, do a controlled experiment, and see what thermite looks like. Actually, I'll help. Here's what a tiny amount of thermite burning in a pan looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thermite_skillet.jpg

and again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Utah-thermite.jpg

Better yet, really do your homework and look for an online video of a building being demolished by thermite. Look it up. And keep looking. Have you done it yet? Good, here's what you'll notice. When thermite melts steel, it runs down everything. Again, it's obvious.

You're telling me the massive amounts of thermite needed to destroy a building, PLUS the initial charge reaction required would not be very obvious from outside? Bullshido. The military uses it in its incindiary grenades, when one of the soldiers looked directly at the explosion, it burned his retina. You would have to lace the entire building with it, (since you wouldn't know where the plane would hit), hope no one suspected anything, (since thermite is a highly controlled and dangerous substance), have someone either on hand to detonate it who wouldn't mind getting collapsed, (it has a high set point for reaction, so most detonation is done manually with someone supervising, because otherwise, even high heats won't be enough to initiate the reaction. So, who do you think was standing around inside a building to demolishit with thermite?

Now, while it is possible to go on and say that "yes, well, Steven Jones says that many different types of explosives could have been used, not just thermite, so that doesn't disprove it." Well, pick one. The controlled demolition hypothesis would require a very very large amont of people working on it, and if we've learned anything from the history of U.S. attempts at CIA operations, we suck at them. We can't assassinate anybody without people finding out about it, and this is in third world countries which most Americans don't care about. It seems to strain credibility to say that large groups of experts of explosives could plant them throughout a building, know exactly when the towers would be hit, and then cause a demolition.

Too many actors and agents involved. "Three men can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." 9/11 conspiracy books and theories went out almost immediately after the explosion, which seems to suggest to me that people immediately thought the government did it and some later went looking for evidence to assertain that thought. (At least one 9/11 conspiracy theorist claims, this too, was part of the government cover-up, to make easy to debunk claims sound like conspiracy theories, thus locking in legitimate theories with illigitimate theories).

Additionally, Osama bin Ladin has sent repeated messages for why he did it, which hint at stuff that we all know very well, (troops in Saudi Arabia, the Shah installed, the policy of Israel towards Palestine and occupation, etc., etc.), and require no elaborate conspiracy theories with multiple hinging parts. Neither the conspiracy theorists nor the non-conspiracy theorists have done anything close to a full-scale replication of the attack. I would like to see that and see an investigation done. Maybe the govt. did it, but I think they're a bunch of idiots who couldn't take over a country held up with scotch tape from a long-since destroyed by sanctions tin-pot tyrant. Our govt. couldn't respond effectively to Katrina. Our current govt. can't make a decent Medicare policy. To assume they could actually orchestrate something with intelligence is giving them credit where I think they deserve none.

First, there are video and pictures of molten metal pouring out of the building, on the outside. Given the design nature of the towers, most of the steel cutting would have to be on the inside, in the core of the building, where of course, unless you were inside of it, you would not have seen this molten steel bi product of the thermate. And be real about someone standing the building...everyday buildings come down, by professionals, and do any of them have to sacrifice their lives to start the demolition process? I think not.

As for this "too many people" would have to know bullshit. Again, if your general tells you to do something, you do it. If you worked for a company, and had a family to feed, and you know that if you spoke out against, you would lose all of it, would you speak out? More than likely not. Some have, Stephen Jones being one of them. Some are brave enough. Most (like you) are forced to rationalize the lie with other lies (There were too many people involved!) That argument is so old, and so stagnant that it hurts to even read. And believe me, America is more than capable. When America assassinates anyone, they do not have to hide it. They can simply strong arm and whitewash it out of existance *which is what they have been trying to do with 9/11.

As for Bin Ladin. Aside from him being quoted weeks after 9/11 as saying "I did not do it" and Bush claiming, less than a year after said event that "He just does not give him (Bin ladin) much thought...what makes you really believe he put the explosives there? There was thermate in the wreckage of the towers. How it got there is what has to be solved/proven next.

And yeah, we will start to see countries forming alliances against us, as they already have with Oil trade *Hugo Chavez, Iran selling oil to China* as backlash for America doing the world wrong. The people who lead this country are a separate entity from you and I, and it really pains me when the common citizen stands up and defends their actions.

Which are not only morally ambiguous, but in completely unfavour to the US Citizen.

*Edit* Watch the video. Then compare to your take on Thermite

downinit
25th August 07, 06:24 PM
I am an ardent anti-Bush and Anti-Imperialism supporter, but I think the evidence is bunk. Thermite burns incredibly fast and very violently, it's noticeable to put it lightly.

"Melted Metal" doesn't prove thermite was used. Additionally, burning thermite looks like a goddamn fireworks display. You *would* see huge sparks flying across everywhere. Go ahead, do a controlled experiment, and see what thermite looks like. Actually, I'll help. Here's what a tiny amount of thermite burning in a pan looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thermite_skillet.jpg

and again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Utah-thermite.jpg

Better yet, really do your homework and look for an online video of a building being demolished by thermite. Look it up. And keep looking. Have you done it yet? Good, here's what you'll notice. When thermite melts steel, it runs down everything. Again, it's obvious.

You're telling me the massive amounts of thermite needed to destroy a building, PLUS the initial charge reaction required would not be very obvious from outside? Bullshido. The military uses it in its incindiary grenades, when one of the soldiers looked directly at the explosion, it burned his retina. You would have to lace the entire building with it, (since you wouldn't know where the plane would hit), hope no one suspected anything, (since thermite is a highly controlled and dangerous substance), have someone either on hand to detonate it who wouldn't mind getting collapsed, (it has a high set point for reaction, so most detonation is done manually with someone supervising, because otherwise, even high heats won't be enough to initiate the reaction. So, who do you think was standing around inside a building to demolishit with thermite?

Now, while it is possible to go on and say that "yes, well, Steven Jones says that many different types of explosives could have been used, not just thermite, so that doesn't disprove it." Well, pick one. The controlled demolition hypothesis would require a very very large amont of people working on it, and if we've learned anything from the history of U.S. attempts at CIA operations, we suck at them. We can't assassinate anybody without people finding out about it, and this is in third world countries which most Americans don't care about. It seems to strain credibility to say that large groups of experts of explosives could plant them throughout a building, know exactly when the towers would be hit, and then cause a demolition.

Too many actors and agents involved. "Three men can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." 9/11 conspiracy books and theories went out almost immediately after the explosion, which seems to suggest to me that people immediately thought the government did it and some later went looking for evidence to assertain that thought. (At least one 9/11 conspiracy theorist claims, this too, was part of the government cover-up, to make easy to debunk claims sound like conspiracy theories, thus locking in legitimate theories with illigitimate theories).

Additionally, Osama bin Ladin has sent repeated messages for why he did it, which hint at stuff that we all know very well, (troops in Saudi Arabia, the Shah installed, the policy of Israel towards Palestine and occupation, etc., etc.), and require no elaborate conspiracy theories with multiple hinging parts. Neither the conspiracy theorists nor the non-conspiracy theorists have done anything close to a full-scale replication of the attack. I would like to see that and see an investigation done. Maybe the govt. did it, but I think they're a bunch of idiots who couldn't take over a country held up with scotch tape from a long-since destroyed by sanctions tin-pot tyrant. Our govt. couldn't respond effectively to Katrina. Our current govt. can't make a decent Medicare policy. To assume they could actually orchestrate something with intelligence is giving them credit where I think they deserve none.

I've seen dozens of controlled demolitions (and I just watched a couple of videos to refresh my memory). None of them appear conspicuously different from the WTC collapse, aside from the fact that they usually start the explosions from the base of the building. I don't see why you think someone would have to die in order to detonate it. It's always detonated remotely...

I agree that there have been many bogus theories about 9/11, many of which had no substance whatsoever, and they likely came to be because certain people are undiscerning enough to decide that the government (or whatever power) is at fault as soon as a catastrophic event occurs, only to come up with elaborate rationalizations post hoc (I think Alex Jones is like this much of the time). But ultimately, we can't allow all the crap out there to justify our ignoring actual scientific evidence in the same domain.

You're right that the amount of precise planning and discipline that would have to occur in order to successfully pull off such an act and keep it completely secret is seemingly unrealistic. That's one of the reasons why I'm still (and probably will remain) somewhat undecided about the whole thing. On the one hand you have many implauibilities and inconsistincies regarding the attack actually being premeditated by some higher power than a bunch of radical Muslims on planes, and on the other hand you now have actual scientific evidence which suggests that thermate was indeed used to bring down the building. It's confusing to say the least, and if anyone can reliably (i.e. scientifically!) explain how multiple converging fingerprints of thermate can be found at the site while maintaining the official story, I'll discard any belief about 9/11 potentially being staged. Until then, there is some very suggestive evidence that the WTC was indeed brought down with thermate, and to rationalize that away is completely and utterly foolish.

Riddeck
25th August 07, 06:32 PM
What I think I love the most is how we are SO very critical of conspiracy theories and so lighthearted about official stories. As if the official stories are right until proved wrong, but the same respect does not exist to the counter of said stories. And I am talking ones within the realm of average reasoning, not the farther fetched stories.

Truculent Sheep
25th August 07, 06:42 PM
lol? What is this supposed to show? That someone who gets an MA is an idiot? I already knew that.

No - I was merely demonstrating the typical behaviour of 'truthers'. His degree course at the time was merely a way of putting him into context - he was mixing business with pleasure, as it were. A nice man, all things considered: just very hurt and alcoholic. (Not that this had much to do with his beliefs.)


The laws of "common sense"and the laws of physics are two different things.

I said that.

[QUOTE=Poop Loops]Moreoever, the people who "debunk" these things aren't doing any experiments to find out how it could happen. They are just saying "oh it was probably blah blah" whereas the "conspiracy theorists" are doing experiments and getting results.

Wrong on both counts. How many conspiracy theorists have actually had convincing research, peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals? Or are you about to convince us all that the Universities have been knobbled by The Man too? Y'know, the places jam-packed full of screaming post-modernists, Bush-Haters and Chomsky Nut Riders?


Moreoever, we have had substantial tests with bombs and planes ramming into other things (military tests). Ramming a jet into a building isn't ZOMG WTF NEW.

In a terrorism context it is. Unless the US military rotuinely crashes 747s into Skyscrapers.


Rationally meaning no attempt to experiment and just making guesses? The guy in the video isn't rallying anybody or doing anything emotional. Just showing the evidence he has gathered through experiment. Watch the video before spewing the same line verbatim.

No, he's simply cherry-picking the evidence to back his argument up. This isn't even good journalism, let alone good science.


Look, I understand where you are coming from. UFO conspiracy theorists, ghost people, etc. all have shitty claims with no support and claim that you need to disprove them. This isn't the case here. He's giving proof and publishing it. NIST gave their view and he is proving them wrong with data and experiments. It's science. He's not even saying who did it, just what happened. Anybody could have done it. That's not what he's trying to figure out.

But by implication, he is making an (indirect) accusation by making his claims. Plus, and let's get all structuralist here, there's nothing different here in terms of narrative to any other conspiracy theory: to whit, they're all about an evil, shadowy agency preying on the hapless public under a cloak of subterfuge or lies. It's effectively the same story as Area 51, the 'faked' Moon Landings, Princess Diana getting snuffed by MI6, JFK etc... Only the details change, whereas the people who make these claims all share similar outlooks, backgrounds and motivations.

Truculent Sheep
25th August 07, 06:46 PM
What I think I love the most is how we are SO very critical of conspiracy theories and so lighthearted about official stories. As if the official stories are right until proved wrong, but the same respect does not exist to the counter of said stories. And I am talking ones within the realm of average reasoning, not the farther fetched stories.

That's because 'official' narratives are framed in the public sphere and so are under public scrutiny. (For example, do you think the New York Times or The Guardian would sit idly if they knew something was up?)

Meanwhile, conspiracy theories are on the fringe, often highly politicised and very subjective. Hence the heaps of scepticism poured on them.

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 07:25 PM
Wrong on both counts. How many conspiracy theorists have actually had convincing research, peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals? Or are you about to convince us all that the Universities have been knobbled by The Man too? Y'know, the places jam-packed full of screaming post-modernists, Bush-Haters and Chomsky Nut Riders?

You didn't watch the video, did you? This guy published stuff already and is going to publish more.





No, he's simply cherry-picking the evidence to back his argument up. This isn't even good journalism, let alone good science.

You didn't watch the video, did you? This guy was a university professor of physics. I think he knows a *bit* about science.



But by implication, he is making an (indirect) accusation by making his claims. Plus, and let's get all structuralist here, there's nothing different here in terms of narrative to any other conspiracy theory: to whit, they're all about an evil, shadowy agency preying on the hapless public under a cloak of subterfuge or lies. It's effectively the same story as Area 51, the 'faked' Moon Landings, Princess Diana getting snuffed by MI6, JFK etc... Only the details change, whereas the people who make these claims all share similar outlooks, backgrounds and motivations.

You didn't watch the video, did you? He didn't accuse anyone. He's taking the backwards approach: find the evidence then make an accusation.

Truculent Sheep
25th August 07, 08:26 PM
You didn't watch the video, did you? This guy published stuff already and is going to publish more.

Yes I have and I think it's nonsense. Also, it's actually very easy to get published. The question is where and by whom.


You didn't watch the video, did you? This guy was a university professor of physics. I think he knows a *bit* about science.

We all now a *bit* - but what that *bit* covers is the most important part. And WAS is the operative word here. The geezer was, however, shown the door when he started fraternising with the tin-foil hat brigade. Also, his main field is Cold Fusion, which is quite different from the kind of Physics specialisation that would give him authority in this case. It's a bit like me trying to give a convincing lecture on early 19th Century rural life in England just because I've read Silas Marner a few times.


You didn't watch the video, did you? He didn't accuse anyone. He's taking the backwards approach: find the evidence then make an accusation.

That's the format and how it is arranged for the reader's benefit. The underlying thinking is quite the opposite.

Olorin
25th August 07, 08:26 PM
Additionally, Osama bin Ladin has sent repeated messages for why he did it

But you forget that Osama is a Bush family stooge. In fact the Bushs have Osama's family held hostage at the Crawford Rance. That is why he as forced to admit responsibility for 911.

Olorin
25th August 07, 08:31 PM
New super secret evidence the government does not want you to see!!!

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h170/kmcdude/hulksmashwtc500.jpg

downinit
25th August 07, 08:56 PM
Well, this thread has hit rock bottom fast.

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 08:58 PM
We all now a *bit* - but what that *bit* covers is the most important part. And WAS is the operative word here. The geezer was, however, shown the door when he started fraternising with the tin-foil hat brigade. Also, his main field is Cold Fusion, which is quite different from the kind of Physics specialisation that would give him authority in this case. It's a bit like me trying to give a convincing lecture on early 19th Century rural life in England just because I've read Silas Marner a few times.

He got shown the door because the university was shitty. I've never heard of an academic setting that didn't let you state 100% of your opinion unless it was illegal. For god's sakes, one of my professors wanted me to do a report on underage hentai porn and society. She said all laws were void because it's for an academic project.

Naturally, I declined. My mind is warped enough as it is.



That's the format and how it is arranged for the reader's benefit. The underlying thinking is quite the opposite.

Uh huh.

So, do you have any counterpoints to his claims? You know, the ones he backed up with evidence?

Truculent Sheep
25th August 07, 09:07 PM
He got shown the door because the university was shitty.

I know Brigham Young is a bit puritanical, but it also has an excellent reputation, both for teaching and research. And if BYU really is shit, it doesn't say much about its ex-employees, does it?


I've never heard of an academic setting that didn't let you state 100% of your opinion unless it was illegal. For god's sakes, one of my professors wanted me to do a report on underage hentai porn and society. She said all laws were void because it's for an academic project.

Naturally, I declined. My mind is warped enough as it is.

That's the crazy world of the humanities for you. But while such outlooks are acceptable in certain 'disciplines', there are clear boundaries that aren't stepped over. For example, I've lectured English and American Studies students but I'd be in deep cack if I advocated, for example, homoepathy to them or argued for a reintroduction of Jim Crow. Likewise, a professor going off on a paranoid tangent and spouting nonsense or ideological cant that has nothing to do with their field of expertise does not inspire confidence. Chomsky and Dawkins might get away with it, but few others can or should.


Uh huh.

So, do you have any counterpoints to his claims? You know, the ones he backed up with evidence?

As I said, it's your job to stand these claims up. 'Evidence' is also not in itself conclusive - rather it must be used constructively as part of a convincing argument. And on such lines, this article certainly sticks the boot in:

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

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 09:14 PM
I know Brigham Young is a bit puritanical, but it also has an excellent reputation, both for teaching and research. And if BYU really is shit, it doesn't say much about its ex-employees, does it?

Who get fired for questioning the status quo?

I wouldn't care if any of my professors believed in UFO's. If they did their jobs, they should NOT get fired for it.



That's the crazy world of the humanities for you. But while such outlooks are acceptable in certain 'disciplines', there are clear boundaries that aren't stepped over. For example, I've lectured English and American Studies students but I'd be in deep cack if I advocated, for example, homoepathy to them or argued for a reintroduction of Jim Crow. Likewise, a professor going off on a paranoid tangent and spouting nonsense or ideological cant that has nothing to do with their field of expertise does not inspire confidence. Chomsky and Dawkins might get away with it, but few others can or should.

He did this on his own time. He never lectured anybody as part of a class.



You list 'em, I'll go through 'em...

So you didn't watch the movie, then?

Truculent Sheep
25th August 07, 09:26 PM
Who get fired for questioning the status quo?

I wouldn't care if any of my professors believed in UFO's. If they did their jobs, they should NOT get fired for it.

They should if it interferes with their work or credibility.


He did this on his own time. He never lectured anybody as part of a class.

Oh good, so he's more convincing and less discredited 'cos he did it in his shed?


So you didn't watch the movie, then?

I did - my question is, what points do you have in mind? I am a man of many talents, but telepathy ain't one of them.

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 09:30 PM
They should if it interferes with their work or credibility.
Credibility? In science? You really have no idea how science works, do you?


Oh good, so he's more convincing 'cos he did it in his shed?
What an idiotic statement. My point was that he wasn't doing it when he was at work, so it shouldn't concern them what he does. I never said how he did it.


I did - my question is, what points do you have in mind? I am a man of many talents, but telepathy ain't one of them.

He covered about 4 or so points in the whole thing. Pick one.

Truculent Sheep
25th August 07, 09:48 PM
Credibility? In science? You really have no idea how science works, do you?

Neither do you, if your arguments are anything to go by. And how can you take a scientist seriously if he spouts weird crap on Google Video?


hat an idiotic statement. My point was that he wasn't doing it when he was at work, so it shouldn't concern them what he does. I never said how he did it.

You're a fine one to accuse anyone of 'idiotic statements'. Plus, by definition, what one does off the job can have an effect on it. For example, an archaeologist could claim that he's found Lemuria at the bottom of his garden. Is that OK as long as he's off the job at the time? Or a lecturer on human anatomy publishes a book on how beetroot can treat AIDS. Still OK? Or an Anthropologist has a blog where he accuses Jews of drinking blood. Ah, but that's off the job. So it's OK.


He covered about 4 or so points in the whole thing. Pick one.

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

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 09:57 PM
Neither do you, if your arguments are anything to go by. And how can you take a scientist seriously if he spouts weird crap on Google Video? Jesus Christ you're a dumbass! CREDIBILITY MEANS SHIT IN SCIENCE, IT'S ABOUT THE EVIDENCE!
You're a fine one to accuse anyone of 'idiotic statements'. Plus, by definition, what one does off the job can have an effect on it. For example, an archaeologist could claim that he's found Lemuria at the bottom of his garden. Is that OK as long as he's off the job at the time? Or a lecturer on human anatomy publishes a book on how beetroot can treat AIDS. Still OK? Or an Anthropologist has a blog where he accuses Jews of drinking blood. Ah, but that's off the job. So it's OK. Yes. It might be stupid, but it doesn't interfere with their jobs. The one with the Jews could be illegal since it's bigoted, but the others are fine. He'd get a backlash from people who know what they are doing, but I don't see why he should lose his job over it.

Arhetton
26th August 07, 12:15 AM
its hard to find pictures or video of the steel.

Heres some from a conspiracy movie, cut with a discovery channel program and some other footage. Be patient and you get to see some of the steel :)

6CaNTVpWWAs

The part when they are talking about there should be tears in the beam - when a beam is subject to a load, you can treat the beam as if it were in two ' halves'. One half is under compression (being squashed) and the other half is under tension (being stretched). The stretched side if heavily deformed should show breaks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Big_bending_asymptote_stress.png

Arhetton
26th August 07, 12:51 AM
here is a picture taken 6 days after the towers fell, there is still white smoke coming out of the wreckage. Firefighters who walked on the wreckage had to replace their shoes every few hours because the rubber on their boots was melting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_01.jpg/480px-September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_01.jpg

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/groundzero.jpg


5 days after

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/September_16_2001.jpg/750px-September_16_2001.jpg

3 days after

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/September_14_2001.jpg/393px-September_14_2001.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/September_14_2001_Ground_Zero_02.jpg/390px-September_14_2001_Ground_Zero_02.jpg


*edit*

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

Thats a website that has a history of the thermal imaging of ground zero from september 16.

Riddeck
26th August 07, 01:46 AM
Wrong on both counts. How many conspiracy theorists have actually had convincing research, peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals? Or are you about to convince us all that the Universities have been knobbled by The Man too? Y'know, the places jam-packed full of screaming post-modernists, Bush-Haters and Chomsky Nut Riders?

Had you watched the video, as you said you did, you would then know of at least one "conspiracy theorist" that has convincing research, peer reviewed AND published. I assure you if BYU had any Government bonds or grants, they did the best to bag the guy that was going against the Government. He is a well Awarded Professor, why would they want him to leave if not for his work on 9/11.





In a terrorism context it is. Unless the US military rotuinely crashes 747s into Skyscrapers.
The context is irrelevant here. We are talking about an airplane that hit a skyscraper and caused it to collapse to the ground. Does not matter if that airplane was a terrorist or an accident, the plane is going to do the same damage.





No, he's simply cherry-picking the evidence to back his argument up. This isn't even good journalism, let alone good science.
He cherry picks because the NIST report, which is supposed to have been throughly tested, and packed full with positive evidence reinforcing their official statement *Under the public eye, in close scrutiny*, does in fact have a HUGE hole in it simply because we are talking about molten metal pouring out the side of the WTC. That clearly has some indication about what went down in there. Had it been aluminum, then we would have known the fires burned that hot in there. It happened to be thermate.

Imagine the building wired up, ready to go. Plane hits, and happens to hit a wall that has a thermate charge attached to it. Now the molten metal is leaking out, and they have it on video. You claim it is aluminum. A Physicist proves it to be Thermate. You attempt to discredit him, by hiring Popular Mechanics to not only misinform the people who would listen, but to then use that information as fact, even though they have not done any experiments. Put a program on TV on the History channel *they can be trusted c'mon!*, as he is close to, or already having published it.

It is the propaganda machine running rampant.








But by implication, he is making an (indirect) accusation by making his claims. Plus, and let's get all structuralist here, there's nothing different here in terms of narrative to any other conspiracy theory: to whit, they're all about an evil, shadowy agency preying on the hapless public under a cloak of subterfuge or lies. It's effectively the same story as Area 51, the 'faked' Moon Landings, Princess Diana getting snuffed by MI6, JFK etc... Only the details change, whereas the people who make these claims all share similar outlooks, backgrounds and motivations.

The man is doing his right as an American citizen. He has the knowledge, and the reputation *He has MANY academic awards, check the Wiki link in this thread*, and is using it as leverage against a power much larger than us, and weather you believe it or not, damned enough to kill each and every one of us.

As for other theories, just be patient. When all the cards are out on 9/11, you would be an ass not to believe any others. I bet you believe that Oswald was the lone gunman. Can you be so daft?



In essence, the entire point of the video is to prove that the case needs to be opened, and people have to take responsibility for what they have done. Families of victims, workers who are now sick, and the rest of those involved need to be taken care of, and the people who are responsable need to be executed for treason.

Oh I said that.






That's because 'official' narratives are framed in the public sphere and so are under public scrutiny. (For example, do you think the New York Times or The Guardian would sit idly if they knew something was up?)

Meanwhile, conspiracy theories are on the fringe, often highly politicised and very subjective. Hence the heaps of scepticism poured on them.

Riddeck
26th August 07, 02:03 AM
Neither do you, if your arguments are anything to go by. And how can you take a scientist seriously if he spouts weird crap on Google Video?



You're a fine one to accuse anyone of 'idiotic statements'. Plus, by definition, what one does off the job can have an effect on it. For example, an archaeologist could claim that he's found Lemuria at the bottom of his garden. Is that OK as long as he's off the job at the time? Or a lecturer on human anatomy publishes a book on how beetroot can treat AIDS. Still OK? Or an Anthropologist has a blog where he accuses Jews of drinking blood. Ah, but that's off the job. So it's OK.



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

Google is one of few places for him to get this media out to the public. You think Major news media *owned in part by the CIA* would allow such information out to the public? Fuck no.

As for this credibility thing...this 'you have to be a specialist to know what you are talking about', it is complete bullocks and you know that. Stephen Jones clearly had to take some chemistry, and all different kinds of physics class to finally receive a PhD. He clearly has at least a basic grasp on the scientific process.

He, like many people, knew that there was something fishy *and has now experienced it first hand* and decided to do something about it. Realizing that the Molten metal is a weak link in the 'Official' argument, he went after that. Proving them wrong, on this one, VERY important factor in the collapse of the towers, is enough to discredit the official story entirely. And that in itself is why a new investigation, under true peer review has to be done.

ironlurker
26th August 07, 02:20 AM
to whit, they're all about an evil, shadowy agency preying on the hapless public under a cloak of subterfuge or lies.
Hypothetical #1- Two aircraft, hijacked by Osama bin Laden's men, as widely accepted, actually hit the WTC towers and actually cause them to collapse. Building 7 is destroyed in a controlled demolition out of safety concerns, in a panic. In hindsight, the decision making process is considered too questionable for public consumption- moreover, it's pointed out to those in the know that admitting the reality of this aspect of 9/11 after the fact would provide fuel for conspiracy theorists -"well, what else did they lie about?"- further affiriming the decision to keep it under wraps.

Hypothetical #2- Flight 93 is shot down, rather than crashed as reported. As I said in the other thread, there was every justification for the government/military to do so after the first two attacks. It would have been worse than negligent not to have shot it down, if such was possible. Note- not by a UFO, etc. I could see even a large number of people involved in the decision, including those who carried it out, not wishing for it to become public knowledge- for reasons that they sincerely believe are for the best of the country.

Again, I'm not arguing here that either of these happened this way- my point is that "the official, hard-nosed truth vs. nutty conspiracy theorists" is a false dichotomy, especially if any discussion to the contrary of the former is automatically assumed to involve "an evil, shadowy agency preying on the hapless public", MIB, Illuminati etc and therefore discredited.

Now, on the other hand, this -to me- is the weakness of many of the more vocal 9/11 truth crowd- they feed into this by automatically conflating their theories of the "who" with their questions and claims about the "how."

I don't believe a snarling, alien-hybrid remotely piloted drone planes into buildings selected on the basis of Qabalistic symbolism. But I wouldn't be shocked if certain details were spun, concealed, or left unsaid for reasons that -to many, I think- would have appeared, especially in the heat of the moment, sensible.

As I said before, ineptitude, indifference (to the precursor intelligence, etc., not to the final loss of life), and this "you can't handle the truth" possibility stand as alternatives.

bob
26th August 07, 03:34 AM
So if 'the CABAL' or whoever it was, went to all that trouble to plant the thermite in the building, why make it so unncecessarily complicated and have the planes at all? They could have just nuked the buildings, rounded up a few rag heads and chucked a few terrrrrrist bodies around the scene.

Seems to me if you're going to run a dangerous, complicated intelligence operation and trying to keep it secret from pretty much everyone you would make it as simple as possible.

Olorin
26th August 07, 03:55 AM
So if 'the CABAL' or whoever it was, went to all that trouble to plant the thermite in the building, why make it so unncecessarily complicated and have the planes at all? They could have just nuked the buildings, rounded up a few rag heads and chucked a few terrrrrrist bodies around the scene.

Seems to me if you're going to run a dangerous, complicated intelligence operation and trying to keep it secret from pretty much everyone you would make it as simple as possible.

Quit making sense. It has to be super complicated!

Also has anyone else noticed that the Bush administration is incapable of keeping any secrets...to say nothing of something of this magnitude. They leak like a sieve.

And if the Bush admin is willing to kill thousands of American citizens why is this turd still alive?

http://static.flickr.com/97/241190093_357b509984.jpg

Sun Wukong
26th August 07, 05:03 AM
I don't know exactly who that particular brand of feces is supposed to be.

Truculent Sheep
26th August 07, 08:44 AM
Jesus Christ you're a dumbass! CREDIBILITY MEANS SHIT IN SCIENCE, IT'S ABOUT THE EVIDENCE!

So if a mad, turps-swigging tramp gives me a lecture on string theory, I'm supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt?


Yes. It might be stupid, but it doesn't interfere with their jobs. The one with the Jews could be illegal since it's bigoted, but the others are fine. He'd get a backlash from people who know what they are doing, but I don't see why he should lose his job over it.

They're all bringing their disciplines into disrepute. Ergo, they should lose their jobs.

Truculent Sheep
26th August 07, 09:07 AM
Had you watched the video, as you said you did, you would then know of at least one "conspiracy theorist" that has convincing research, peer reviewed AND published.

Published where? Peer-reviewed by whom? Citations please, 'cos I've not found any.


I assure you if BYU had any Government bonds or grants, they did the best to bag the guy that was going against the Government. He is a well Awarded Professor, why would they want him to leave if not for his work on 9/11.

Because he was making a tit of himself. Had he put this much effort into Cold Fusion, the world would be a better place.


The context is irrelevant here. We are talking about an airplane that hit a skyscraper and caused it to collapse to the ground. Does not matter if that airplane was a terrorist or an accident, the plane is going to do the same damage.

But if that were the case, why do we have individual autopsies, public inquests, fire and accident investigations for accidents, incidents and deaths that are similar to one another? Each event has its own particular circumstances and these need to be taken into account.


He cherry picks because the NIST report, which is supposed to have been throughly tested, and packed full with positive evidence reinforcing their official statement *Under the public eye, in close scrutiny*, does in fact have a HUGE hole in it simply because we are talking about molten metal pouring out the side of the WTC. That clearly has some indication about what went down in there. Had it been aluminum, then we would have known the fires burned that hot in there. It happened to be thermate.

Says who? Where? When? Please also refer to the link I posted in one of my replies to PL.


Imagine the building wired up, ready to go. Plane hits, and happens to hit a wall that has a thermate charge attached to it. Now the molten metal is leaking out, and they have it on video. You claim it is aluminum. A Physicist proves it to be Thermate. You attempt to discredit him, by hiring Popular Mechanics to not only misinform the people who would listen, but to then use that information as fact, even though they have not done any experiments. Put a program on TV on the History channel *they can be trusted c'mon!*, as he is close to, or already having published it.

It is the propaganda machine running rampant.

Well, there's certainly one propaganda machine doing overtime here...


The man is doing his right as an American citizen.

To talk shit? At this rate he'll be writing for The Daily Express on Princess Diana getting knocked off by the Duke of Edinburgh.


He has the knowledge, and the reputation *He has MANY academic awards, check the Wiki link in this thread*,

But, curiously enough, no background in civil engineering...


and is using it as leverage against a power much larger than us, and weather you believe it or not, damned enough to kill each and every one of us.

Another common feature of the conspiracy narrative is the 'virtuous informer' who bravely challenges the conspirators despite great odds... You're just enacting the same old set of archetypes here.


As for other theories, just be patient. When all the cards are out on 9/11, you would be an ass not to believe any others. I bet you believe that Oswald was the lone gunman. Can you be so daft?

Please tell me you're trolling.


In essence, the entire point of the video is to prove that the case needs to be opened, and people have to take responsibility for what they have done. Families of victims, workers who are now sick, and the rest of those involved need to be taken care of, and the people who are responsable need to be executed for treason.

Oh I said that.

So the best way to honour the dead is libel an entire government, cause further distress to the bereaved and spread distrust, lies and delusion? And what about those survivors or rescue workers who don't agree with you - are you going to call them liars to their faces?

Cullion
26th August 07, 09:58 AM
The video doesn't discuss who did it. It might have been other terrorists who did it and the jets flying into the building were just an exlamation mark.

Secondly, governments have faked terrorist and regular attacks on their nation in order to go to war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

My doubts don't centre around the ruthlessness and willingness to decieve the citizenry of the top ranks of the Bush administration. My doubts are around the sheer logistics involved in pulling something like this off and then managing to keep everybody involved quiet.

I think the early wave of anthrax mails were a false flag operation, because it was reported in major media outlets that the anthrax strain had been traced to a US govt. lab.

My hunch that posting Anthrax to various VIPs would require less people to be involved than the events of 9-11. And they weren't able to keep that bit of evidence quiet.

Riddeck
26th August 07, 11:51 AM
But if that were the case, why do we have individual autopsies, public inquests, fire and accident investigations for accidents, incidents and deaths that are similar to one another? Each event has its own particular circumstances and these need to be taken into account.

Standards state that when there is a building fire/collapse, thermite/mate HAS to be tested for. Why did the U.S. Government NOT test for it?




Says who? Where? When? Please also refer to the link I posted in one of my replies to PL.

What do you mean, who and where? The NIST report is the Governments respond to 'conspiracy theorists' and there is a huge hole shot in the middle of it. Thermate was used, present and accounted for in the two towers. That is what this video is proving. It is not saying who did what, or why, it is simply saying, the NIST report is wrong, and Arson, controlled demolition is involved here.


Well, there's certainly one propaganda machine doing overtime here...
Yeah, have you ever listened to James Meig (Editor for Popular Mechanics) speak? He is so ridiculously phony, it hurts. His statements and arguments are by design, made to belittle and discredit, not actually provide evidence to the contrary.




To talk shit? At this rate he'll be writing for The Daily Express on Princess Diana getting knocked off by the Duke of Edinburgh. The man is not talking any shit. He is being quite professional about the whole thing, unlike others (See Above). He is an educated man who knows how to do a scientific experiment, and is clearly able to read. He is simply refuting the point that the molten metal is NOT aluminum, but in fact thermate. If the NIST report is wrong on that very important element, what makes you believe the rest of it is correct?




But, curiously enough, no background in civil engineering...[QUOTE] Again I ask, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS EVEN MATTER?!?! He has samples of molten metal, that he and OTHER PHYSICISTS analyzed equipment that you, and myself, and yes, probably even Civil Engineers have NO clue how to operate. With these he has determined the molten material to be thermate. There is no documented evidence that can prove this wrong in the case of the two towers.

This whole idea that you have to specialize in a particular field in order to use your fucking brain is ludacris and has it's place, this not being one of them. He is not explaining to me from an engineering standpoint how the buildings fell down, he is simply stating that he has proof that thermate was used. (Thermate being used in controlled demolitions and arson for years) I do not have to be a civil engineer to suspect foulplay.



[QUOTE=Truculent Sheep]Another common feature of the conspiracy narrative is the 'virtuous informer' who bravely challenges the conspirators despite great odds... You're just enacting the same old set of archetypes here.
Well, yeah, no shit? If a group of people, who controlled the money, the military, and the country as a whole, want something done their way, of course you have to have balls to challenge it, especially when you can do something about it. People in the past that have stood up to it, (JFK) are now in fact, dead. Not by some lone gunman, doing so cause he is angry, but by this group in power, who feels they are a threat (JFK threatened to tear the CIA into 1000 pieces).




Please tell me you're trolling.
I have been interested in this 9/11 thing for a couple years now. I woke the morning, watched it all on TV, even wrote a SONG about the events, believing what was told to me. Years go by, and you see this country overstepping it's boundries and you have to question what is going on. I troll this thread because it was a call out to a certain number of people here, a few who have not even responded (Still waiting on Frumpleswift, he is a gem).

I believe that in my lifetime I will witness some interesting shit go down (9/11 uncovered, peak oil *end of* potential police state and the revolution that follows. Free thinkers vs. Sheep.

Tends to be a lot of sheep on this board, however.




So the best way to honour the dead is libel an entire government, cause further distress to the bereaved and spread distrust, lies and delusion? And what about those survivors or rescue workers who don't agree with you - are you going to call them liars to their faces?

No the best way to Honour the dead is to accuse a man of killing them, and less than a year later totally ignore his existence and invade another country. Then, about 500 days after the event, I will create a commission that will investigate a year old crime scene, give it a minimalist budget, and fill it with people who have conflicting interests (Maybe Henry Kissinger is availible to lead this investigation)

And what about the workers, and families who do not believe the governments story? Do they not deserve the individual's attempts at exposing this truth, no matter how deep it goes?

I guess they should be shunned for questioning the government as well.

Riddeck
26th August 07, 11:59 AM
My doubts don't centre around the ruthlessness and willingness to decieve the citizenry of the top ranks of the Bush administration. My doubts are around the sheer logistics involved in pulling something like this off and then managing to keep everybody involved quiet.

I think the early wave of anthrax mails were a false flag operation, because it was reported in major media outlets that the anthrax strain had been traced to a US govt. lab.

My hunch that posting Anthrax to various VIPs would require less people to be involved than the events of 9-11. And they weren't able to keep that bit of evidence quiet.

Project Northwoods outlined this very 9/11 event happening, except the enemy was Cuba. You do not have to have EVERYONE in it together, just those in charge. You have citizens that need their jobs/reputation to put food on their tables, to keep life the same who do not want it to be different, keeping their heads down. You have others that keep quiet with money. You cannot really know how many where actually involved, 10, or 1000.

You admit that false flag operations exist, yet refuse to believe that 9/11 could be one of them. Government (Bush himself) had warning that 9/11 was going to take place (Alex Jones reported 9/11 months before it happened), so what is to say he did not set up his end (demolition, making sure the buildings went down) so that when the planes did hit (after Cheney kept them flying in the air to meet their marks) they could bring them down, and create an event much bigger than a couple floors of dmg?

Not to mention all the circumstantial evidence for these thoughts, Cheney being in charge of all war games exercises, and in control of all operations in the POEC while Bush was reading a book upside down. Larry Silverstien putting the largest insurance policies on the three buildings that collapsed entirely, weeks before 9/11 happened. Not to mention the fact that only three steel structured skyscrapers have ever collapsed completely due to fire dmg in the history of modern skyscrapers, and they all took places on the same day?

Now, you do not have to be privvy to secret information to see that something fishy is going on here, especially when arson brought down the buildings.

Riddeck
26th August 07, 12:02 PM
Quit making sense. It has to be super complicated!

Also has anyone else noticed that the Bush administration is incapable of keeping any secrets...to say nothing of something of this magnitude. They leak like a sieve.

And if the Bush admin is willing to kill thousands of American citizens why is this turd still alive?

http://static.flickr.com/97/241190093_357b509984.jpg


Because if in a period if time, this guy, Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, Mike Ruppert, or anyone who is providing information contrary to Government where to turn up dead, they know they would be implicated. They just cannot do that kind of thing anymore, since a majority of the population would see it as it is, an assassination.

They get too much heat from killing Kennedy.

Cullion
26th August 07, 12:09 PM
You admit that false flag operations exist, yet refuse to believe that 9/11 could be one of them.

I just think they can only get away with such things when the number of people in the loop can be kept small enough. We're talking about a big operation involving multiple airliners being flown into multiple buildings. We're talking about teams of demolitions people inserting explosives into a huge public building unnoticed. We're talking about teams of accident investigators being ordered to ignore what is apparently a standard procedure and not say a word about it.

I can see false flag operations working with small numbers of military/intelligence community people who are extremely loyal to their chain of command.

I just don't see how they could keep that many civilians quiet.

ironlurker
26th August 07, 12:26 PM
If a male politician wears a dress in the privacy of his own home it can't be 'kept quiet'

Conspiracy Theorists never seem to have an answer for this question.
Most Americans truly care about such important things as personal sexual behavior, while generally being apathetic towards issues such as foreign policy, domestic spending, the financial system, the location of the country on a map of the world, etc.

This leads me to conclude that if a conspiracy or cover up of 9/11 did occur, absolutely no transvestites were involved.

Riddeck
26th August 07, 12:29 PM
The thing is, this is not being kept quiet. New York firefighters were threatened with their jobs if they reviled what they know. Tapes of the firefighters (you have heard it"I got two isolated pockets of fire, can knock em down with two lines) kept secret until years after 9/11.

They only have to keep it secret for a period of time, then after that, all they have to do is discredit those who oppose. I think you are forgetting the fact that CIA owns major interest in all major news outlets and yes, have the final say of what goes on. People hosting shows, editors, are in someones pocketbook, and will do their best (maybe even against moral judgement) to discredit, and 'debunk' what anyone else will have to say. All you really have to do it watch people like Bill O Reilly talk to a 9/11 victims son *who believes it was an inside job* or watch Stephen Jones on CNN have the video play of WT7 Collapsing refused to be played, cause that is the point he was trying to make.

It is not far fetched to see how this thing works. Everyone in the year after 9/11 believed the story, a) because it was so intense, nothin like this had been seen, b) the president immediately told us who did it, and why they did it *how did they find out so fast, but have no clue it was going to happen?!* and c) the same president gave only two choices "You are either with us, or a terrorist" then backed it up with the Patriot Act.

If anything, it buys the government more time.

It is only now that the truth is coming out, and they are doing their best to keep it suppressed, like that 9/11 show with Popular Mechanics and History channel. Information is getting out and they will be damned if they do not try to discredit asap.

Funny quote from Antifa telling me to get my Tin Foil hat and my copy of Popular Mechanics.

I think that speaks volumes when you consider the 'Offical Story' (17 arabs in a cave planning and executing the most villianous attack on US Soil, over the most protected airspace in the world) is the conspiracy theory.

Give those guys their Tin Foil hats and Popular Mechanics.

Truculent Sheep
26th August 07, 03:06 PM
Standards state that when there is a building fire/collapse, thermite/mate HAS to be tested for. Why did the U.S. Government NOT test for it?

Citations please.

[QUOTE=Riddeck]What do you mean, who and where? The NIST report is the Governments respond to 'conspiracy theorists' and there is a huge hole shot in the middle of it. Thermate was used, present and accounted for in the two towers. That is what this video is proving. It is not saying who did what, or why, it is simply saying, the NIST report is wrong, and Arson, controlled demolition is involved here.

Prove it. Again, citations please, and preferably not from discredited sources.


Yeah, have you ever listened to James Meig (Editor for Popular Mechanics) speak? He is so ridiculously phony, it hurts. His statements and arguments are by design, made to belittle and discredit, not actually provide evidence to the contrary.

So what you're saying is that a person's credibility is based on how nice their voice is? You must get suckered by telelmarketers on a regular basis. And with all due respect, the belittling and discrediting seems to be taking place care of the Troofers.


The man is not talking any shit. He is being quite professional about the whole thing, unlike others (See Above). He is an educated man who knows how to do a scientific experiment, and is clearly able to read. He is simply refuting the point that the molten metal is NOT aluminum, but in fact thermate. If the NIST report is wrong on that very important element, what makes you believe the rest of it is correct?

Who says it's wrong. And there are plenty of educated men who ramble on about subjects they know next to fuck all about. Noam Chomsky, for example.


Again I ask, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS EVEN MATTER?!?!

It matters plenty.


He has samples of molten metal, that he and OTHER PHYSICISTS analyzed equipment that you, and myself, and yes, probably even Civil Engineers have NO clue how to operate. With these he has determined the molten material to be thermate. There is no documented evidence that can prove this wrong in the case of the two towers.

What other physicists? Citations please.

And of course it matters. The matter you are arguing about is a civil engineering one, and the opinions of those outside the field are not as valid, or anywhere near as valid, irrespective of what gizmos they use.


This whole idea that you have to specialize in a particular field in order to use your fucking brain is ludacris and has it's place, this not being one of them.


You really are trolling, aren't you? All surgeons are intelligent men and women, but that doesn't mean every intelligent man or woman is a surgeon.

Oh, and 'Ludacris' is a rapper.


He is not explaining to me from an engineering standpoint how the buildings fell down, he is simply stating that he has proof that thermate was used. (Thermate being used in controlled demolitions and arson for years) I do not have to be a civil engineer to suspect foulplay.

But to prove foul play is a different matter altogether, and civil engineers would be the ones to prove this. Again, you have provided no citations to support your claims. Also, how the hell can you NOT factor in issues regarding engineering when three large buildings collapse?


Well, yeah, no shit? If a group of people, who controlled the money, the military, and the country as a whole, want something done their way, of course you have to have balls to challenge it, especially when you can do something about it. People in the past that have stood up to it, (JFK) are now in fact, dead. Not by some lone gunman, doing so cause he is angry, but by this group in power, who feels they are a threat (JFK threatened to tear the CIA into 1000 pieces).

Fwibble fwibble aardvark. Back to the lame narrative.

[QUOTE=Riddeck]I have been interested in this 9/11 thing for a couple years now. I woke the morning, watched it all on TV, even wrote a SONG about the events, believing what was told to me.

If you only bothered to get your facts right instead of whipping out an accoustic guitar.


Years go by, and you see this country overstepping it's boundries and you have to question what is going on. I troll this thread because it was a call out to a certain number of people here, a few who have not even responded (Still waiting on Frumpleswift, he is a gem).

Perhaps they realise they've got other things to do. I've got all weekend.


I believe that in my lifetime I will witness some interesting shit go down (9/11 uncovered, peak oil *end of* potential police state and the revolution that follows. Free thinkers vs. Sheep.

Tends to be a lot of sheep on this board, however.

That could have been funny, but it was clumsily executed. Perhaps the big event in your life will be to realise you've wasted nigh-on six years on this nonsense?


No the best way to Honour the dead is to accuse a man of killing them, and less than a year later totally ignore his existence and invade another country. Then, about 500 days after the event, I will create a commission that will investigate a year old crime scene, give it a minimalist budget, and fill it with people who have conflicting interests (Maybe Henry Kissinger is availible to lead this investigation)

Cynicism is no antidote to ignorance.


And what about the workers, and families who do not believe the governments story? Do they not deserve the individual's attempts at exposing this truth, no matter how deep it goes?

I guess they should be shunned for questioning the government as well.

The burden of proof is on the conspiracy mob, and besides most of the survivors, bereaved and rescue workers have hardly flocked to your cause.

Slindsay
26th August 07, 03:17 PM
If a male politician wears a dress in the privacy of his own home it can't be 'kept quiet'

Conspiracy Theorists never seem to have an answer for this question.

Your demanding then, that conspiracy theorists point to an occasion where a politician wears a dress in his own home, verified by multiple independent sources, preferably published in at least one reputable newspaper, which was kept quiet?

Gotcha.

Cullion
26th August 07, 03:31 PM
To be honest, they did manage to keep J. Edgar Hoover's transvestitism and live-in homosexual lover quiet for quite a long time.

NoMan
26th August 07, 04:03 PM
If you worked for a company, and had a family to feed, and you know that if you spoke out against, you would lose all of it, would you speak out? More than likely not.

The rationalization here is weak. You think someone would not speak out about their role in murdering 3400 of their fellow citizens because their family has to eat? Dunno, but I think most people, assuming they haven't sprung out like the Orcs of Mordor, would have some serious issues with this.



Most (like you) are forced to rationalize the lie with other lies (There were too many people involved!)

At a minimum, you'd need some sort of super-governmental power which could keep records completely hidden. You'd need an army of mindless drones who could demolish a building without talking about it. And you'd need to get something else clear:

If the government really did plan 9/11, then any and all critiques of U.S. foreign government policy are absolutely useless

Read that and let it sink in your head. If the govt. did it, and not terrorists, then the critique that the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is causing America to become more unsafe, not less.


America is more than capable. When America assassinates anyone, they do not have to hide it.

Exactly. But that statement doesn't follow for what you want it to say.

Blaming Bin Ladin helped no one. The U.S. had no interest in Afghanistan or Bin Ladin. If they were going to fake it, they would have claimed Saddam did it. When the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq, they had no problem trumping up evidence of WMDs and terroristic activities, along with the later claim it was for the cause of democracy. With or without 9/11, one of the top priorities for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the writers of the 1992 Defense Planning Guide has been to invade Iraq, no need necessary. When we wanted to invade, we invaded.

Stick
26th August 07, 06:50 PM
Conspiracy theories exist to make their believers feel as though they're engaged in the epic struggle for humanity and that they are not in fact the failures we all know them to be.

But you know, if anyone of the thousands of Americans it would've taken to pull this devilish plot off ever came forward to confess his involvement in this most diabolic of plots I will totally eat my own feces.

I'm not discussing this further, it is a patent waste of time; you people want to believe there was some shadowy conspiracy on the part of the US government and nothing I say to you will ever change that.


Well, this thread has hit rock bottom fast.

It started out at the bottom.

Cullion
26th August 07, 06:56 PM
Riddeck, please read this :-

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

Cullion
26th August 07, 07:03 PM
Here, here's your real conspiracy:-

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

ironlurker
26th August 07, 08:14 PM
To be honest, they did manage to keep J. Edgar Hoover's homosexual lover quiet for quite a long time.
http://www.wartenbergwheel.com/RBG-red.gif

WarPhalange
26th August 07, 10:09 PM
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

See? That's a lot better.

That's all I wanted.

Riddeck
26th August 07, 10:14 PM
My belief on what happened, be it at 9/11, or another event, is not the point of this entire thread.

The point of it is that thermate was found in the 9/11 wreckage. Larger samples from ground zero, and smaller samples in the dust from the collapse. The scientific process that SHOULD be used when experimenting was used, and has determined the presence of thermate. Whatever this implies, whoever it accuses, is not up for the argument, as most of you have already stated you believe the governments official report *Though this evidence from the video proves the report has at least ONE thing wrong*.


You cannot ignore the fact that the molten metal pouring out the side of the building, shortly before it collapsed, is in fact Thermate.

The next questions, and hey, if you know the answers, by all means, speak the fuck up, are who put it there.

If I were a detective working this case, I would start by determining who has the motive to do this, and continue the investigation that way.

Until this happens, I may not be right, but for fuck's sake, either are you.

Truculent Sheep
26th August 07, 10:17 PM
See? That's a lot better.

That's all I wanted.

Well, it certainly shut you up pretty fast.

Truculent Sheep
26th August 07, 10:20 PM
My belief on what happened, be it at 9/11, or another event, is not the point of this entire thread.

The point of it is that thermate was found in the 9/11 wreckage. Larger samples from ground zero, and smaller samples in the dust from the collapse. The scientific process that SHOULD be used when experimenting was used, and has determined the presence of thermate. Whatever this implies, whoever it accuses, is not up for the argument, as most of you have already stated you believe the governments official report *Though this evidence from the video proves the report has at least ONE thing wrong*.


You cannot ignore the fact that the molten metal pouring out the side of the building, shortly before it collapsed, is in fact Thermate.

The next questions, and hey, if you know the answers, by all means, speak the fuck up, are who put it there.

If I were a detective working this case, I would start by determining who has the motive to do this, and continue the investigation that way.

Until this happens, I may not be right, but for fuck's sake, either are you.

You know, there are lots of people out there right now with something called a sex life. I strongly recommend you go out and get one of your own. And who knows? Some women might find frenzied monomania and habitual paranoia to be a real turn on!

WarPhalange
26th August 07, 10:51 PM
Well, it certainly shut you up pretty fast.

Because if you give me something concrete then there is no debate.

Truculent Sheep
26th August 07, 10:52 PM
Because if you give me something concrete then there is no debate.

I gave you something concrete when you specified what you wanted...

WarPhalange
26th August 07, 10:55 PM
Your mom?

Riddeck
26th August 07, 11:33 PM
Well, it certainly shut you up pretty fast.
I am curious...


The more I dig into this group the more I think of them as a "Swiftboat" group. "Swiftboat Scholars for Misrepresenting 911 Truth" seems a more descriptive label. Then again, with Rev Jones and his Kool-Aid drunk disciples, "The Paranoids Temple" also comes to mind. An event which also has its conspiracy theorists.

This smells like third party politics mixed with religious fanaticism. The first instance of 911 conspiracy theories I know of was from a militant libertarian in France. It's no surprise that Jones and others of the movement go on conservative talk shows. Already Hannity and Colmes, Tucker Carlson and other conservatives have given the movement air time. I don't think even the average conservative thinks Tucker Carlson is on a quest for truth. Why are they entertaining us with this? I would think if you want people to hate government, this is the perfect vehicle for you. The mixing of the Mormon religion in Jones’ lectures is equally troubling. I've never heard a scientific lecture where people preach religion after an event. Some people have even entered Mormon prophecy as evidence of Controlled Demolition.

Why is it that they seem to personally attack Steven Jones, and the people that believe his work genuine? "Rev Jones and his Kool-Aid drunk disciples". Does that not seem a bit middleschoolish? If this is a serious website, devoted to informing the truth, why must the other side be put down in a child-like fashion? How does this attitude automatically assume superiority/correctness? This question puzzles me, cause I even see it here, on this website. First responses, second responses, usually leading to a name calling of some sorts.

And how does this work to effect the people reading it. Is this how people were raised? When in an argument, when you know you are right, you then have the right to call the other names? If you are right, why not be professional about it?

Seems to me like simple slander. Why not present facts, with real experiments, proving all your claims? Instead, you think of clever names to call those who do not believe you, so that those who believe you, will think of the person in that way. Mob mentality maybe.

Anyways, just curious about that. I have yet to hear Steven Jones use any grade school insults, unlike your doctrine of faith.

Sun Wukong
27th August 07, 12:16 AM
It's not that it's totally impossible that 9/11 is a government hoax, it's that it's ridiculously unlikely.

I've been trying to stay out of this thread, but I had a conversation with my in-laws tonight about the Trade Center collapse. Both of them are experts in the field of architecture (having been architects for the PLA), specifically building military installations that are meant to defend against fires and bombs (like those dropped out of airplanes).

Their consensus is the reason the WTC went down like it did is due entirely to the kind of material used in the support columns. Mostly, they used low-carbon steel. Very strong, but the problem with such huge steel columns is that they are vulnerable to extremely hot fires. According to them there is more than enough heat from a small amount of jet fuel to significantly weaken the steel supports.

The supports don't have to melt in order to break you see. Metal,still in the solid state becomes significantly weaker when it is hot, and under the huge amount of weight above the point of impact of the planes creates an enormous risk of collapse. Were the supports reinforced with redundant cement columns (like is done with military installations), then the building's would have been much harder to bring down.

Riddeck
27th August 07, 02:04 AM
It's not that it's totally impossible that 9/11 is a government hoax, it's that it's ridiculously unlikely.

I've been trying to stay out of this thread, but I had a conversation with my in-laws tonight about the Trade Center collapse. Both of them are experts in the field of architecture (having been architects for the PLA), specifically building military installations that are meant to defend against fires and bombs (like those dropped out of airplanes).

Their consensus is the reason the WTC went down like it did is due entirely to the kind of material used in the support columns. Mostly, they used low-carbon steel. Very strong, but the problem with such huge steel columns is that they are vulnerable to extremely hot fires. According to them there is more than enough heat from a small amount of jet fuel to significantly weaken the steel supports.

The supports don't have to melt in order to break you see. Metal,still in the solid state becomes significantly weaker when it is hot, and under the huge amount of weight above the point of impact of the planes creates an enormous risk of collapse. Were the supports reinforced with redundant cement columns (like is done with military installations), then the building's would have been much harder to bring down.

Even if this is the case, I think the presence of Thermate is something that cannot be ignored, and has to be considered when viewing this entire event under scrutiny. It changes the whole dynamic of the Government's and NIST's report on what happened.

This is what everyone is missing.

Cullion
27th August 07, 03:34 AM
There is no proof of the presence of Thermate. Traces of thermate components like iron, alumnium and sulphur when an alumnium fusilage holding aviation fuel crashes into a concrete and steel building are hardly unexpected.

Olorin
27th August 07, 03:59 AM
Here, here's your real conspiracy:-

http://z6.invisionfree.com/No_BS_Martial_Arts/index.php?act=idx

Fixed that for ya...

Truculent Sheep
27th August 07, 08:09 AM
Your mom?

I hear yours is cheaper and less inhibited.

WarPhalange
27th August 07, 12:18 PM
You can't get cheaper than free.

Cullion
27th August 07, 12:25 PM
She could pay you.

WarPhalange
27th August 07, 12:26 PM
Pfft, we're too poor for that.

Riddeck
27th August 07, 02:21 PM
There is no proof of the presence of Thermate. Traces of thermate components like iron, alumnium and sulphur when an alumnium fusilage holding aviation fuel crashes into a concrete and steel building are hardly unexpected.


When the melted metal that is flowing out of the buildings, which NIST says is Molten aluminum, turns out to not be aluminum, but in fact thermate *Watch the video, case is presented good and proper*, you cannot argue this.

The molten material found was in fact the same chemical composition of thermate (he set off multiple thermate reactions, to gather this material which he compared the molten metal to)

This is proof. Moreso than the Commission has given us, and moreso that NIST has given us.

And please, show me the evidence (From a credible source, that has actual samples from the trade center site, not some name calling debunking website) and then, maybe then, I will consider otherwise.

But I see hard evidence to the contrary that you, and them, have really yet to address.

Cullion
27th August 07, 03:13 PM
You do know what Thermate is made of, right ?

It's mostly Thermite which is a mix of aluminium and iron oxide, with some sulphur, . You ignite it, and the aluminium reacts with the iron, leaving aluminium oxide and molten iron.

Finding a mix of aluminium and iron in the WTC shouldn't be a great shock.

He hasn't proved something here.

Riddeck
27th August 07, 03:43 PM
You do know what Thermate is made of, right ?

It's mostly Thermite which is a mix of aluminium and iron oxide, with some sulphur, . You ignite it, and the aluminium reacts with the iron, leaving aluminium oxide and molten iron.

Finding a mix of aluminium and iron in the WTC shouldn't be a great shock.

He hasn't proved something here.

He did not find a mix of aluminum and iron.

He did find molten metal that consists of Sulfur and Iron, and that is a big deal. In a thermate reaction the Aluminum Oxide comes off in a dust, an almost smoke. This is shown in WTC footage, and in Steven Jones' experiments. The metal that was found, in larger portions and in the dust from WTC, is specifically Iron and Sulfur, not aluminum, which is characteristic of thermate (again, proven in his experiments).

So, yes, in fact, he did prove something here. He proved that thermate was present in the wreckage of WTC North and South tower, and likely building 7. Since building 7 has been his (and many others) point of contention, for controlled demolition.

Did you even watch this video?

Cullion
27th August 07, 03:53 PM
Dude, you're talking about a plane with lots of aluminium crashing into a steel structure and then a high temperature aviation fuel fire. Why are you so sure that the mixture that was found couldn't be produced that way ?

WarPhalange
27th August 07, 04:05 PM
Dude, you're talking about a plane with lots of aluminium crashing into a steel structure and then a high temperature aviation fuel fire. Why are you so sure that the mixture that was found couldn't be produced that way ?
Because it doesn't tend to work that way. It's not like soup where if you add everything and cook it will come out the same. It's like baking something, where order matters.

More importantly, the plane isn't made out of aluminium, it's made out of an alloy. That makes things even harder to mix.

Cullion
27th August 07, 04:07 PM
Well, if it was deliberately placed thermate, when was it placed and how did they escape notice ?

WarPhalange
27th August 07, 04:19 PM
...the internet?

Riddeck
27th August 07, 04:59 PM
Well, if it was deliberately placed thermate, when was it placed and how did they escape notice ?

That is the next step in the puzzle of course.

Thoughts are as followed. The building is already prewired, via, Marvin Bush running the security contracts in the building up until 9/11/01. In the video a scenario is presented whereas they would need 400 lbs of the explosive placed in the proper spots for total collapse (this is all after months of planning, which you can say did or did not happen, but very well could happen) 10 guys rigging the building to fall, over the course of a couple weeks, not too far fetched.

Specially when there is testimony of people claiming odd lapses in security weeks before, and odd times where they were sent home early, ie not allowed to be in the building.

This is a guess at numbers, but the whole idea is NOT out of the realm of possibilty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow&mode=related&search=

what about these guys?

Cullion
27th August 07, 05:03 PM
Because it doesn't tend to work that way. It's not like soup where if you add everything and cook it will come out the same. It's like baking something, where order matters.

More importantly, the plane isn't made out of aluminium, it's made out of an alloy. That makes things even harder to mix.

Are you sure it couldn't happen ?

This is a serious claim here.

Truculent Sheep
27th August 07, 05:08 PM
You can't get cheaper than free.

Look, I know your mum's breaking into a difficult market, but loss leader promotions make little sense in the long run.

WarPhalange
27th August 07, 05:13 PM
mum's

lol

WarPhalange
27th August 07, 05:15 PM
Are you sure it couldn't happen ?

This is a serious claim here.

I'm not sure it couldn't happen, but saying "oh it was probably blah blah" is pretty reckless.

Cullion
27th August 07, 05:23 PM
More reckless than accusing your own government of murdering thousands of it's own citizens in the middle of NYC and not a single of the many accident investigators or any qualified civil engineers agreeing with this theory ?

Riddeck
27th August 07, 05:27 PM
Are you sure it couldn't happen ?

This is a serious claim here.

I still believe you to be missing what is really happening here. We have previously molten metal samples, from the demolition site, and from the dust found in a woman's apartment (She is willing to testify under oath that is where the dust is from).

These samples were broken down by their chemical composition and determined to share the exact same characteristics of the molten iron left from a thermate reaction. This, on top of the fact that it goes against the official report that the molten metal was aluminum, or an alloy of sorts.

How it got there, and by what orders is yet to be determined. But you do not have to be a detective to really figure (or at least ballpark) your guess as to who did it, or who has a part in it.

It is not melted metal from an airplane, nor is it steel from Oxycetalin(sp) torches of the clean up crew (Controlled Demolition Inc.).

Dark Helmet
27th August 07, 06:10 PM
Excuse my interruption.But is there at all any other possibilty where this Thermate may have originated ?

Could a small amount of this stuff had been kept in say ..........a weapons locker?A research lab of some sort?Civilian contractors who deal regularly with explosifs who worked in the World Trade Center?

Sun Wukong
27th August 07, 06:52 PM
He did find molten metal that consists of Sulfur and Iron, and that is a big deal.

No, in fact, it is not. Do you know much about jet fuel? Well, whenever jet fuel gets too hot it forms sulphur deposits that add up over time in jet engines. It's a common cause of damage to jet engine combustor regions. When hundreds of gallons of jet fuel suddenly heat up it doesn't all just burn up instantly. Only the fuel closest to air burns and the rest of it actually boils rapidly creates sulphur.

This is what conspiracy theorists do, they use flimsy evidence and surround it with as much could be's and maybe's that they can come up with. It's still not convincing and it get's further and further away from the answer supported by Occam's Razor.

Plasma
27th August 07, 08:09 PM
9/11 conspiracies are on the level of the dihydrogen monoxide conspiracy.

Sun Wukong
27th August 07, 08:23 PM
But it's everywhere. It covers 2/3 of the earth and kill's thousands of people every year. You can be next! YOU COULD BE NEXT!

Truculent Sheep
27th August 07, 08:32 PM
I'm more worried about the flouride in tap water - it's how Elvis faked the Moon Landings, don't you know...

Truculent Sheep
27th August 07, 08:33 PM
lol

Sorry - in your mother's case, I should have used the word: 'strumpet'.

Riddeck
27th August 07, 09:11 PM
No, in fact, it is not. Do you know much about jet fuel? Well, whenever jet fuel gets too hot it forms sulphur deposits that add up over time in jet engines. It's a common cause of damage to jet engine combustor regions. When hundreds of gallons of jet fuel suddenly heat up it doesn't all just burn up instantly. Only the fuel closest to air burns and the rest of it actually boils rapidly creates sulphur.

This is what conspiracy theorists do, they use flimsy evidence and surround it with as much could be's and maybe's that they can come up with. It's still not convincing and it get's further and further away from the answer supported by Occam's Razor.

Ok, so now you are saying that the jet fuel in the towers burned so hot, that it melted steel, then the sulfur deposits in the engine (A kin to carbon in the sense of a buildup?) mixed with this steel, that was molten and flowing out of the building.

On top of that little bit, you are then saying the airplanes engine and fuel tank stayed together through this 500 mile an hour impact, with a steel building that would have (and did) tear these airplanes apart, long enough to 'boil' the fuel in the tanks, to rapidly create sulfur. Which then melts (They should really look into the alloys they use in airplanes if the very fuel they run off of can melt the engine), causing it to 'mix' with the molten steel, that is clearly coming from this intense fire, only to be later found and tested years after the event, and determined to be identical to iron after a thermate reaction.

Sounds really simple.

Surely that does not really make any sense does it?

Sun Wukong
27th August 07, 09:31 PM
Can you read simple english or do I have to use conspiracy speak?

Let me explain where you misunderstood what I was saying:



Ok, so now you are saying that the jet fuel in the towers burned so hot, that it melted steel, then the sulfur deposits in the engine (A kin to carbon in the sense of a buildup?) mixed with this steel, that was molten and flowing out of the building.
No, I'm sorry if I wasn't satisfactorily clear. I said that the heated jet fuel was more than sufficient to produce alot of sulfur. As are dozens of other things that produce sulfur when they burn that are NOT thermite or thermate.



On top of that little bit, you are then saying the airplanes engine and fuel tank stayed together through this 500 mile an hour impact, with a steel building that would have (and did) tear these airplanes apart, long enough to 'boil' the fuel in the tanks, to rapidly create sulfur.
No. That's not what I'm saying. Go out side, poor jet fuel on yourself and light yourself on fire. You will find that all of the fuel does in fact NOT burn away instantly and that only the fumes burn leaving large amounts of rapidly heating liquid on your skin. As the termperature of the air around your body superheats you might notice a slight tingling sensation that accompanies being burned alive. (please take note that I am now talking down to you) and you will also notice that the fuel itself is becoming quite warm.

Your body will likely only produce a large amount of carbon, the fumes of the jet fuel will produce more fire, the jet fuel itself will produce more fumes as it evaporates as well as sediments which include carbon and sulphur. The final product will be the very crispy dead body formerly belonging to you left behind along with small amounts of sulphur all over it.



Sounds really simple.


it is.

Riddeck
27th August 07, 09:39 PM
Can you read simple english or do I have to use conspiracy speak?

Let me explain where you misunderstood what I was saying:



No, I'm sorry if I wasn't satisfactorily clear. I said that the heated jet fuel was more than sufficient to produce alot of sulfur. As are dozens of other things that produce sulfur when they burn that are NOT thermite or thermate.


No. That's not what I'm saying. Go out side, poor jet fuel on yourself and light yourself on fire. You will find that all of the fuel does in fact NOT burn away instantly and that only the fumes burn leaving large amounts of rapidly heating liquid on your skin. As the termperature of the air around your body superheats you might notice a slight tingling sensation that accompanies being burned alive. (please take note that I am now talking down to you) and you will also notice that the fuel itself is becoming quite warm.

Your body will likely only produce a large amount of carbon, the fumes of the jet fuel will produce more fire, the jet fuel itself will produce more fumes as it evaporates as well as sediments which include carbon and sulphur. The final product will be the very crispy dead body formerly belonging to you left behind along with small amounts of sulphur all over it.


it is.

I was waiting for you to get into this conversation, since you are in fact a beacon of great information and knowledge.

I must have misunderstood you, because it seems that you implied that somehow the sulphur produced from burning jetfuel became part of the molten iron found at Ground Zero. Now, not even the official report states that the fires that burned in the towers melted any steel (They claim the footage of molten is in fact aluminum, which has been 'debunked'), but somehow you know something that says otherwise.

Explain to me how this happens, since clearly (In your 'talking down to me' statement, which is childish, as to be expected) you are an expert and in fact have done several experiments which have resulted in an Iron and Sulphur metal compound.

And on a side note...no shit, jetfuel burns like gasoline, whereas the fumes are what actually ignite, and burn. But, like Gasoline, it is a hydrocarbon fuel which cannot even come close to meeting the melting point of steel (Without forced air, O2, or otherwise).

So, as per my previous statement above.

Another one...did you even watch the video?

Sun Wukong
27th August 07, 11:06 PM
I work in the metal industry professionally. Do you really think you know more about metal than I do after watching some wild conspiracy theorist rant?

No, I didn't watch that video.

Here's a list of rhetorical questions for you.

You want a list of places you can find sulfur and iron together that don't involve thermite?


Did you know that some kinds of iron are treated with sulfuric acid?

Did you know that iron treated with sulfuric acid will still have traces of sulfur in it when it is re-smelted?

Did you know that electroplating iron chemically produces sulfur that is bonded to the surface of the metal?

Did you know iron is commonly found with sulfur in nature in the form of pyrite?

Did you know that even after Sulfur is seperated from pyrite to get iron for industrial use there is still commonly trace amounts of sulfur left inside the iron unless great care is taken?

Given all the fucking wreckage at the world trade center do you have any idea how easy it would be to find iron that is mixed with fucking sulfur? God damn it.

Riddeck
27th August 07, 11:16 PM
I work in the metal industry professionally. Do you really think you know more about metal than I do after watching some wild conspiracy theorist rant?

No, I didn't watch that video.

Here's a list of rhetorical questions for you.

You want a list of places you can find sulfur and iron together that don't involve thermite?


Did you know that some kinds of iron are treated with sulfuric acid?

Did you know that iron treated with sulfuric acid will still have traces of sulfur in it when it is re-smelted?

Did you know that electroplating iron chemically produces sulfur that is bonded to the surface of the metal?

Did you know iron is commonly found with sulfur in nature in the form of pyrite?

Did you know that even after Sulfur is seperated from pyrite to get iron for industrial use there is still commonly trace amounts of sulfur left inside the iron unless great care is taken?

Given all the fucking wreckage at the world trade center do you have any idea how easy it would be to find iron that is mixed with fucking sulfur? God damn it.

Watch the video.

downinit
27th August 07, 11:18 PM
We now know that Chris Ketchens can be baited into a discussion on any topic involving:

i) China
ii) World Finance
NEW! iii) Metal

Sun Wukong
28th August 07, 04:19 AM
Watch the video.

I have better things to do.

emboesso
28th August 07, 05:17 AM
If someone whole-heartedly, sincerely believes in this conspiracy theory ... go for it. If the official story isn't the truth, of course everyone wants to know it.

But if you've just got some flimsy political axe to grind, knock it off. Like the TWA flight, this stuff sounds kooky. There are a lot of survivors, surviving relatives, rescue workers, etc., still living with a lot of painful memories, myself included.

These folks really don't need to hear this stuff just because some people may have some cheap political vendettas.

Riddeck
28th August 07, 05:28 AM
I have better things to do.

Not likely. Watch the video before you speak as if you know what it is about, and what you are talking about.


If someone whole-heartedly, sincerely believes in this conspiracy theory ... go for it. If the official story isn't the truth, of course everyone wants to know it.

But if you've just got some flimsy political axe to grind, knock it off. Like the TWA flight, this stuff sounds kooky. There are a lot of survivors, surviving relatives, rescue workers, etc., still living with a lot of painful memories, myself included.

These folks really don't need to hear people this stuff just because some people may have some cheap political vendettas.

I just do not want the crazies taking over. I will not give up my arms when Martial Law is declared, and I will not let my Constitutional Rights be forcefully taken away or downright ignored. I would hope that other people would realize that yes, in fact, these things are in jeopardy, and one day you may wake up to a life much different than it is now.

You will have no say, you will be nothing.

What will you do then?

Sun Wukong
28th August 07, 05:32 AM
We are not talking about sulfur in dust, or in the cement. We are talking about sulfur in ONCE MOLTEN STEEL. Your 'burn yourself anology was comical, at best.

Iron and steel are not the same thing. Please indicate whether it was iron or steel that was mixed with the sulfur. If it was steel, what kind of steel was it? That would allow a person to figure out where the metal was from and allow you to immediately determine if the metal was from the support columns. Spectro-analysis is actually very quick and easy to do to a high degree of accuracy.

Riddeck
28th August 07, 05:35 AM
Iron and steel are not the same thing. Please indicate whether it was iron or steel that was mixed with the sulfur. If it was steel, what kind of steel was it? That would allow a person to figure out where the metal was from and allow you to immediately determine if the metal was from the support columns. Spectro-analysis is actually very quick and easy to do to a high degree of accuracy.

A mis quote of my own. Molten Metal from the video, found to be Iron, Sulfur, Potassium, and Manganese.

Sun Wukong
28th August 07, 05:58 AM
did you know that iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese are common sediments that you can find in nearly any plumbing system that uses a water softener?

Edit: the question that's important here is HOW much of these substances were found and in what concentration?

WarPhalange
28th August 07, 12:14 PM
Watch the goddamn video. Geez.

It shows residue from thermate and the stuff they found at the wreckage and compare them side by side. There is no difference.

Truculent Sheep
28th August 07, 01:20 PM
Not likely. Watch the video before you speak as if you know what it is about, and what you are talking about.

Yes, because losing precious minutes of a finite lifespan listening to some discredited loon is GUARANTEED to make you change your mind!


I just do not want the crazies taking over.

Beyond parody.


I will not give up my arms when Martial Law is declared.

No, they only want your fingers.


and I will not let my Constitutional Rights be forcefully taken away or downright ignored.

The First Amendment guarantees free speech. It gives no right to force other people to listen or take you seriously.


I would hope that other people would realize that yes, in fact, these things are in jeopardy, and one day you may wake up to a life much different than it is now.

You mean when they clone mammoths and give us all 14" knobs? Wow! And I thought it was going to be like Blade Runner.


You will have no say, you will be nothing.

What will you do then?

How will you be able to tell the difference?

Riddeck
28th August 07, 01:59 PM
So on the morning of 9/11, FEMA, under control of Dick Cheney, were in NYC, as part of a wargames exersise, as was many of the fighter jets. They were running over drills one of them, Vigilant Guardian, is based on Terrorists attacking US soils with Hi Jacked Airplanes, crashing them into buildings.

We all know what happened that day.

For you, Sheep, on 7/7, the day of the London bombings, are you aware that MI5 was doing similar exercises that involved the bombing of the underground trains and buses on top the surface?

I bet you had no clue.

You know the odds of an event like 7/7 happening (They were training for an attack, and the same attack they were training for happened, almost identically), if you used the probability chart of an insurance company, is some 1 and 4*40. That is 4 with 40 zeros behind it. There are less grains of sand in the entire world, than there is a chance of that happening.

And you think you are not being lied to? And you just do not care?

Truculent Sheep
28th August 07, 02:27 PM
So on the morning of 9/11, FEMA, under control of Dick Cheney, were in NYC, as part of a wargames exersise, as was many of the fighter jets. They were running over drills one of them, Vigilant Guardian, is based on Terrorists attacking US soils with Hi Jacked Airplanes, crashing them into buildings.

We all know what happened that day.

For you, Sheep, on 7/7, the day of the London bombings, are you aware that MI5 was doing similar exercises that involved the bombing of the underground trains and buses on top the surface?

I bet you had no clue.

You know the odds of an event like 7/7 happening (They were training for an attack, and the same attack they were training for happened, almost identically), if you used the probability chart of an insurance company, is some 1 and 4*40. That is 4 with 40 zeros behind it. There are less grains of sand in the entire world, than there is a chance of that happening.

And you think you are not being lied to? And you just do not care?

No, I don't care because what you've said is not true. You've offered no concrete evidence to support anything you said: in other words, you're a liar.

To paraphrase the Bullshido maxim, citations or it didn't happen. Better still, don't post again until you've got hard evidence that can stand up to peer review.

Riddeck
28th August 07, 03:01 PM
No, I don't care because what you've said is not true. You've offered no concrete evidence to support anything you said: in other words, you're a liar.

To paraphrase the Bullshido maxim, citations or it didn't happen. Better still, don't post again until you've got hard evidence that can stand up to peer review.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6885277369482418431&q=alex+jones+terrorstorm&total=434&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Watch that. Not only is it chock full of this 'hard evidence' you so desire, from mainstream news media, and other documents, but about halfway through it talks about 7/7, and the mess that came with it. The games exercises that were going on the morning of, the fact that only ONE bus was rerouted and it happened to be the one that exploded, and of course, the poor Brazilian man who was working as an electrician who was gunned down (shot 10 times in the head) by the 'police', which turns out were not police, but a smaller military faction.

Before you go on the 'fuck this guy and his programs' rant, like you have done with the other video I posted, actually watch it. Take the time, watch it in pieces. Take notes.

Then we can actually have this debate.

Truculent Sheep
28th August 07, 03:20 PM
Give me citations. Not links. Not kooky videos. Citations. Peer-reviewed and thoroughly tested. Otherwise, shut up and keep taking the pills.

jubei33
28th August 07, 05:43 PM
conspiracy theorists always give homework rather than simple explanations or proof.
I watched your first shitty video, I'll not make the same mistake twice. Give a summary with citations. Seriously, that video was shit, and there was a reason he wasn't delivering his report in a professional academic environment and its not: "the government is doing ~~~~." Half of the suppositions in the video ARE unsupported, yet people cheer?

As per the thermate supposedly found, He found a mix of metals that might have a similar composition. As Chris has already said these can come from numerous sources the only answer is not thermate and to say it is is sloppy one sided science.

Sirc
28th August 07, 05:59 PM
Your video is a piece of shit. That PHYSICS professor would know nothing about steel, metallurgy or anything like that.

Again, Answer these questions for me:

1. What kind of steel was used to build the WTC?
2. What grade of steel was used?
3. What was the build year of the steel they used?

I can answer all three of those questions. I can tell you that it would be very very easy to melt them in less than 2500*F. I can tell you how easy it would be to melt that kind of steel because of the circumstances. Hell if I had the resources, I could recreate a steel burn using the same kind of fuel that they had. So fuck you and your morally superior standpoint. I've answered as many questions of yours as I could. Time for you to do the same.

Your "conspiracy" is bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. I watched that shitty video. It's chalked full of holes and "science" that's about as test worthy as Mythbusters is. None of that bullshit would pass peer-review. I mean jesus fucking christ. I'm just your average college student who has no majors or studies in chemistry or the sciences in general and I can see the glaring flaws in your bullshit theory. I'm just a very avid hobbyist of metals. So fuck you dickshit.

Sirc
28th August 07, 06:15 PM
By the way, this is what would be called a peer review.

Only I'm not really a peer because I'm significantly younger than you but also a lot smarter.

Sirc
28th August 07, 06:18 PM
No, they didn't, because the video has nothing to do with this and has new evidence, as in, THEY FOUND MELTED STEEL.

You're going to regret having said this, dude. Melting steel can be done in several different ways.

Man, talking down on conspiracy theorists and debunking all their bullshit gives me such a raging hardon.

Sirc
28th August 07, 06:22 PM
Fuck, where are you Riddeck, I want to rape you and then give you one or two clues for you to run on so you can blame the government for it.

My dick is hard as fuck and I'm ready to anally ravage you and make you cry. Jesus fucking tapdancing christ in a minefield I want to just molest the fuck out of you. I'm going to leave a white bed sheet nearby and a dildo as well so you'll blame it on a ghost rapist with a dildo, just like what I did with your mom.

Sirc
28th August 07, 06:39 PM
Here's an artist's rendition of what I'm doing to Riddeck at the moment.

http://www.aww-kittah-aww.com/up/files/788/riddeckrape.PNG

Riddeck
28th August 07, 09:54 PM
Yes, I see it now.

You are truely showing that you are more intelligent than myself, and I refuse to continue to debate with you. However.

Who would allow any contractor company to build two huge skyscrapers using steel that could melt with the heat of jet fuel, when the Towers were built with that in mind. (Using a plane that hit the Empire State building as a reason to build so plane proof)

As for the molten material. What is your explaination of it? Where is your proof that it was molten steel from the building itself, when your government claims it is aluminum?

You cannot answer these questions because the answers prove you are wrong. They (The Criminal element within the Government) cannot answer these questions (Along with "Why did NORAD stand down" and What orders stood by Dick Cheney's command? (Norman Minetta's statement at the Commission hearing)

You can try to stand your 'intelligence over me' but your insults, multiple responses, and over all lack of maturity shows quite the other side.

It is ok though, you are amusing.

Riddeck
28th August 07, 10:00 PM
conspiracy theorists always give homework rather than simple explanations or proof.
I watched your first shitty video, I'll not make the same mistake twice. Give a summary with citations. Seriously, that video was shit, and there was a reason he wasn't delivering his report in a professional academic environment and its not: "the government is doing ~~~~." Half of the suppositions in the video ARE unsupported, yet people cheer?

As per the thermate supposedly found, He found a mix of metals that might have a similar composition. As Chris has already said these can come from numerous sources the only answer is not thermate and to say it is is sloppy one sided science.

I do not need to give a summary with citations. The video speaks for itself. It is an independent investigation into the molten material that is shown POURING out of the side of the building, and an investigation of the molten metal from the pools on the bottom.

The offical report says it is aluminum. Steven Jones proves it to be wrong. His hypothesis is thermate. He does experiments showing that molten aluminum does not even look the same (Silvery vs. glowing bright orange *indicative of colour and temp*), and shows that it looks more like a Thermate reaction.

THEN he gets actual samples from Ground Zero, in a larger sample, then in smaller samples in the dust. Indentical chemical composition to thermate.

So what does this show? Thermate was present on 9/11, 2001, at the WTC.

The fingers really do point themselves, but if you want hard evidence, this is it.

As for the 'can come from elsewhere...first you have to prove that the fires inside the WTC were hot enough to turn steel molten to even begin to use a 'It could be steel mixed with airplane engine" defense.

Truculent Sheep
29th August 07, 12:36 AM
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/all-conspiracy-.html

...Yet there are essential common characteristics. All conspiracy theories are alike in positing redundant explanations where straightforward ones will do, and in maintaining that known historical sources must be lies...

...Once you dispense with the normal canons of evidence - not authority, but evidence - then you are prey to the irrational. Applied to politics, irrationalism and obscurantism have caused and still threaten horrors. Yes, conspiracies do happen in politics, and governments in the UK, US and Israel have perpetrated them. But - to take the obvious examples - the Suez invasion, the Watergate cover-up, the Iran-Contra scandal and the Lavon affair were ludicrous schemes that quickly unravelled and inflicted immense damage on the governments responsible. Democratic governments do not have the powers of persusasion, let alone omniscience and cunning, imagined by theorists of overarching conspiracy.

Commentators on public affairs who mistake personal incredulity for a decisive challenge to science or history or literary scholarship commit a recognisable offence against the pursuit of truth.

Riddeck
29th August 07, 02:34 AM
[Democratic governments do not have the powers of persusasion, let alone omniscience and cunning, imagined by theorists of overarching conspiracy.

Maybe not, but the military industrial complex does.

Death is kind of persuasive.

Sirc
29th August 07, 03:16 AM
Yes, I see it now.

You are truely showing that you are more intelligent than myself, and I refuse to continue to debate with you. However.

Who would allow any contractor company to build two huge skyscrapers using steel that could melt with the heat of jet fuel, when the Towers were built with that in mind. (Using a plane that hit the Empire State building as a reason to build so plane proof)

As for the molten material. What is your explaination of it? Where is your proof that it was molten steel from the building itself, when your government claims it is aluminum?

You cannot answer these questions because the answers prove you are wrong. They (The Criminal element within the Government) cannot answer these questions (Along with "Why did NORAD stand down" and What orders stood by Dick Cheney's command? (Norman Minetta's statement at the Commission hearing)

You can try to stand your 'intelligence over me' but your insults, multiple responses, and over all lack of maturity shows quite the other side.

It is ok though, you are amusing.

Steel melts below 1500*C by carbon burning. It's a common occurrance in blacksmithing. I've said this a billion times. My proof is that it happens every god damn day in a fucking forge.

Actually, all I'm doing is making this thread less important and make people take it less seriously, because really you're retarded.

Why would anybody allow a contractor to build that? 1. A contractor doesn't build anything. He sites it and gets the rights to build. Then a team of engineers come together to find the best possible way to keep a building upright. Do you even comprehend the difficulty of building a building that tall? Buildings are constantly under pressure of being knocked down by wind. Seriously, every day. It's just that if it's under tolerance, it's safe to build. Those two towers were standing miracles. And also because at the time, nobody could really test that it could withstand an airplane slamming into it. They couldn't disprove or prove it. And yes, that is why it is really hard to get permission to plan to build a building of that magnitude. It's unsafe and difficult. Which is why it's a engineering marvel, even though it's just a really really really big box.

How do I know it's molten steel? Because I FORGE THINGS. I KNOW HOW MOLTEN STEEL LOOKS LIKE AND IT'S PRETTY FUCKING UNIQUE, dickshit.

You STILL haven't answered my questions and I am doing the best I can to answer yours.



1. What kind of steel was used to build the WTC?
2. What grade of steel was used?
3. What was the build year of the steel they used?

Go go go.

Arhetton
29th August 07, 06:24 AM
Steel melts below 1500*C by carbon burning.



The carbon burning process is a nuclear fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) reaction that occurs in massive stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) (at least 4 MSun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass) at birth) that have used up the lighter elements in their cores. It requires high temperatures (6×108 K (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin)) and densities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density) (about 2×108 kg/m3). The principal reactions are:
12C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon) + 12C→20Ne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon) + 4He (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium) + 4.617 MeV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_volt)→23Na (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium) + 1H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) + 2.241 MeV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_volt)→23Mg + n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron) - 2.599 MeV




I'm assuming you mean a different kind of carbon burning - I've never done any smithy work so could you explain what the carbon burning is? Sounds interesting.

Truculent Sheep
29th August 07, 10:37 AM
Maybe not, but the military industrial complex does.

Death is kind of persuasive.

But what about the North Enfield Sports Complex? The Romford Shopping Complex? The Electra Complex?

It's oh so very complex.

Sirc
29th August 07, 02:54 PM
I'm assuming you mean a different kind of carbon burning - I've never done any smithy work so could you explain what the carbon burning is? Sounds interesting.

It has several different terms. This is the one I have been taught it as.

Essentially, from what I understand it as and what it has been explained to me, what happens is once there is no more oxygen for the fire to burn, the fire will begin to eat away and burn at the carbon molecules in steel. Causing it to burn and melt below the recommended 2500*F. It doesn't so much melt as it just loses its composition. When this happens, the steel becomes horribly weakened and is no longer any good. Kind of how a plasma torch works. It burns up all the oxygen in the surrounding area and the flame starts ingesting the steel.

And I've done this using only wood. I could only imagine the kind of damage that jet fuel would do.

Sirc
29th August 07, 02:56 PM
But what about the North Enfield Sports Complex? The Romford Shopping Complex? The Electra Complex?

It's oh so very complex.

The fact that the government allows all these conspiracy theorists live is proof this isn't a conspiracy.

Don "Jive Turkey" Gwinn
29th August 07, 04:01 PM
Where the fuck were they supposed to buy steel that doesn't melt at those temperatures? Maybe it's out there, I'm not a metallurgist, but I have a forge in the backyard and I've worked with and welded a lot of different steels. I guarantee you they reached temperatures in that building that my charcoal forge has never seen.

You say jet fuel couldn't burn that hot--I was unaware that the World Trade Centers were empty steel structures with nothing inside but air and jet fuel. I thought there were millions of pounds of paper, wood, plastic and other combustibles in there.

These conspiracy "scientists" put me in mind of Fred Leuchter. Leuchter declared himself an expert on executions without much basis in fact, and since there aren't many of those running around, several states actually used him to "improve" their process before people realized he was a self-taught hobbyist executioner and certainly no scientist.

Eventually, he fell in with the Holocaust deniers. He went to one of the Nazi death camps (Auschwitz?) and illegally snuck into one of the busted-up gas chambers. He chiseled a chunk of concrete and plaster off the wall, and when he got back to the states, he sent it off to a lab to have it analyzed for Cyanide, a byproduct of Zyklon B poison gas.

The results came back--very low levels of Cyanide. It was definitely there, but in small amounts. Leuchter triumphantly wrote a report stating that he had proven that the chambers were only "de-lousing" chambers in which clothing was exposed to low levels of Zyklon and other pesticides to kill lice--no humans being harmed at all, except the innocent Nazis being slandered by the Allied liars.


Of course, if you send a laboratory a chunk of concrete and tell them you want to know how much cyanide is in it, they'll crush it and test it. That's because you didn't tell them that the cyanide would only be on the surface that was exposed inside the gas chamber. So they crush the whole thing, and maybe 80-90% of it had zero cyanide content. The results are anything but informative.

Leuchter also forgot to study Zyklon B. It turns out that higher levels of the poison are actually required to get at lice than humans; it works much better on warm-blooded mammals. The lower levels are indicative that mammals, not insects, were killed in the gas chambers.

The thing is, there's a delicate balance. At one end of the spectrum, you're falling into a trap by dignifying this kind of pseudoscience with a response at all. At the other end of the spectrum, if you ignore it completely, you run the risk that silence is interpreted as agreement.

Truculent Sheep
29th August 07, 04:01 PM
The fact that the government allows all these conspiracy theorists live is proof this isn't a conspiracy.

The fact that you wouldn't want to live next door to most conspiracy theorists rather gives it away too.


These conspiracy "scientists" put me in mind of Fred Leuchter. Leuchter declared himself an expert on executions without much basis in fact, and since there aren't many of those running around, several states actually used him to "improve" their process before people realized he was a self-taught hobbyist executioner and certainly no scientist...

I watched a Channel 4 documentary on this rather creepy man: another fallacy Leuchter made was to assume that gassing large numbers of people in a large area was somehow comparable to gassing a single individual in a small, airtight area. The logistics and dynamics involved are, by definition, quite different. Plus, it's hard to find traces of cyanide fifty years after the fact. Self-taught amateurs will be the death of us all...

Sun Wukong
29th August 07, 04:29 PM
The fact that you wouldn't want to live next door to most conspiracy theorists rather gives it away too.


http://www.comedycentral.pl/UserFiles/Image/bobby_03.jpg

Riddeck
29th August 07, 11:52 PM
Where the fuck were they supposed to buy steel that doesn't melt at those temperatures? Maybe it's out there, I'm not a metallurgist, but I have a forge in the backyard and I've worked with and welded a lot of different steels. I guarantee you they reached temperatures in that building that my charcoal forge has never seen.
How can you guarantee that? Have you ever recorded the temperature of your forge when you have it blazing as hot as you can get it? Secondly, have you taken jet fuel and simulated what it would be like 100 stories up, using desks and other papers, plastics, or whatever else was in there, and measured how hot that gets? Or how that effects UL approved Structural Steel? (That is for you Sushi, and I am working on a 'citation' to the UL approving the steel that the towers were built with) Probably not. So, you cannot guarantee anything.

I personally feel the city, the state, or any other government entity watching over the construction of the Towers would allow them to be built with sub standard materials, especially the weight bearing steel. (The engineers had the Empire State building in mind, it had been struck by an airplane some years back) So you think knowing that they would even consider allowing steel that can melt with the temperature of burning jetfuel?



You say jet fuel couldn't burn that hot--I was unaware that the World Trade Centers were empty steel structures with nothing inside but air and jet fuel. I thought there were millions of pounds of paper, wood, plastic and other combustibles in there.

Because there was nothing forcing oxygen, or some other combustible gas, the fire can only burn to a certain, low temp. This temp is no where near the 2500c mark, and I have yet to see actual experiments (yes, show me video) of a 'dirty burn' reach 2500c. AND if it can get close to that, I want video of it melting steel. Seems pretty easy. I found video of a thermate reaction and how it compares, and yet, I am having trouble finding any proof that the fires could reach that hot, and in fact melted anything, other than plastic.



These conspiracy "scientists" put me in mind of Fred Leuchter. Leuchter declared himself an expert on executions without much basis in fact, and since there aren't many of those running around, several states actually used him to "improve" their process before people realized he was a self-taught hobbyist executioner and certainly no scientist.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1546121267852729018&q=Mike+ruppert&total=115&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
This video is by a man named Mike Ruppert. Ex LAPD Detective, caught the CIA trafficing drugs, and has been at them ever since. He explains in here how the CIA was started by a bill passed in 1953(2) called Federal Security Act. He then goes on to explain how the CIA was headed and commanded by people, whom before joining the CIA, were Wall Street Bankers and Lawyers. Document after document. He presents his information in a way that he would in a court of law.

The point of this, is that we have a country's intelligence agency ( who have a HUGE part in running things) ran by people who have NO military or political backround. Yet we allow them government power.

So even our government is ran by 'unqualified people' and you allow it, proving that you do not have to be an 'expert' in something, to give credence to your side of things. (This video is a seriously good watch, it has some good stuff in it)




The thing is, there's a delicate balance. At one end of the spectrum, you're falling into a trap by dignifying this kind of pseudoscience with a response at all. At the other end of the spectrum, if you ignore it completely, you run the risk that silence is interpreted as agreement.

I am sorry, but again, I have yet to see any video proving the claims of the Government and it's Agencies. All I hear is expert testimony on what happened, or what could have happened. Then I have a few around here that contradict what the Gov says by saying there own side, because THEY know their metals, or things of the like.

Lets not forget the computer generated 'what could happens'...those are fun.

And the Story changes to fit around all of this defense.

First the fires were so hot where the airplanes hit, it melted everything in a raging inferno. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7810093919426878170&q=9%2F11+fake+witness&total=71&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Then we showed them pictures of people standing in the impact site.

Now it's, "The inferno was SO hot and because heat rises, it was not at the impact spot (The BASE of the fire) but a floor up and above that. (You can thank History Channel and Popular Mechanics for that one)

Just like the melting steel.

It is ok though. Never once do they consider thermate. Even when a U.S. Citizen shows, through experimentation that , yes, there could be thermate. No one even wants to stop and look.

And the Gov is certainly not going to stop and look.

Riddeck
29th August 07, 11:56 PM
The fact that you wouldn't want to live next door to most conspiracy theorists rather gives it away too.

I am one of those 'Conspiracy Theorists' and you do not know fuck about me. You do not know my level of education, nor in what. You do not know what I do for a living. You do not know what I do in my spare time (though that is easy to find out). You DO NOT know how well I keep my house, and you do not even know what kind of car I drive.

You know dick about me.

How the fuck do you even know that your neighbor agrees with you about this?

They probably even know that 7/7 was a sham and proof that even YOUR government is fucking with you, and your rights.

But then again, the 4 million closed circuit cameras in London alone might give that away.

StealthNinjaScyther
30th August 07, 12:02 AM
So, this argument hinges on the thermite claim? Doesn't sound that solid to me.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

Riddeck
30th August 07, 12:22 AM
So, this argument hinges on the thermite claim? Doesn't sound that solid to me.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims


And that report does? Who wrote it? Does not even have any name/credit to it.

And again, it starts off with personal attacks against Steven Jones, which, destroys any credibility.

Sirc
30th August 07, 02:53 AM
How can you guarantee that? Have you ever recorded the temperature of your forge when you have it blazing as hot as you can get it? Secondly, have you taken jet fuel and simulated what it would be like 100 stories up, using desks and other papers, plastics, or whatever else was in there, and measured how hot that gets? Or how that effects UL approved Structural Steel? (That is for you Sushi, and I am working on a 'citation' to the UL approving the steel that the towers were built with) Probably not. So, you cannot guarantee anything.

I personally feel the city, the state, or any other government entity watching over the construction of the Towers would allow them to be built with sub standard materials, especially the weight bearing steel. (The engineers had the Empire State building in mind, it had been struck by an airplane some years back) So you think knowing that they would even consider allowing steel that can melt with the temperature of burning jetfuel?

LOL. You fail. The Engineers made claims that couldn't be proven or disproven, retard.

"HAY GAIZ! I BET I CAN BUILD THIS BUILDING TO GET HIT BY A JET!"

It's about the same as a bunch of kids standing near a highway claiming that they can withstand getting hit by a car and surviving. Sure, maybe they could, but nobody's going to try it.

LOL @ UL approved steel comment. What you're trying to do is nitpick at a single fact, twist it a little, and then present it to us to prove your point. Here's the difference, I'm telling you that the steel they used, it'll melt the way I said it would. No doubt about that. I'm not twisting anything. I'm telling you how it is. I'm not doing what you're doing and contorting facts to your argument.



Because there was nothing forcing oxygen, or some other combustible gas, the fire can only burn to a certain, low temp. This temp is no where near the 2500c mark, and I have yet to see actual experiments (yes, show me video) of a 'dirty burn' reach 2500c. AND if it can get close to that, I want video of it melting steel. Seems pretty easy. I found video of a thermate reaction and how it compares, and yet, I am having trouble finding any proof that the fires could reach that hot, and in fact melted anything, other than plastic.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1546121267852729018&q=Mike+ruppert&total=115&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
This video is by a man named Mike Ruppert. Ex LAPD Detective, caught the CIA trafficing drugs, and has been at them ever since. He explains in here how the CIA was started by a bill passed in 1953(2) called Federal Security Act. He then goes on to explain how the CIA was headed and commanded by people, whom before joining the CIA, were Wall Street Bankers and Lawyers. Document after document. He presents his information in a way that he would in a court of law.

The point of this, is that we have a country's intelligence agency ( who have a HUGE part in running things) ran by people who have NO military or political backround. Yet we allow them government power.

So even our government is ran by 'unqualified people' and you allow it, proving that you do not have to be an 'expert' in something, to give credence to your side of things. (This video is a seriously good watch, it has some good stuff in it)





I am sorry, but again, I have yet to see any video proving the claims of the Government and it's Agencies. All I hear is expert testimony on what happened, or what could have happened. Then I have a few around here that contradict what the Gov says by saying there own side, because THEY know their metals, or things of the like.

Lets not forget the computer generated 'what could happens'...those are fun.

And the Story changes to fit around all of this defense.

First the fires were so hot where the airplanes hit, it melted everything in a raging inferno. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7810093919426878170&q=9%2F11+fake+witness&total=71&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Then we showed them pictures of people standing in the impact site.

Now it's, "The inferno was SO hot and because heat rises, it was not at the impact spot (The BASE of the fire) but a floor up and above that. (You can thank History Channel and Popular Mechanics for that one)

Just like the melting steel.

It is ok though. Never once do they consider thermate. Even when a U.S. Citizen shows, through experimentation that , yes, there could be thermate. No one even wants to stop and look.

And the Gov is certainly not going to stop and look.

Your melting steel argument is failing you miserably. I've said it at least 3 or 4 times now. Steel does NOT need to get to 2500*F to melt.

Why are you dismissing this very fact? Are you stupid? Are you blind? Just fucking concede the point already. I've smithed before. My forge cannot get that hot, yet, I've melted steel, and I've shaped steel, and I've done all sorts of things with steel that proves you wrong. I've done it first hand. That's enough of an argument to prove you wrong about your steel argument.

YOU ARE FAILING YOUR PEER REVIEW.

Edit:

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! I just won. Look at what I bolded, that is what I've been trying to explain to you how the steel melted without having to reach 2500*F. Not that I don't doubt it got that hot up there, I'm pretty sure it did, but I can't prove that right now because I don't know enough about chemistry and what was on those floors to figure out how hot it could have possibly gotten. But I can prove that the steel melted without having reached 2500*F.

Sirc
30th August 07, 03:00 AM
This thread is over. I win! One to nothing!

CfVbu7IpxYc

Just play at 1:20. It'll explain my exuberance and how awesome I am.

Arhetton
30th August 07, 03:47 AM
It has several different terms. This is the one I have been taught it as.

Essentially, from what I understand it as and what it has been explained to me, what happens is once there is no more oxygen for the fire to burn, the fire will begin to eat away and burn at the carbon molecules in steel. Causing it to burn and melt below the recommended 2500*F. It doesn't so much melt as it just loses its composition. When this happens, the steel becomes horribly weakened and is no longer any good. Kind of how a plasma torch works. It burns up all the oxygen in the surrounding area and the flame starts ingesting the steel.

And I've done this using only wood. I could only imagine the kind of damage that jet fuel would do.

Hey thats pretty interesting. I'll try and do some of my own reading but if you find a good article or something can you put it up?

Sirc
30th August 07, 04:02 AM
I'll look. I've been trying to find one that explains it without needing to know a bunch of technical terms.

jubei33
30th August 07, 04:26 AM
Secondly, have you taken jet fuel and simulated what it would be like 100 stories up, using desks and other papers, plastics, or whatever else was in there, and measured how hot that gets?

irrelevant to the point of their argument, besides have you?

look for some smithing videos, there were several on basic smithing techniques on the sword and weapons forums a while back. people with basically charcoal grills pounding the shit out of red hot steel, shaping it twisting it pounding it in harder and harder.


Jones claims to have found traces of thermate (thermite with a small amount of sulfur and a large amount of barium nitrate added) on a piece of steel from the WTC. This claim is unsubstantiated. First, Jones does not cite the chemical composition of actual spent thermate signatures, for comparison. Second, Jones has not provided a chain of custody for the steel he tested that would preclude its contamination by other sources. Third, and most importantly, there is nothing unexpected about finding sulfur and trace metals on WTC steel and dust samples.

Sulfur-based drywall (gypsum) was the third most-used construction material at the WTC. Thousands of gallons of fuel oil containing sulfur was spilled beneath the rubble piles, along with numerous other sulfur-containing inflammables. Thermate typically contains only 2% sulfur, so if the sulfur Jones detected was from ther-mate, we would expect to see the reaction byproducts of its main ingredients, iron oxide, aluminum, and barium nitrate, in proportionally greater amounts. The qualitative chemical analyses performed on sulfidated steel from WTC 7, 1, and 2 shows no signs of the presence of the incendiaries Jones says were used, nor did it reach anywhere near its melting point.

Chemist Frank Greening makes a strong argument that sulfur in its gaseous state would best have been able to combine with the steel to produce the sulfidated effects, and that such sulfur probably would have been abundant in the witch's brew of burning chemicals in the piles at Ground Zero

furthemore,


it is estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

this corroborates what the majority of us have been saying to you now for almost 20 pages. Its funny to me that all of a sudden it can't be a good source because they (deservedly so) poke fun at his technique. It was flawed science at best and you hold it to be the holy grail?

Truculent Sheep
30th August 07, 04:27 AM
I am one of those 'Conspiracy Theorists' and you do not know fuck about me. You do not know my level of education, nor in what. You do not know what I do for a living. You do not know what I do in my spare time (though that is easy to find out). You DO NOT know how well I keep my house, and you do not even know what kind of car I drive.

You know dick about me.

As opposed to you, who knows dick period. And what does your make of car have anything to do with your (lack of) credibility? But if you do want to post a potted CV/resume, please do so we can all mock it.


How the fuck do you even know that your neighbor agrees with you about this?

I'll tell you what, I'm facing my colleague right now - he's sort of a neighbour. Shall I ask him? I'll live-blog the conversation:

Me: What do you make of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Colleague: Pile of old shit, mate.

Me: Verily.


They probably even know that 7/7 was a sham and proof that even YOUR government is fucking with you, and your rights.

Right, let's ask my colleague that one too:

Me: Was 7/7 a sham?

Colleague: Hmm?

Me: Was 7/7 a sham?

Colleague: What are you going on about?

Me: I'm arguing with some drooling retard on the net who insists it was an inside job.

Colleague: Well it did take place indoors, more or less...

Me: True. He also thinks the twin towers were brought down in a highly improbable government plot.

Colleague: For fuck's sake... Bloody Americans.

Me: Indeed! But lots of intelligent Americans are sticking the boot into him too.

Colleague: Good!

(The British government doesn't need an excuse to eliminate freedom anyway.)

[
But then again, the 4 million closed circuit cameras in London alone might give that away.

CCTV was introduced en masse in the mid 90s - it's hardly a knee-jerk reaction. It's also a bit swivel-eyed, not very effective and a waste of time. A bit like you.

Sirc
30th August 07, 04:44 AM
I don't think I've ever been in a gang bang that made me a raging hard on like this thread is giving me.

Sirc
30th August 07, 04:50 AM
How awesome is it that I am not reading Riddeck's posts, but I already know exactly what to respond with? Spectacular. It's like pushing over a cripple and taking their virginity.

Riddeck
30th August 07, 11:22 AM
LOL. You fail. The Engineers made claims that couldn't be proven or disproven, retard.

"HAY GAIZ! I BET I CAN BUILD THIS BUILDING TO GET HIT BY A JET!"

It's about the same as a bunch of kids standing near a highway claiming that they can withstand getting hit by a car and surviving. Sure, maybe they could, but nobody's going to try it.

LOL @ UL approved steel comment. What you're trying to do is nitpick at a single fact, twist it a little, and then present it to us to prove your point. Here's the difference, I'm telling you that the steel they used, it'll melt the way I said it would. No doubt about that. I'm not twisting anything. I'm telling you how it is. I'm not doing what you're doing and contorting facts to your argument.

There you go, acting like a child. I am nitpicking at 'a single fact' because that is what you are doing.




Your melting steel argument is failing you miserably. I've said it at least 3 or 4 times now. Steel does NOT need to get to 2500*F to melt.

Why are you dismissing this very fact? Are you stupid? Are you blind? Just fucking concede the point already. I've smithed before. My forge cannot get that hot, yet, I've melted steel, and I've shaped steel, and I've done all sorts of things with steel that proves you wrong. I've done it first hand. That's enough of an argument to prove you wrong about your steel argument.

YOU ARE FAILING YOUR PEER REVIEW.

Still waiting on video of this. All I have is heresay from a guy who cannot debate without bringing insults to the table. Your credibility is almost nil.


Edit:

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! I just won. Look at what I bolded, that is what I've been trying to explain to you how the steel melted without having to reach 2500*F. Not that I don't doubt it got that hot up there, I'm pretty sure it did, but I can't prove that right now because I don't know enough about chemistry and what was on those floors to figure out how hot it could have possibly gotten. But I can prove that the steel melted without having reached 2500*F.

So...you cannot show me proof of steel melting at under 1500c. Then you claim that you cannot prove that fires reached that temp, but you do not doubt it got that hot up there.

There is no chemistry involved in this one. Fire can only burn so hot, unless acted on by another force, be it Oxygen being pumped in, or another fuel that burns much hotter.

Jet fuel and office furniture does not burn that hot, not in the time they burned, and I have YET to see anything but 'speculation' and heresay' that they did.

So, you have 'won' nothing.

Riddeck
30th August 07, 11:34 AM
As opposed to you, who knows dick period. And what does your make of car have anything to do with your (lack of) credibility? But if you do want to post a potted CV/resume, please do so we can all mock it.



I'll tell you what, I'm facing my colleague right now - he's sort of a neighbour. Shall I ask him? I'll live-blog the conversation:

Me: What do you make of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Colleague: Pile of old shit, mate.

Me: Verily.[QUOTE]

Again the whole point of the thread, and Jones' video is that thermate could have been used. It begs for an open investigation. This is ignoring the other things that are considered in a crime, like means, motive and opportunity. You all of course do not consider these things, cause, hey, one thing at a time is all that is function able, I guess.



[QUOTE]Right, let's ask my colleague that one too:

Me: Was 7/7 a sham?

Colleague: Hmm?

Me: Was 7/7 a sham?

Colleague: What are you going on about?

Me: I'm arguing with some drooling retard on the net who insists it was an inside job.

Colleague: Well it did take place indoors, more or less...

Me: True. He also thinks the twin towers were brought down in a highly improbable government plot.

Colleague: For fuck's sake... Bloody Americans.

Me: Indeed! But lots of intelligent Americans are sticking the boot into him too.

Colleague: Good!

(The British government doesn't need an excuse to eliminate freedom anyway.)

[

CCTV was introduced en masse in the mid 90s - it's hardly a knee-jerk reaction. It's also a bit swivel-eyed, not very effective and a waste of time. A bit like you.

Bill Clinton used illegal wiretaps and surveillance on American Citizens during the 90's in a project named "Echelon", pre 9/11.

7/7 is just a response to Blair's failing poll numbers, and in light of 9/11 and it's effect (giving up freedom for security), it clearly did what it was intended to do. And you have clearly not done any research on this event.

Peter Power head of Visor Consultants (a crisis management firm) admitted they were running terrorist response drills the morning of 7/7, using the same targets at the same times. He admitted this twice on two different medias, one being BBC radio and ITN News.

The odds, if using insurance company odds, in a 10 year mean, is 1:40(with 40 zeros behind it).

Not to mention the 'police' that killed a Brazilian man with 10 shots to the head. Their story of him running, wearing a big coat, and holding a package ALL were later admitted by the police to not be true. Lets not forget they claimed the cameras were down at the time, which they were not.

Also there is a witness on the train, who survived, who claims the trains floor was buckled upwards, implying the explosives were under the train.

Good thing you really know what is going on!

Truculent Sheep
30th August 07, 12:11 PM
Again the whole point of the thread, and Jones' video is that thermate could have been used. It begs for an open investigation. This is ignoring the other things that are considered in a crime, like means, motive and opportunity. You all of course do not consider these things, cause, hey, one thing at a time is all that is function able, I guess.

This claim has been shot down in flames on this thread, and you know it.


Bill Clinton used illegal wiretaps and surveillance on American Citizens during the 90's in a project named "Echelon", pre 9/11.

And Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. Eek! Shape-shifting lizard alert!


7/7 is just a response to Blair's failing poll numbers, and in light of 9/11 and it's effect (giving up freedom for security), it clearly did what it was intended to do.

Which was? The British government has been eroding civil liberties since 1997. 7/7 also took place two months or so AFTER a general election, and the day after London won the 2012 Olympics. Hardly a well-timed conspiracy, was it?


And you have clearly not done any research on this event.

Look who's fucking talking.


Peter Power head of Visor Consultants (a crisis management firm) admitted they were running terrorist response drills the morning of 7/7, using the same targets at the same times. He admitted this twice on two different medias, one being BBC radio and ITN News.

The odds, if using insurance company odds, in a 10 year mean, is 1:40(with 40 zeros behind it).

Citations please.

Also, anti-terror drills happen all the time since 9/11. It's also not unlikely that there are all sorts of coincidences that take place at any one event. So what is your point, other than more innuendo?


Not to mention the 'police' that killed a Brazilian man with 10 shots to the head. Their story of him running, wearing a big coat, and holding a package ALL were later admitted by the police to not be true. Lets not forget they claimed the cameras were down at the time, which they were not.

The police fucked up and then made it worse with a blatantly obvious cover-up. Hardly up there with the Knights Templar, is it?


Also there is a witness on the train, who survived, who claims the trains floor was buckled upwards, implying the explosives were under the train.

Good thing you really know what is going on!

Citations, or you're a liar.

Riddeck
30th August 07, 12:30 PM
This claim has been shot down in flames on this thread, and you know it. By a bunch of amateurs who use personal insults as a means, and have almost ZERO media to back it up.

Clearly I do not 'know it'.




Which was? The British government has been eroding civil liberties since 1997. 7/7 also took place two months or so AFTER a general election, and the day after London won the 2012 Olympics. Hardly a well-timed conspiracy, was it? Well timed enough. You believe the story, and will give up your freedom for it.

Just like they want you to.




Look who's fucking talking. I cite and quote people who have done the research. People who have documents in question. What the fuck do you have, and what the fuck have you actually done, besides try to refute my belief on a message board.




Citations please.

Also, anti-terror drills happen all the time since 9/11. It's also not unlikely that there are all sorts of coincidences that take place at any one event. So what is your point, other than more innuendo?



The police fucked up and then made it worse with a blatantly obvious cover-up. Hardly up there with the Knights Templar, is it?



Citations, or you're a liar.

Ok. So in two separate but HUGE terrorist attacks, both the US and the UK had terror drills going on at the same time as said events (9/11 and 7/7) that were almost identical in nature to the real attacks (7/7 was almost to the T, 9/11 did not mention any specific targets, but big ones were chosen). I hope you are not a gambling man, because the odds of this happening are EXTREMELY SLIM.

As for Demendez (I believe it was his last name), it was a clear hit. He may have seen something he was not supposed to, and is now dead for it. Killed executioner style, with some 10 shots to the head. Not a police mistake, but a planned killing, and cover up thereafter. Why do you suppose there had to be a cover-up? Do not give me 'cause they executed him' defense, cause that then begs the question, "Why?"

As for the witness...As reported in the Cambridge Evening News, not sure of the date, headline reads "I was in tube bomb carrage - and survived"...man claims he did not see a man with a sack, and after the explosion the metal was pointing upwards.

Truculent Sheep
30th August 07, 12:43 PM
By a bunch of amateurs who use personal insults as a means, and have almost ZERO media to back it up.

Clearly I do not 'know it'.

Us 'amateurs' know a damn sight more than you do, given the pasting you've been getting. And you can't complain about having the piss taken when you make yourself such a tempting victim.


Well timed enough. You believe the story, and will give up your freedom for it.

Just like they want you to.

Because, of course, disagreeing with some prat with no evidence to back him up OBVIOUSLY means I'm brainwashed...


I cite and quote people who have done the research. People who have documents in question.

Not good enough. Proper citations. Now.


What the fuck do you have, and what the fuck have you actually done, besides try to refute my belief on a message board.

What I've done so far: make you like a stupid twat.


Ok. So in two separate but HUGE terrorist attacks, both the US and the UK had terror drills going on at the same time as said events (9/11 and 7/7) that were almost identical in nature to the real attacks (7/7 was almost to the T, 9/11 did not mention any specific targets, but big ones were chosen). I hope you are not a gambling man, because the odds of this happening are EXTREMELY SLIM.

Again, you're not factoring in, or addressing issues regarding possible coincidence. Oh, and you've provided no citations either.


As for Demendez (I believe it was his last name),

You can't even spell the victim's name properly... And we're supposed to take your wild claims seriously?


it was a clear hit. He may have seen something he was not supposed to, and is now dead for it. Killed executioner style, with some 10 shots to the head. Not a police mistake, but a planned killing, and cover up thereafter. Why do you suppose there had to be a cover-up? Do not give me 'cause they executed him' defense, cause that then begs the question, "Why?"

Look, fuckwit, not even de Menezes' family believe that pile of crap. Or are they - GASP!!! - in on it too???


As for the witness...As reported in the Cambridge Evening News, not sure of the date, headline reads "I was in tube bomb carrage - and survived"...man claims he did not see a man with a sack, and after the explosion the metal was pointing upwards.

Proper citation, Harvard system. Now. Otherwise, fuck off.

Riddeck
30th August 07, 02:02 PM
Wow. You are good.

Where are your citations that his family do not believe that.

Where are your citations on anything.

I have pointed out the 'possible coincidence and the odds are SO far against the likely hood of these events taking place they way they did.

I have offered citations, in the form of videos. People who DO the research, for a living.

Just because you choose not to watch them, and choose to ignore the evidence they present does not mean the evidence is not there.

You are just choosing to ignore it.

And still using personal insults, and claiming that you all have in fact been giving me this 'pasting'.

You have proved even less then you claim I have.


Because, of course, disagreeing with some prat with no evidence to back him up OBVIOUSLY means I'm brainwashed...

Watch Terrorstorm. The evidence is there. That is at least part of my backing.

Truculent Sheep
30th August 07, 02:32 PM
Wow. You are good.

Indeed.


Where are your citations that his family do not believe that.

Here:


JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES FAMILY CAMPAIGN., 2006. What happened on the 22nd July 2005 [online]. London. Available from http://justice4jean.com/about_campaign_2207.html [Accessed 30 August 2007].


Where are your citations on anything.

I don't really need to give any. Since you're making the accusations, the burden of proof is on you.


I have pointed out the 'possible coincidence and the odds are SO far against the likely hood of these events taking place they way they did.

Prove it.


I have offered citations, in the form of videos. People who DO the research, for a living.

Any idiot can post links to total nonsense. In your case, any idiot did.


Just because you choose not to watch them, and choose to ignore the evidence they present does not mean the evidence is not there.

You are just choosing to ignore it.[/quote]

I watched them. Wished I hadn't. Total bullshit. You haven't defended a single point here.


And still using personal insults, and claiming that you all have in fact been giving me this 'pasting'.

Are all _ing _unners this fucking stupid?


You have proved even less then you claim I have.

That's quite a mouthful.


Watch Terrorstorm. The evidence is there. That is at least part of my backing.

Oh Christ, that pile of amateur blowhard bollocks.

Look, level with me. You're either a troll or a simpleton.

Riddeck
30th August 07, 02:50 PM
Here:


JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES FAMILY CAMPAIGN., 2006. What happened on the 22nd July 2005 [online]. London. Available from http://justice4jean.com/about_campaign_2207.html [Accessed 30 August 2007].


The Jean Charles de Menezes family campaign was founded by the friends and family of Jean Charles to:

* Find out the truth about Jean Charles’ death
* Bring all those responsible for his death to justice
* Campaign to end the ‘shoot to kill’ policy and prevent a similar tragedy happening again

We are calling for

* A speedy conclusion to the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation
* Appropriate criminal charges to be bought against those responsible
* And a full judicial public inquiry to investigate
- The police operation that led to the killing of Jean Charles
- The actions of the police following Jean Charles’ death
- the ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy

This backs up you saying that they do not believe this "Look, fuckwit, not even de Menezes' family believe that pile of crap. Or are they - GASP!!! - in on it too???'

Sure sounds like they want to know what went on, and have not discounted ANY possibility. Odds are they will never get this, cause bigger truths will be reviled. You of course, will disagree.





I don't really need to give any. Since you're making the accusations, the burden of proof is on you. Sure the fuck you do. I have brought forth the evidence that I believe proves that things are not the way you believe them to be. All you have done is insult me, and offer YOUR opinion, or the opinion of a website that starts it's inquiries out with insults and slander. The burden is no longer on me, since you are SO intent on refuting what I say.




Prove it.

When was the last time you won the lotto? You can believe that on the morning of Sept 11th, while war game exercises were going on, to mimic a terrorist attack where planes are hijacked and crashed into buildings, and the actual event happening, is purely coincidence. You can also believe the same for 7/7.

But anyone with some sort of sanity will tell you that is WAY too coincidental for there not to be someone behind it. Shit like this just 'does not happen in the way it did.




Any idiot can post links to total nonsense. In your case, any idiot did. Yeah, investigative reporters claiming different than mainstream media are certainly idiots. Even when they have documents to back up their claims. Alex Jones will not report anything unless the source is documented. Just because you were not really watching the video (if you indeed did watch it) with any sort of logic applied, does not mean his evidence is fake.



I watched them. Wished I hadn't. Total bullshit. You haven't defended a single point here.

Clearly you did not watch any of them. I also suggest the film about the Federal Income tax. That in itself points enough fingers at those in charge.




Are all _ing _unners this fucking stupid?
What the fuck does that mean?



Oh Christ, that pile of amateur blowhard bollocks.

Look, level with me. You're either a troll or a simpleton.

Yep, just because they do not work for corporate controlled media means they are amateurs. Makes perfect sense.


I am neither a troll nor a simpleton. Just a citizen questioning what direction this country, this world for the matter, is going.

Your refusal to do the same labels you the simpleton.

Sirc
30th August 07, 02:53 PM
Hey dipshit:

CCoLu7idv2o

Oh look. Steel melting under 2500*F.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6824624-description.html

There's a little article on how oxygen cutters work. Here's a little excerpt:



In a variant implementation, which can be combined with the first implementation specified above, at least one fluid jet is projected towards the blade-shaped support for the trimmer member or towards said member itself. In which case it is preferable for the selected fluid to be a cooling fluid, in particular water or compressed air. The fluid jet projected directly into the cut slot then also performs a function of cooling the blade-shaped support, in addition to providing it with protection against projected particles. This is particularly advantageous when cutting a hot slab that comes directly from continuous casting, where temperature conditions commonly reach 1000°C.

I WIN! I WIN!

Riddeck
30th August 07, 02:59 PM
Hey dipshit:

CCoLu7idv2o

Oh look. Steel melting under 2500*F.


I see a torch designed to cut through steel, doing just that.

I do not see steel melting because of Jet Fuel, or any other hydrocarbon based fire.

Sirc
30th August 07, 03:14 PM
I see a torch designed to cut through steel, doing just that.

I do not see steel melting because of Jet Fuel, or any other hydrocarbon based fire.

Oh jesus fucking christ. Are you shitting me?

Are you fucking kidding me? The process of which the steel is being cut is exactly what I'm describing, moron.

Do you know what an oxycutter is or what a plasma torch is? Do you understand that what I'm showing you is what happened on a much much much smaller scale because the nozzle of the torch isn't the size of a fucking floor of a building? Are you stupid?

Fuel is fuel, the temperature and the process are what matters. Now you're just in denial.

Sirc
30th August 07, 03:15 PM
Sushi wins via KO in the 5th page.

Truculent Sheep
30th August 07, 03:21 PM
Waffle waffle lies waffle delusion waffle appalling argument waffle...

Let's cut to the chase: I've been refuting every crappy assertion you've made. Sushi has bummed you viciously. Most people on this forum think you are a twat. So where does that leave us?

Here's the deal: either prove you're right in a manner that changes our minds - hey, even wins our respect - or piss off and never come back. Because we all know it's bluster and nothing more.

Unless, of course, you want to quit while you're ahead.

Sirc
30th August 07, 03:26 PM
Riddeck, as you are hard at work trying to twist this and find that ONE inconsistency on how it can be spun to your advantage. I'm sitting here sipping my lemonade, enjoying my freedoms and my intelligence as I am Lording it over you.

Listen, you've lost. I'm right, you're wrong. You know when you're losing an argument? When you're defending yourself the entire time. You haven't made me, even for a moment, blink. While this entire time, I've been cock-slapping you with my amateur knowledge of metallurgy that has raped your "expert's" opinion on something he has no idea about. HOLY SHIT WHAT A CONCEPT!

Anyway, just concede man. I haven't seen anything that you have given as "proof" of anything that even made me falter just a bit in my ideals. Yet, I have given you 3 simple questions and a very likely and concrete explanation on the whole steel mess which is the lynch pin of your entire clusterfuck.

Don't feel too bad, you're not the first to go down to my massively awesome and mighty intellect. It's ok, son. Just give up. I don't want to break you any more than I already have.

Truculent Sheep
30th August 07, 03:32 PM
This backs up you saying that they do not believe this "Look, fuckwit, not even de Menezes' family believe that pile of crap. Or are they - GASP!!! - in on it too???'

Sure sounds like they want to know what went on, and have not discounted ANY possibility. Odds are they will never get this, cause bigger truths will be reviled. You of course, will disagree.

They want justice for their son and the perpetuators punished. Nothing more. Stop exploting their grief to score baseless points.


Sure the fuck you do. I have brought forth the evidence that I believe proves that things are not the way you believe them to be. All you have done is insult me, and offer YOUR opinion, or the opinion of a website that starts it's inquiries out with insults and slander. The burden is no longer on me, since you are SO intent on refuting what I say.

Because it's nonsense.


When was the last time you won the lotto? You can believe that on the morning of Sept 11th, while war game exercises were going on, to mimic a terrorist attack where planes are hijacked and crashed into buildings, and the actual event happening, is purely coincidence. You can also believe the same for 7/7.

But anyone with some sort of sanity will tell you that is WAY too coincidental for there not to be someone behind it. Shit like this just 'does not happen in the way it did.

Strawman argument. Stop trying to weasal your way out, and instead PROVE what you argue for.


Yeah, investigative reporters claiming different than mainstream media are certainly idiots. Even when they have documents to back up their claims. Alex Jones will not report anything unless the source is documented. Just because you were not really watching the video (if you indeed did watch it) with any sort of logic applied, does not mean his evidence is fake.

Err, might I suggest these losers are on the fringe and outside of the mainstream for a reason?


Clearly you did not watch any of them. I also suggest the film about the Federal Income tax. That in itself points enough fingers at those in charge.

OMIGOD!!!! It's an evil plot! To make us pay taxes!!! AAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGH!


What the fuck does that mean?

You're a berk.


Yep, just because they do not work for corporate controlled media means they are amateurs. Makes perfect sense.[QUOTE=Riddeck]

Precisely.

I've nothing against independent or alternative media per se. But when it operates outside of the mainstream as a way of indulging nutters and avoiding higher editorial standards, I start to worry.

[QUOTE=Riddeck]I am neither a troll nor a simpleton. Just a citizen questioning what direction this country, this world for the matter, is going.

Your refusal to do the same labels you the simpleton.

Great, so now you're just throwing my accurate descriptions of you back at me.

By the way, will you accept my challenge?

Sirc
30th August 07, 03:37 PM
Sure the fuck you do. I have brought forth the evidence that I believe proves that things are not the way you believe them to be. All you have done is insult me, and offer YOUR opinion, or the opinion of a website that starts it's inquiries out with insults and slander. The burden is no longer on me, since you are SO intent on refuting what I say.

Actually it's Libel. So you're wrong again. Shit, I just keep racking up the points. So again, you show that you don't know what you're talking about. You're a conspiracy because I found a single flaw in your entire plan! ENTIRE PLAN! SINGLE FLAW! glahgalskjfalskjfaslkdfjaslkj!

WarPhalange
31st August 07, 12:03 AM
plasma torch
?

Plasma is really hot. Like, "holy shit it's so hot the electrons escape from the nucleus" hot.


Plasma cutting
is a process that is used to cut steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel) and other metals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal) (or sometimes other materials) using a plasma torch. In this process, an inert gas (in some units, compressed air) is blown at high speed out of a nozzle; at the same time an electrical arc is formed through that gas from the nozzle to the surface being cut, turning some of that gas to plasma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29). The plasma is sufficiently hot to melt the metal being cut and moves sufficiently fast to blow molten metal away from the cut.

Since plasma cutters produce a very hot and very localized 'cone' to cut with, they are extremely useful for cutting sheet metal in curved or angled shapes.
Come on. I may not know welding and oxywhatevercutting can still be an example of whatever the hell you were saying, but I know what plasma is and it's FUCKING HOT.

Sirc
31st August 07, 01:58 AM
My bad, I was confusing plasma torch and oxycutter up.

But they both work on the same principle, otherwise the Plasma torch would make a huge mess rather than just a clean hole.

WarPhalange
31st August 07, 02:47 AM
No, all it does is heat so fast that the metal doesn't have time to transfer the heat before melting, so you get a nice clean cut.

Sirc
31st August 07, 03:04 AM
No, all it does is heat so fast that the metal doesn't have time to transfer the heat before melting, so you get a nice clean cut.

Obviously you haven't ever used a plasma torch.

In a lot of instances, you want the carbon meltdown burning thing to happen because it'll make a nice clean flat surface to thread for things like bolts and screws. There's other needs for it, but I've never really done anything except manual threading on my own.

It's not EXACTLY the same, but the steel still gets that carbon burning thing going on.

But this is why I prefer oxygen cutters anyway. Plasma torches take up TONS of power and juice to get going, oxygen cutters also take up TONS of power to work but not nearly as much.

WarPhalange
31st August 07, 03:10 AM
Look, I don't know what "carbon burning thing" you are talking about. Post some links or something so I know what it is you are describing.

Riddeck
31st August 07, 03:19 AM
Oh jesus fucking christ. Are you shitting me?

Are you fucking kidding me? The process of which the steel is being cut is exactly what I'm describing, moron.

Do you know what an oxycutter is or what a plasma torch is? Do you understand that what I'm showing you is what happened on a much much much smaller scale because the nozzle of the torch isn't the size of a fucking floor of a building? Are you stupid?

Fuel is fuel, the temperature and the process are what matters. Now you're just in denial.

An oxycutter is a tool, that is clearly designed for cutting through steel. It is engineered, to be a precision tool. It has compressed gases (Two?) that are burned at a certain ratio (1:1 maybe?) so they burn at a higher temperature, then either could alone.

You are now comparing an airplane spilling jet fuel in an office to a precision tool. You are telling me, that airplanes that struck a building, at different spots, at different angles, had the same PRECISE effect (had to be precise, these buildings DID fall symetrically, and at pretty close to free fall speed) as an oxycutter.

This is an almost complete failure at reasonable thought, or logic for that matter.

Sir, I respectively digress when I say, You have not owned shit.


They want justice for their son and the perpetuators punished. Nothing more. Stop exploting their grief to score baseless points.

Ehh, no. I am not looking to exploit anyone here. You said they do not believe any of this nonesense (i.e. foulplay) yet :

We are calling for

* A speedy conclusion to the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation
* Appropriate criminal charges to be bought against those responsible
* And a full judicial public inquiry to investigate
- The police operation that led to the killing of Jean Charles
- The actions of the police following Jean Charles’ death
- the ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy

A full judicial public inquiry to investigate (note the - on the side) THE POLICE OPERATION THAT LED TO THE KILLING OF JEAN CHARLES.

Sounds to me as if they have not discounted any possibility, since they have ZERO answers, it could be anything eh?

So fuck you to think I would even consider exploiting emotions.


Because it's nonsense.

That is your opinion. There are many (maybe not here) that would disagree.




Strawman argument. Stop trying to weasal your way out, and instead PROVE what you argue for.

If I have no way of proving this to you, I can instead pose this idea. You are trying to tell me that you are more reasonable for believing nothing is not what it seems, when the odds are SO stacked against it. Seriously. Two terrorist events. They were running games mimicing BOTH events almost to a T, and both happened the very same day as their respective simulation.

That does not at all strike you as odd? How unreasonable can you get?


Precisely.

I've nothing against independent or alternative media per se. But when it operates outside of the mainstream as a way of indulging nutters and avoiding higher editorial standards, I start to worry.

I think the fact that almost every news outlet reports the news pretty much the same something to worry about. When you are forced to hear alternative stories via the internet, or some local radio show, kind of seems a bit lopsided.

And what are these higher editorial standards? Alex Jones has read and has copies of government documents that implicate the Gov of many things. Do you know that people still believe that the Gulf of Tonken incident was not set up by LBJ, even though it is declassified information. They rely on the fact that you are too fucking lazy to read and actually investigate, but will instead sit at home feeding your fatass while you watch television. Much like the whole Federal Income tax thread. There is not a law, and yet people pay, because no one has even LOOKED, or tried to look for this law.

If I did not want you to know something, would I tell you about it?

Yet, like I said, public record. Project Northwoods (Gov plan to crash airplanes into US Cities in order to blame it on Cuba, to start a war) which Kennedy veto'd, is now declassified, for you to read. It clearly outlines a 'terrorist' attack very similar to 9/11.

More coincidences. God I love those.


OMIGOD!!!! It's an evil plot! To make us pay taxes!!! AAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGH! Again, watch a fucking video and do yourself a favour. It is not a 'we do not have to pay taxes' video. It is specifically about the FEDERAL INCOME TAX, which is in fact UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (Supreme Court, two CITED cases),

The IRS cannot show you a law. So yes it is an Evil plot to take more away from you.


So...

You have not owned shit. Neither of you. You can think of me as a twat. You may disagree with me. You may agree with me.

But what it boils down to, is that this is not about who can win or lose, some contest on a message board.

And I am glad you are up this late Sushi. I look forward to the fable I will see tomarrow when I get home from work.

jubei33
31st August 07, 03:42 AM
They make tools that focus the thermate reaction to cut vertically. Does not require thousands of pounds when it is FOCUSED.

ah yes, but there is the issue of proof. Did your expert find just such a device or is he arguing that they exist. Loch ness monster?

Truculent Sheep
31st August 07, 04:11 AM
But what it boils down to, is that this is not about who can win or lose, some contest on a message board.

ARE YOU GOING TO ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE OR NOT??? OTHERWISE YOU ARE A COWARD.


And I am glad you are up this late Sushi. I look forward to the fable I will see tomarrow when I get home from work.

Christ, someone's actually given it a job...

jubei33
31st August 07, 04:33 AM
not to post whore, but here we go. We've already been through the issue of thermite, so I won't go on about it any further. However, the issue of controlled demolitions I will post on. Given that 'the government did it', Tesla death rays or whatever other nonsense you want to put forward we clearly can't trust government documents as first sources. So therefore lets go with independent, private and professional opinion.

protec services is a demolitions company that holds world records for the demolition of the most, tallest and largest buildings in the world. At the time of collapse the company was working in manhattan and opporating field equipment which monitored the event. They were also contracted during the clean up. Below is a link to their report on the towers collapse.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

most importantly, their review of video and photgraphic evidence especially indicates that large portions of towers struck bld 7 causing the fires and structural damage.

WTC 7 suffered significant damage to the south face of the building specifically to the southwest corner "up to the 18th to 20th floors"

fire also caused by "large stockpiles of diesel fuel located in the basement"
(page 5 and 9)

I also want to post this again, even though chris K and Sushi have been trying to pound in this peg into its apparently, square hole:


Engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F

Arhetton
31st August 07, 09:00 AM
what if they were the people who are behind the conspiracy?

Your conspiracy-fu is weak!

Besides, I've found how the towers came down...

http://www.midway.com/page/ClassicGames.html

Click on 'Rampage' - all will become clear :D

P.S - forget about the other towers for a sec - WTC 7 is fucking suspicious. If it was so damaged, what about the other buildings that were directly under the two towers as it fell?

Why on earth did it fall straight down - I mean, people, please, I've played jenga I know how a bunch of blocks falls down when the base is weak - it leans out and falls that way.

http://www.abstractstrategy.com/jenga-ks.jpg

I think I should take my jenga theory to the top

Arhetton
31st August 07, 09:13 AM
protec services is a demolitions company that holds world records for the demolition of the most, tallest and largest buildings in the world. At the time of collapse the company was working in manhattan and opporating field equipment which monitored the event. They were also contracted during the clean up. Below is a link to their report on the towers collapse.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)


Actually thats a fantastic article, explains alot. It shot down my jenga theory straight away :)

thanks for posting that.

Riddeck
31st August 07, 05:56 PM
ah yes, but there is the issue of proof. Did your expert find just such a device or is he arguing that they exist. Loch ness monster?

Ehh..firefighters on scene claim to have not found much of anything. One claims the biggest piece of office furnature he found was a piece of a keypad from a phone. So, no, no devices were found.

Sheep, I do not recall your challenge, and am too lazy to re read. Ask me again.



Engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F

This is ultimately what unsettles me, and leans me in the direction of people like Steven Jones.

They "Estimate", which is, at best, an educated guess (Which is an oxymoron in itself) They are not putting fire to steel (especially steel similar to the WTC steel) and showing these experiments or recreations of the scene. All I really continue to hear is 'expert testimony' or, the latter, estimates of how steel might react to heat.

Which brings me up this little bit of humour...why do people here, that disagree attack Jones' character? Why not only concern yourself and critique the experiments he is presenting? Is that not really the important, relevant part?

That will continue to puzzle me.

Also, I have briefly looked over your link, the PDF file from Protec, or what not. It was written about a year previous to the video I posted *4/07*, so they have not had the evidence of thermate from the dust, and from ground zero, that Jones claims to have.

jubei33
31st August 07, 06:56 PM
They "Estimate", which is, at best, an educated guess

no its not that at all, an engineering estimate comes from tests run. its an 'estimate' because the value will vary some degree depending on several factors. it is pretty accurate and is not a 'guess' in the everyday usage of the word. Go to a library and look it up in the literature.

a common error in research activities is to assume that since a source is old, it becomes less appropriate and useful. Its the contents that matter not the date on the cover and the context of the work that make it meaningful.

Furthermore, nowhere did they attack his character in the article and they spoke directly to him about his research. They, indeed, have a section devoted to thermate on page 9 and quotes come from the horses mouth. I think it is important to note that even Jones says his work is still in the research phase (this is a point lost in your video), which is strange being that he had released his interpretation a year before he made this video.

As for "picking on poor doctor Jones," We have critiqued his experiments and found them lacking. (already written, see above) Quite a few people in discipline find little or no value to his findings, primarily because he is apparently the only on e who interprets them as thermate and there has be no established chain of evidence.

I wonder about you, what about your experience? Have you done any work in spectroscopy or a related field? Do you have experience in demolitions or structural engineering? Even if you don't, this doesn't automatically limit your commentary, but I'd like to find out where you're coming from.

Riddeck
31st August 07, 07:25 PM
Well, I was not saying the article was demeaning Jones. I was stating that people here, and other links like debunking911.com or whatever, always ride on personal attacks and really a disrespect for anything.

As for where I come from. We all know the stories. The official reports about what has happened and when, to 9/11, to Kennedy, to any 'Conspiracy Theory'. Some seem unfounded, others seem less so. It is not so much an idea of "I need hard facts' as more of a 'signs point to'. I know, this can be flimsy from a hard evidence point of view, but sometimes you have to use intuition, and gut instinct. Detectives do it all the time, and the better ones, would use it more.

While I myself am not an expert in engineering, nor have I used a spectroscope or any other device of the like. This does not mean what I believe is unfounded.

Now I say this in regards to a number of things. The U.S. entered Vietnam under the pretense that a Vietamise (sp) air strike attacked a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. We went to war, lost 50k plus soldiers, mentally detached an entire generation of survivors. It is now declassified information that LBJ indeed set this whole thing up, as a pretense to enter the war. He set the whole thing up. This is of public record.

Operation Northwoods. Another declassified document that entails a US plan to use it's own commercial airliners on US buildings, in order to blame Cuba. JFK veto'd this and even threatened the CIA "I am going to smash you into 1000 pieces" I believe is the quote.

Now apply that thought to what is going on now. Is it merely coincidence that 9/11 happened the way it did (Norad standing down, War Games exercises happening at the same time, two of them mimicing almost EXACTLY what happened on 9/11), can you really reasonably believe that it is all coincidence? In a system as controlled as Government, do you really believe this coincedence to be true, especially when the track record of those in charge is laden with lies and mistruth?

Not to mention, in the case of 9/11, there are White House memos to the President warning of 9/11, and yet he claims no prior knowledge?

I for one cannot. I for one will not.

One thing we have not even touched in this discussion is indeed Social Science. Ever watch GW talk about 9/11? He claims to have seen the first plane hit the day of the attack, yet it was not shown on TV until the next morning. When asked about prior knowledge he stammers, befuddled, then says "There is a time for politics..more stammer...that is just an absurd insinuation.

The man has GUILT written all over him. Yet we are to believe he is just an idiot who got lucky and won twice in a row. Even though some would argue the elections were stolen/bought.

Sure, things happen. Coincidences occur. But when you take the history, the declassified documents, the people who are lying, and all that into account, ideas that 'conspiracy theorists' present, are not that far fetched.

Even one Senator * not sure who, seen it on Cspan, goes on a rant "You told us Osama Bin Ladin was hiding in Afganistan, yet we are in Iraq. You told us Suddam has WOMD, and he did not.

SO FORGIVE US FOR NOT BELIEVING YOU WHEN YOU TELL US WHAT HAPPENED AT 9/11.

Something like that.

So my opinion may not be expert, but it is not totally unfounded.

The_Tao
31st August 07, 07:55 PM
Well, I was not saying the article was demeaning Jones. I was stating that people here, and other links like debunking911.com or whatever, always ride on personal attacks and really a disrespect for anything.

As for where I come from. We all know the stories. The official reports about what has happened and when, to 9/11, to Kennedy, to any 'Conspiracy Theory'. Some seem unfounded, others seem less so. It is not so much an idea of "I need hard facts' as more of a 'signs point to'. I know, this can be flimsy from a hard evidence point of view, but sometimes you have to use intuition, and gut instinct. Detectives do it all the time, and the better ones, would use it more.

While I myself am not an expert in engineering, nor have I used a spectroscope or any other device of the like. This does not mean what I believe is unfounded.

Now I say this in regards to a number of things. The U.S. entered Vietnam under the pretense that a Vietamise (sp) air strike attacked a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. We went to war, lost 50k plus soldiers, mentally detached an entire generation of survivors. It is now declassified information that LBJ indeed set this whole thing up, as a pretense to enter the war. He set the whole thing up. This is of public record.

Operation Northwoods. Another declassified document that entails a US plan to use it's own commercial airliners on US buildings, in order to blame Cuba. JFK veto'd this and even threatened the CIA "I am going to smash you into 1000 pieces" I believe is the quote.

Now apply that thought to what is going on now. Is it merely coincidence that 9/11 happened the way it did (Norad standing down, War Games exercises happening at the same time, two of them mimicing almost EXACTLY what happened on 9/11), can you really reasonably believe that it is all coincidence? In a system as controlled as Government, do you really believe this coincedence to be true, especially when the track record of those in charge is laden with lies and mistruth?

Not to mention, in the case of 9/11, there are White House memos to the President warning of 9/11, and yet he claims no prior knowledge?

I for one cannot. I for one will not.

One thing we have not even touched in this discussion is indeed Social Science. Ever watch GW talk about 9/11? He claims to have seen the first plane hit the day of the attack, yet it was not shown on TV until the next morning. When asked about prior knowledge he stammers, befuddled, then says "There is a time for politics..more stammer...that is just an absurd insinuation.

The man has GUILT written all over him. Yet we are to believe he is just an idiot who got lucky and won twice in a row. Even though some would argue the elections were stolen/bought.

Sure, things happen. Coincidences occur. But when you take the history, the declassified documents, the people who are lying, and all that into account, ideas that 'conspiracy theorists' present, are not that far fetched.

Even one Senator * not sure who, seen it on Cspan, goes on a rant "You told us Osama Bin Ladin was hiding in Afganistan, yet we are in Iraq. You told us Suddam has WOMD, and he did not.

SO FORGIVE US FOR NOT BELIEVING YOU WHEN YOU TELL US WHAT HAPPENED AT 9/11.

Something like that.

So my opinion may not be expert, but it is not totally unfounded.


Continue telling yourself your own ideas, they'll never be anymore true

jubei33
31st August 07, 08:02 PM
no, like i said it doest preclude you from having an opinion, but it goes towards you having an informed one. For someone who claims to desire evidence and the truth you do quite a lot of speculation and not enough work to evidence your claims.


It is not so much an idea of "I need hard facts' as more of a 'signs point to'. I know, this can be flimsy from a hard evidence point of view, but sometimes you have to use intuition, and gut instinct. Detectives do it all the time, and the better ones, would use it more.

I disagree, most detectives look for facts and use evidence to build a case. Instinct is part of it, especially knowing where to look, but legal cases cant be tried on gut instinct, this is called heresay. "The man has guilt written all over him," Are you a detective?

gut instinct is probably why we have had so many on death row latter proven innocent by DNA evidence. That is a real conspiracy.

Truculent Sheep
31st August 07, 08:02 PM
Riddeck, you silly man, when are you going to give us some real evidence? Or are you going to just fuck off instead?

No response so far.

Riddeck
1st September 07, 01:48 AM
no, like i said it doest preclude you from having an opinion, but it goes towards you having an informed one. For someone who claims to desire evidence and the truth you do quite a lot of speculation and not enough work to evidence your claims.



I disagree, most detectives look for facts and use evidence to build a case. Instinct is part of it, especially knowing where to look, but legal cases cant be tried on gut instinct, this is called heresay. "The man has guilt written all over him," Are you a detective?

gut instinct is probably why we have had so many on death row latter proven innocent by DNA evidence. That is a real conspiracy.

So what of the rest of my post? What of the facts that exist in it. Gulf of Tonkin. Operation Northwoods. Do these factors matter not when investigating a crime of similar fashion?

With 9/11, less than a week after the event, we were already calling out Bin Ladin, as the guilty party (Which is funny since the FBI does not even list 9/11 as one of the crimes he is wanted for).

If you are so concerned with evidence and law, which, I assure you I am, why are you not livid that no real investigation took place? Investigation began over a YEAR after the event. Is this not suspicious to you? 9/11 may not be so cut and dry this and that, but in no way has this case been conclusively solved, and the people (whomever they are) are still not being held responsible.


Riddeck, you silly man, when are you going to give us some real evidence? Or are you going to just fuck off instead?

No response so far.

When are you going to give me some real evidence that proves Dick Cheney had nothing to do with NORAD standing down? When are you going to provide me with evidence that Condolezza Rice and G.W. did not have prior knowledge of 9/11? When are you going to show me evidence that the government did not write up plans to use US airliners on buildings, as a pretense to start a war? When are you going to show me the evidence that Dick Cheney did not write a paper where he states "We would need a Pearl Harbor like event".

Most importantly, when are you just going to fuck off? Your contribution to this thread is like herpes, and I really wish the gift would stop giving.

Truculent Sheep
1st September 07, 03:31 AM
Riddeck is a liar and a coward. When will he be banned?

Sun Wukong
1st September 07, 04:20 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to call him a liar or coward, but I'd definitely say he's a bit delusional.

bob
1st September 07, 04:23 AM
It's pretty hard to get banned on Sociocide. The lighter moderation is one of its more appealing qualities.

Sun Wukong
1st September 07, 04:33 AM
I'll also say he provides alot of entertaining conversation. It's like he's a living pinata with a long masochism streak. refreshing really and I much prefer him to the skin head element that's been hanging around.

bob
1st September 07, 04:39 AM
I like Riddeck. Don't ask me why but I do.

Perhaps because he's entertaining, he has sincerely held beliefs and ultimately his heart's in the right place. He's provoked several discussions which have led to me learning quite a bit.

He's got some seriously out there ideas but hell, so have my parents and I still like them.

jubei33
1st September 07, 04:58 AM
So what of the rest of my post? What of the facts that exist in it. Gulf of Tonkin. Operation Northwoods. Do these factors matter not when investigating a crime of similar fashion?


See the standards of evidence are different. For you a pile of supposition and rumors will suffice, but for others hard evidence is needed. Furthermore, the fact that they made plans for an opp, doesn't prove it happened. The government has lots of plans. It has plans currently for war with our allies GB (and others). This isn't very surprising. However if you were to produce documents that said one was put into effect that would be a different story. Even if it was false flag, why would they need thermate, wouldn't the planes have been enough?

The funny thing about this whole fiasco was from the very beginning conspiracy theorists were already making up BS about missiles, converted 747s, conventional explosives and now thermite. Except not one has ever had any evidence to prop it up. The great thing about these kind of arguments is that the insinuation of wrong doing is enough to corroborate almost any theory. See the theory the accused the gov't of using particle weapons to destroy the buildings (though, I think the woman who proposed this one did it to mock). People still hang on to it hoping that one will be true or at least have enough inconclusive evidence to be " Well, maybe...". Thats the biggest problem in that the government is fighting against the whole of all the dissatisfied people, whether they believe in the conspiracy or not.

Truculent Sheep
1st September 07, 08:22 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to call him a liar or coward, but I'd definitely say he's a bit delusional.

True, but I'm trying to provoke him into actually laying his cards on the table rather than being evasive. I'm smearing viscera over the man trap, as it were.

emboesso
1st September 07, 09:42 AM
Ehh..firefighters on scene claim to have not found much of anything. One claims the biggest piece of office furnature he found was a piece of a keypad from a phone. So, no, no devices were found.

I'd rather not delve too much into my memories of 9/11, but I'll just say there was no rhyme or reason to what we found. I remember finding a desk chair completely flattened right near an undamaged computer monitor. I remember coming across a bunch of stuff that looked relatively new and still packaged, and realized it was all from the gift shop on the observation deck. It survived because it had comparatively little material fall on top of it.

You could find a complete human foot, or just bones. The bones looked like a drumstick that had been chewed clean and left to dry out in the sun. Not charred by fire, but just bare. I remember thinking if the flesh had been pulverized away from the bone, wouldn't the force have been strong enough to pulverize the bone as well? Who knows?

Memories of recovery workers, mine included, are not very reliable. Sixteen hour days, seven days a week, over the course of several months, in a situation of such enormity, with new insane rumors flying around everyday, make for unreliable accounts.

jubei33
1st September 07, 09:44 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to emboesso again.
id give you rep just for volunteering. Incidentally, I liked you first post better last night.

emboesso
1st September 07, 10:44 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to emboesso again.
id give you rep just for volunteering. Incidentally, I liked you first post better last night.

Thanks, but I wasn't volunteering, I was there in a professional capacity which I'd rather not get into. After I did that post I realized it didn't really contribute much to the conversation but was more therapeutic to me to sit down and write it.

You guys know I'll jump in and shoot my mouth off on any topic, but this one is different. I keep that period of my life in a 9/11 Windows folder, which I try to avoid clicking on and viewing the files in it.