Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

The truth movement media also lies.

Yes it does. When searching for the truth not every assessment made is accurate. Lies are everywhere.

a reply to: kwakakev

Who assembled that pile?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

What the truth movement pile? 10 000's of people, if not more. Lost of it questioning many different angles to it all. Personally I do find the work of Richard Gauge to be among the better quality stuff.

a reply to: kwakakev

Overall I do find the 9/11 commission report you supplied as getting close. Lot of research into various links with it all. The Iran Contra Syndicate does stand out bad in the prelude to events. I guess that what happens when congress stuffs up its investigations, the bad guys take the wheel. The lawlessness of the CIA goes back to its inception.

The big banks do have a lot to answer for. With all the investigations into the missing money getting closed or sealed it does appear the are answers locked up under national security for now. As for just what exactly the ONI office at the Pentagon was working on it an important piece of the puzzle.

As for who would want to kill GW Bush around the time of 9/11? A lot of good people died that day, some people lost a lot of things. Sounded like there was a lot of increasing chatter in intelligence circles of something coming up. Maybe someone who was about to get burnt tried to stop the plan?

The report does present a theory that it was those pulling of 9/11 and part of their infighting to gain more power as wanting to assassinate the president. I do not see how Bush and Cheney could work together if one tried to kill the other. One or both of them would be dead. They both had too much to gain by sticking to the plan. Cheney got Haliburton as his own private army, Bush got to keep his fathers and the CIA's projects running. GW Bush knew the program with CIA growing up around it, he kept his mouth shut.

I do agree that is was more Cheney and Rumsfield pushing the 9/11 plan more than Bush. It is possible that Bush needed some motivation to get on board with the program from his fellow perpetrators. It is also possible some defense to this attack did take place as well, but was not enough and quickly countered.

a reply to: kwakakev

The "report" you posted. THAT pile of misinformation and lies.

a reply to: kwakakev

You do know there is zero evidence of WTC planted pyrotechnics, right.....

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

ucanthandlethetruth posted it on page 15 of this thread.

As for who compiled it I do not know. A lot of the sources for the conclusion drawn are presented. Guess you could be looking at 100's of contributors to the overall package.

a reply to: neutronflux

You do know there is zero evidence of WTC planted pyrotechnics, right.....

No. I do see lots of evidence for it.

a reply to: kwakakev

The list that has been debunked over and over.......

Pictures of cars are not proof of cut columns.

a reply to: kwakakev

No. I do see lots of evidence for it.

Was this evidence stacked up for you by some other party?

You do realize that Richard Gauge has spun 911 into his career?
If he cannot make an income from this he's screwed because no other firm would touch him for a job.

Funny thing about Gauge:
He never says where the nano thermite was placed.
He has never examined the physical evidence himself.
None of his supporters have either.
It's all conjecture.

Real life folks:

No blasting caps found.
No wiring of the type used for demolitions found.
No evidence of any explosives used on the steel beams from where the collapses initiated.
No tenant of any of the buildings coming forward to speak of the miles of wiring that would have had to run through their offices to rig the buildings for demolition.
No evidence of any kind of the hundreds of workers that would have been needed to wire the buildings.
No sounds even remotely resembling those of a controlled demolition heard or recorded.

"Truth" movement:

Well......the video looks like a controlled demolition (which, it actually doesn't).......therefore, its a controlled demolition that left absolutely no physical evidence.

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously.

It is great to see people questioning things. We would not of made it this far down the evolutionary chain without it. We all have our own questions and do manage to find our answers.

The world is a complex place and I understand how easy it is to let other do our own thinking. We have the media telling us what is going on, our government tell us what to do. It great, just switch on a movie and go with the flow. Nothing too difficult is presented to the public, its easy.

So what is happening with this red pill thing? Why is it that once someone does come to the realization that all is not as it seams with 9/11 there is no going back? I got taught this during my university media studies, if you want a job in media then stay away from all the conspiracy stuff, why? Because there is no going back.

If you are to start questioning government there is a lot of them, with some questions not too good for your health if you are to really crack them open and peek inside. If you cannot tell the difference between a building having some structural failure and a building getting demolished then perhaps it is better you stay where you are.

Another implication of all this is that some people will go to their grave with full support and belief in the official story. Some people will pass away having a very clear picture of just what happened. Most of us will probably die some where in the middle. We know something is not right, but what is it?

originally posted by: kwakakev
It is great to see people questioning things.

Sad to see you doing your very best to avoid answering awkward questions

a reply to: mrthumpy

Sad to see you doing your very best to avoid answering awkward questions

I am already 19 pages in to one thread on this issue? I think Richard Cheney has done a much better job at avoiding awkward questions.

Ok, that 3 month fire thing. Richard Gauge does provide a good description about it all in the presentation I posted some pages back. So now I hear moans, no, no, thats too much.

I don't know where to find other cases of fires burning for three months. Underground coal seams are one that comes to mind for very long burns, many years some of them. The fuel source is clear there being the coal. The oil wells in Iraq when they got blown, took a long time to get them all out. The fuel source is clear there with the crude oil. Maybe there are some industrial fires out there that come close. I don't know.

It took something to melt the steel and get the fire up to a temperature where it could use the steel as a fuel source. Thermite fits that. Broken supports do not.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: mrthumpy

Sad to see you doing your very best to avoid answering awkward questions

I am already 19 pages in to one thread on this issue? I think Richard Cheney has done a much better job at avoiding awkward questions.

Ok, that 3 month fire thing. Richard Gauge does provide a good description about it all in the presentation I posted some pages back. So now I hear moans, no, no, thats too much.

I don't know where to find other cases of fires burning for three months. Underground coal seams are one that comes to mind for very long burns, many years some of them. The fuel source is clear there being the coal. The oil wells in Iraq when they got blown, took a long time to get them all out. The fuel source is clear there with the crude oil. Maybe there are some industrial fires out there that come close. I don't know.

It took something to melt the steel and get the fire up to a temperature where it could use the steel as a fuel source. Thermite fits that. Broken supports do not.

See this is the problem. You don't understand what is a fairly simple question because you don't understand the claim that you made

You made the claim that fires burning three months later is an indication that thermite was used

You've correctly identified the fuel source in coal seam fires as coal

So you're claiming that the fuel source that kept the 911 fires going for three months was thermite

Thermite burns very fast so for it to still be burning three months later there must have been a mountain of the stuff

If you're NOT claiming that the fuel source that kept the fires burning for three months was thermite then you can't claim those fires were evidence of thermite

So there you have it. Either there was an enormous amount of thermite or fires burning three months later have got nothing to do with thermite

You can't have it both ways

a reply to: mrthumpy

Well I am sorry you cannot find the answers you are looking for here. I hope one day you do. I have provided my perspective on it. I am not going to continually repeat it.

If you do not understand the 3 month fire in context to the official story, I am not surprised.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: mrthumpy

Well I am sorry you cannot find the answers you are looking for here. I hope one day you do. I have provided my perspective on it. I am not going to continually repeat it.

If you do not understand the 3 month fire in context to the official story, I am not surprised.

And there we have it. The Truth movement in a nutshell


Just completely ignore logic, facts and evidence and plough on regardless with your mind firmly closed and bolted

a reply to: mrthumpy

Just completely ignore logic, facts and evidence and plough on regardless with your mind firmly closed and bolted

Well I guess that is the situation then. I some ways it is an amazing thing to see at work, just how pliable it all is. In other ways it does paint a scary picture with a whole culture and ideology like this.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: mrthumpy

Just completely ignore logic, facts and evidence and plough on regardless with your mind firmly closed and bolted

Well I guess that is the situation then. I some ways it is an amazing thing to see at work, just how pliable it all is. In other ways it does paint a scary picture with a whole culture and ideology like this.

Yep that's the situation. You'll just go on believing that you know what you're talking about regardless

It's the difference between science and religion

a reply to: kwakakev

Ok, that 3 month fire thing. Richard Gauge does provide a good description about it all in the presentation I posted some pages back. So now I hear moans, no, no, thats too much.

What a BS understatement....

Your points were debunked one by one....

Gage lied in stating the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.



Let’s revisit the “strong” argument for thermite

You.

I do get it. I so wish the official story was right, I really do.

It’s not about the official narrative. You present a intellectually false argument.

It’s not about any preconceived idea. It’s about having an open mind. About a questing attitude about everything.

Let’s take the thermite study.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

benthamopen.com...

If you actually read through it, anyone with half an open mind sees it crap. It has nothing to do about the official narrative.

Let’s start with the most basic properties of thermite. Thermite burns in an inert atmosphere. That would be the simplest go / no go test. Take some of the sample and burn it in an inert atmosphere to see if it supports a thermite reaction. Is that part of the study. Nope. The simplest of tests, and it’s not part of the study. That is strange.

The thermite reaction is:
Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3

Why, surely Jones tested specifically to ensure his dust had AL2 in it, pure elemental aluminum free to drive a thermite reaction. Nope. AL2 was never verified by analysis, it was assumed to be present. That is strange also.

Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac- count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material.

To assume something is present when you should test to verify it’s present is a glaring example of junk science.

But don’t take my word for it...

post 8 by Oystein

www.internationalskeptics.com...

They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite

Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

aneta.org...

Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano- thermite.

Then you have the samples from Jones tests were open to contamination and not stored for archiving.

Then one would wonder if the paper was peer reviewed.... A bit of research, and you will find then peer review was fraudulent. People consulted during the writing of the paper were used as peer reviewers. The paper bypassed the referee to be published, then the paper was published in a known pay to play publication.

Steven E. Jones
en.m.wikipedia.org...

In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[47] The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,[48][49] resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.[50][51] According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishers. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen [52] (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer [53]), the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level,[54][55] and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.[56] With regard to the peer review process of the research conducted by Jones in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, David Griscom identified himself as one of the reviewers.[57] The paper which Jones co-authored referenced Griscom, and multiple scientists studying 9/11, in the acknowledgements for "elucidating discussions and encouragements".[19] Almost four years prior to identifying himself as a reviewer and the welcome he received from Jones for speaking out boldly,[58] Griscom published a letter in defense of evidence-based 9/11 studies;[59] of which Jones was an editor.[60]

Then you do more research. And you find out Jones never completed the discovery process for his paper. The samples and results were never verified by a independent source.

If this was NIST, people would be screaming. But the unethical ways of the truth movement are ignored.....

I have kept an open mind. I found the thermite paper is junk science, fraudulent, and never verified.

For you to criticize like I don’t have an open mind when I have done my due diligence is crap, and intellectually dishonest.

My research shows there is no credible evidence of thermite in the WTC dust. NONE!

Because you have a biased mind you made the statement of :

The case for thermite is strong and does explain many of the abnormalities found.

Which means what?
“The case for thermite is strong”????

What case. You cite no sources. You mean the one thermite paper? “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”. Fraudulently peer reviewed with results no one can confirm. Is that the strong case. Good Gosh!

What “abnormalities found”????
The single nugget of strange compounds found in the toxins soup of burnt plastics, office equipment, batteries, office furniture, carpet, ceiling titles, vinyl flooring, computers that was the WTC pile.

Because I have a questioning attitude, I see the thermite research for the junk pseudoscience it is!

You are so biased, you called a fraudulently peered review paper who’s results cannot be verified after many attempts as the “case for thermite is strong”