9/11 info and sources

Nevermind

JHudgens75 wrote:

How is what I said related to racism?



I actually have done some research. That's why I can say I don't agree with it.



I know who I am. I have a right to post here as much as anyone else and not get flamed for it. Or did I miss something and you're actually the owner of this forum, entrusted with ensuring only certain people with 5 million posts to their names get to post here? Is there some initiation rite that I'm missing? Yeah, 5 posts. So what? You were never at 5 posts in your exciting career?

Way to go. You countered my opinion by attacking my character and resorting to expletives. Very intelligent.

The only people who I have seen deny the Holocaust is racists. So you believe that they were the first 3 steel buildings to collapse due to fire? You joined months ago and only have 6 posts now.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Apparently proven? He has not apparently proven anything. He has offered a hypothesis -- a hypothesis that is not even accepted by his own colleagues at his own university, particularly those from the college of structural engineering. The Professor Emeritus of BYU's Civil Engineering school said the following:

"I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable. Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."

Ok, well first of all, his other theories don't matter, this is the case in point. Scientists can be wrong on one thing and right on another. Or maybe he is right or wrong on both. However, in the NIST report it does admit they found sulphur in the steal which could not be explained. Sulphur could only get into the steal by fission, which implies explosives. The EPA also reported high levels of air contaminants that are indicative of explosive pulverization.

The evidence that explosives were used in the WTC buildings is enormous. It's difficult not to believe that explosives were used. All the videos of Prof. Jones I have seen indicate to me that he didn't want to believe either.

angelica

Magus wrote:

Im gonna have to agree...if all you do is post links that means all your doing is subsituting "reality" for another persons "reality" try thinking for yourself... I bet we can find contridictions between those sights...which one is your exact belief? Do you see what people are getting at? I can go create my own website too and call it "the truth"

I say it's perfectly appropriate to pass on information or any source one sees fit.

If someone wants to call out a contradiction and confront her with it, fine.

If you want to call it "substituting 'reality' for another persons 'reality" you're entitled to your assessment. At the same time, other people and their complex motivations are not realistically defined by such assessments.

El_Kabong

Purple Hawk wrote:

You make the views of those who are able to be published on fringe web sites clear, still not sure of yours. Not an insult, just seems to be the case.

if there's something specific you would like to know, i've found a real good way of finding out...YOU ASK. can you point to anything where our views were shrouded in mystery? where you've asked us what our world view is and got no reply? what was asked that you never received a reply to?

i looked up just 'wtc7' and found 11 threads i replied in. that doesn't seem like it's any divine secret knowledge.

you can keep saying no one answers questions you never ask instead of debating the topic all you want. it seems to be your tactic; bring up personal matters instead of debating the topic.

and btw, a list like this was requested before

Purple Hawk

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I post my opinion almost everyday here. I also read and share info. If you're not sure of my views you haven't been reading.

I know your "views," I was just speaking in terms of specifics. What, in terms of specifics, would you do to respond to militant islamic groups? What in specific, would you do to improve surveillence while at the same time protecting civil liberties? These are the specific questions I'm referring to when I say it's like "pulling teeth."

But I obviously have missed a lot and admit that I haven't read all of your posts, so if you ever have directly addressed these questions, I appologize (no sarcasm )

Abookamongstthemany

Magus wrote:

Im gonna have to agree...if all you do is post links that means all your doing is subsituting "reality" for another persons "reality" try thinking for yourself... I bet we can find contridictions between those sights...which one is your exact belief? Do you see what people are getting at? I can go create my own website too and call it "the truth"

For the last time....I was asked for sources. I don't know why I bother sometimes.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, well first of all, his other theories don't matter, this is the case in point.

I agree Ahnimus. Because one's colleagues disagree, or because one also holds other theories people might find implausible does not address or in anyway disprove the points in question in this case.

Abookamongstthemany

Purple Hawk wrote:

I know your "views," I was just speaking in terms of specifics. What, in terms of specifics, would you do to respond to militant islamic groups? What in specific, would you do to improve surveillence while at the same time protecting civil liberties? These are the specific questions I'm referring to when I say it's like "pulling teeth."

But I obviously have missed a lot and admit that I haven't read all of your posts, so if you ever have directly addressed these questions, I appologize (no sarcasm )

I have stated before that our foreign policy causes the tension we hold with these groups. I think we should quit funding and encouraging the violence in the area if we really want it to stop. But I think that's the last thing our govt actually wants, there's simply no money in it. Once again, all this has already been stated before.

I don't think we need more surveilence. They are watching us (especially dissenters) not the supposed muslim boogeymen.

Good enough for ya? Anything I may have left out. Should I restate every point I've point I've ever posted here? Over 5,000 post with nothing but links and articles, I guess.

My favorite color is green.

I know shit about you expect for your flare for starting petty fights. So how about, you let's all hear your 'world views'.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I agree Ahnimus. Because one's colleagues disagree, or because one also holds other theories people might find implausible does not address or in anyway disprove the points in question in this case.

lol, I just thought of something. I might have to agree with Bush some day, if he ever actually says anything I agree with.

El_Kabong

Purple Hawk wrote:

I know your "views," I was just speaking in terms of specifics. What, in terms of specifics, would you do to respond to militant islamic groups? What in specific, would you do to improve surveillence while at the same time protecting civil liberties? These are the specific questions I'm referring to when I say it's like "pulling teeth."

But I obviously have missed a lot and admit that I haven't read all of your posts, so if you ever have directly addressed these questions, I appologize (no sarcasm )

hmmm...i must've missed the posts where you laid bare all your world views and your thoughts on surveilence...<sigh> why must i have to like decipher your world view, man? :rolleyes:

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, well first of all, his other theories don't matter, this is the case in point.

Certainly the validity of one theory has no bearing on the validity of another unrelated theory. However, it sheds much light on the man proposing the theories. To suggest that Christ appeared in S America following the resurrection is fine, but one must then demostrate that a) Christ was resurrected and then b) Christ had the means to travel to America (not too tough if you can prove a.). The fact that such "minor details" are not touched on sheds much light into Jones's approach as a scientist: a hearty mix of faith and fact.

His 9/11 theories suffer in a likewise fashion. They require someone to plant the explosives, of course. For that, there is no evidence. They require the explosive itself, for which there is very little evidence. Traditional demolition explosives would not have taken down the WTC in the fashion we all witnessed. Thermite would have been used and the evidence of its use would likely have been witnessed by every TV camera and person on the ground.

Again, plausible does not mean actual.

Scientists can be wrong on one thing and right on another. Or maybe he is right or wrong on both. However, in the NIST report it does admit they found sulphur in the steal which could not be explained. Sulphur could only get into the steal by fission, which implies explosives. The EPA also reported high levels of air contaminants that are indicative of explosive pulverization.

Wow. See, this is the silliness that these sites are spreading.

Sulfur is commonly found in gunpowers and explosives. This is a big deal to your consipiracy spreaders. This, they say, is proof and then they highlight the NIST's "inability" to explain it.

However, those same conspiracy theorists ignore some important facts:

1) Sulfur explosives could not be used alone to bring down the WTC towers without using so much equipment as to completely blow up the building. Controlled demolitions of steel skyscrapers are done with thermite or similar compounds that "cut", rather than explode. Certainly sulfur is evident as part of these reactions, but the use of thermite creates additional byproducts not measured on 9/11.

2) Sulfur is contained in every living cell. Your body is full of the stuff. Much of the sulfur measured at WTC is likely from the 2,000 burning bodies killed on that day.

Furthermore, the single FEMA report so often "quoted" simply highlights the existence as an oddity and offers possible explanations:

"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."

The evidence that explosives were used in the WTC buildings is enormous. It's difficult not to believe that explosives were used. All the videos of Prof. Jones I have seen indicate to me that he didn't want to believe either.

It is not "enormous". It is non-existent. Not a single explosive can be pointed to. Not a single explosive planter can be named. Not a single definitive sign of explosive use can be highlighted.

It is not that I "don't want to believe". I could care less whether 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists or the government. Most people here would attest that I see little difference between terrorists and the government.

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

hmmm...i must've missed the posts where you laid bare all your world views and your thoughts on surveilence...<sigh> why must i have to like decipher your world view, man? :rolleyes:

i have to admit, that's a pretty good reply

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly the validity of one theory has no bearing on the validity of another unrelated theory. However, it sheds much light on the man proposing the theories. To suggest that Christ appeared in S America following the resurrection is fine, but one must then demostrate that a) Christ was resurrected and then b) Christ had the means to travel to America (not too tough if you can prove a.). The fact that such "minor details" are not touched on sheds much light into Jones's approach as a scientist: a hearty mix of faith and fact.

His 9/11 theories suffer in a likewise fashion. They require someone to plant the explosives, of course. For that, there is no evidence. They require the explosive itself, for which there is very little evidence. Traditional demolition explosives would not have taken down the WTC in the fashion we all witnessed. Thermite would have been used and the evidence of its use would likely have been witnessed by every TV camera and person on the ground.

Again, plausible does not mean actual.



Wow. See, this is the silliness that these sites are spreading.

Sulfur is commonly found in gunpowers and explosives. This is a big deal to your consipiracy spreaders. This, they say, is proof and then they highlight the NIST's "inability" to explain it.

However, those same conspiracy theorists ignore some important facts:

1) Sulfur explosives could not be used alone to bring down the WTC towers without using so much equipment as to completely blow up the building. Controlled demolitions of steel skyscrapers are done with thermite or similar compounds that "cut", rather than explode. Certainly sulfur is evident as part of these reactions, but the use of thermite creates additional byproducts not measured on 9/11.

2) Sulfur is contained in every living cell. Your body is full of the stuff. Much of the sulfur measured at WTC is likely from the 2,000 burning bodies killed on that day.

Furthermore, the single FEMA report so often "quoted" simply highlights the existence as an oddity and offers possible explanations:

"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."



It is not "enormous". It is non-existent. Not a single explosive can be pointed to. Not a single explosive planter can be named. Not a single definitive sign of explosive use can be highlighted.

It is not that I "don't want to believe". I could care less whether 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists or the government. Most people here would attest that I see little difference between terrorists and the government.

Yea, actually the explosive theory is equally as solid as the fire theory. But at least the explosive theory is closer to real physics than fire. Sulphur from burning bodies can not get into the steal. Look up sulphurization of steal. I did because I wanted to know how it would get in there, and on a physics website (totally unrelated to 9/11) it explained how the sulphur would have to be forced into it by a lot of energy.

Thermite, isn't exactly what Jones says was used. He says thermate was used which is thermite spiked with sulphur as thermite doesn't have sulphur in it, and if it does, it's called thermate. Thermate has a lot hotter and larger explosion.

Thermate isn't the only theory either. The EPA and NIST reported Tritium in the air at ground zero. Tritium isn't used in many things, not to produce detectable levels, let alone high levels. Some watches use Tritium particulary Gaseous Tritium watches that cost roughly $500 ea. not too many people have them. Weapon laser sights can use tritium and some signs and hand railings. However neither organization can account for the sulphur or the tritium without wide speculation. They have provided absolutely zero evidence of their origins. Oh, I should add tritium is used in FGNs (Fourth Generation Nukes). Don't think of FGNs as the traditional nuclear bomb, they are completely different in radioactivity and explosive power. Tritium is radioactive but is relatively harmless to humans and it's half-life is merely 12.5 days.

The main thing here, is that people can't be convinced that kerosene brought the buildings down. We know kerosene burns at 1000 degrees less than the temperature steel melts at. And that's untreated steel, the steel used in WTC were fire proofed. They went a bit further and said the plane knocked the fire-proofing off. They also said that a massive fire ball flew down the elevator shaft and exploded in the lobby when they were questioned about the damage to the lobby reported by fire-fighters. The official theory is nothing but speculation. I downloaded a video from the NIST website of their burning steel test and none of their videos showed melting steel, it would seem their tests failed. NIST was trying to prove that fire caused the collapse, they ignored all other theories in their investigation, and even though there investigation was not conclusive they sold it to you anyway.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, actually the explosive theory is equally as solid as the fire theory.

In terms of theoretical possibility, sure. In terms of the evidence we have from the events of 9/11, not even close.

But at least the explosive theory is closer to real physics than fire.

Both are very much dependent on "real physics".

Sulphur from burning bodies can not get into the steal. Look up sulphurization of steal. I did because I wanted to know how it would get in there, and on a physics website (totally unrelated to 9/11) it explained how the sulphur would have to be forced into it by a lot of energy.

A "lot of energy", huh? What do you think you get when a 110 story structure collapses on itself?

Thermite, isn't exactly what Jones says was used. He says thermate was used which is thermite spiked with sulphur as thermite doesn't have sulphur in it, and if it does, it's called thermate. Thermate has a lot hotter and larger explosion.

Ever see thermite burn?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OotM5Z4ZHRc&search=thermate

Now imagine enough of that to eat through 50 steel columns. And imagine the evidence that type of burn leaves behind. We're talking about clear-cuts through steel, not bent and molten steel

Thermate isn't the only theory either. The EPA and NIST reported Tritium in the air at ground zero. Tritium isn't used in many things, not to produce detectable levels, let alone high levels. Some watches use Tritium particulary Gaseous Tritium watches that cost roughly $500 ea. not too many people have them. Weapon laser sights can use tritium and some signs and hand railings. However neither organization can account for the sulphur or the tritium without wide speculation. They have provided absolutely zero evidence of their origins. Oh, I should add tritium is used in FGNs (Fourth Generation Nukes). Don't think of FGNs as the traditional nuclear bomb, they are completely different in radioactivity and explosive power. Tritium is radioactive but is relatively harmless to humans and it's half-life is merely 12.5 days.

This one I've never heard. Tritium is often found in the atmosphere and it's created (I believe) as a product of sunlight and certain gasses. If you're proposing a nuclear device at WTC, you're going to have to explain a whole lot of other things, however. Can you point to the Tritium measurements as a start?

The main thing here, is that people can't be convinced that kerosene brought the buildings down.

No one is trying to convince them of that. Kerosene is not jet fuel, friend. Your conspiracy theorists forgot that jet fuel and kerosene are not the same.

We know kerosene burns at 1000 degrees less than the temperature steel melts at. And that's untreated steel, the steel used in WTC were fire proofed. They went a bit further and said the plane knocked the fire-proofing off. They also said that a massive fire ball flew down the elevator shaft and exploded in the lobby when they were questioned about the damage to the lobby reported by fire-fighters. The official theory is nothing but speculation.

That's true. The official theory is nothing but speculation since so much information is unavailable. However, the official theory uses quite a bit of the available information to come to conclusions, rather than just piecemeal measurements used to back pre-existing conclusions.

I downloaded a video from the NIST website of their burning steel test and none of their videos showed melting steel, it would seem their tests failed.

Did their tests include a 110-story building falling on top of said steel?

NIST was trying to prove that fire caused the collapse, they ignored all other theories in their investigation, and even though there investigation was not conclusive they sold it to you anyway.

Hehe...they didn't "sell it to me". They simply presented a case that is far more conclusive than anything else out there.

Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue. They think that if they could just disprove one theory, somehow that will prove another. If, tomorrow, we find out that Darwin was wrong it doesn't make the ID people right. The same holds true on 9/11.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue.

If by this what you're saying is that there are different ways the same facts can be interpreted, I agree wholeheartedly.

When it comes down to theories, a theory is a theory. You may have one preference, another person may have a different preference.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

If by this what you're saying is that there are different ways the same facts can be interpreted, I agree wholeheartedly.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are different ways facts can be ignored. Furthermore, I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another.

Intelligent Design and 9/11 conspiracy theories are perfectly fine in the context of theory. Pretty much everything posited by both is plausible. But that doesn't mean it's true. The same goes for the "official" 9/11 story. However, that story takes many steps past theory that the others do not.

I could tell you that moon men took down the WTC and, again, it would be completely plausible. However, it's highly unlikely that my moon men and other's NWO and still other's Al Qaeda all happened to play a direct role in the events. Furthermore, if I disprove both the NWO and Al Qaeda stories, I do nothing to back up my case for moon men.

There is one right answer to what happened on that day. And I doubt it involved moon men or thermate.

When it comes down to theories, a theory is a theory. You may have one preference, another person may have a different preference.

Sure. People can prefer whatever theory they choose. But when it comes to conclusions and persuasion, preferences matter not in the face of facts.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Actually, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are different ways facts can be ignored.

Intelligent Design and 9/11 conspiracy theories are perfectly fine in the context of theory. Pretty much everything posited by both is plausible. But that doesn't mean it's true.

I could tell you that moon men took down the WTC and, again, it would be completely plausible. However, it's highly unlikely that my moon men and other's NWO and still other's Al Qaeda all happened to play a direct role in the events.

There is one right answer to what happened on that day. And I doubt it involved moon men or thermate.



Sure. People can prefer whatever theory they choose. But when it comes to conclusions and persuasion, preference matter not in the face of facts.

My issue is with the fact that scientists are just as susceptible to bias as others -- people believe what they want to believe. Scientists have been known to distort information due to inner filters in place that will cause them to not accept the obvious due to bias. With an issue that is this huge, most people have huge preconceptions going in. Scientists try to deny bias or emotional slant, so that concerns me a whole lot in any case, because denial is denial. I certainly don't know one way or the other. Obviously the truth is the truth, but again, because you side with the scientists who have the most support, or because you compare this scenario with intelligent design is quite irrelevent to the facts and the truth in the framing of said facts.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Actually, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are different ways facts can be ignored. Furthermore, I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another.

Let's not forget the relevence of disproving any incorrect theory.

69charger

Nevermind wrote:

Or is it because you cant explain that the wtc was the first 3 steel buildings to collapse due to fire?

Yeah, I can, and you say 'collapse due to fire' as if there was no other damage to the buildings that day. I seem to remember two fully fueled jumbo jets slammed into these buildings also and the third sustained major damage due to debris from the other two.

Maybe you should go on Roxdogs radio show and there wouldnt be all these threads.

Roxdog had his chance to debate right here and he refused.

Nevermind

69charger wrote:

Yeah, I can, and you say 'collapse due to fire' as if there was no other damage to the buildings that day. I seem to remember two fully fueled jumbo jets slammed into these buildings also and the third sustained major damage due to debris from the other two.



Roxdog had his chance to debate right here and he refused.

No, he did debate. But you were too much of a pussy to debate with many people listening to you. One plane flew into each. If it was to fall from that it wouldnt have fell like that. Each of floors wouldnt have gave way like a controlled demolition. What was the fire shooting out of the windows from each floor from when it was falling?