Explosive News

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Is this where you're going to whip out the physics to prove it?

Not really... I can't be bothered to go over it all again.

Again? Then could you kindly direct us to where you went over it all before?

reply to post by benoni


Dood, that's been explained about a million times.

Read this:

www.debunking911.com...

and this:

www.debunking911.com...

and watch this:



If you can watch that video and still believe that Jones isn't guilty of manipulation of evidence to essentially create propaganda, then you're delusional.

The thing you need to understand is that thermite and controlled demos DO NOT leave behind pools of MOLTEN STEEL.

In fact, the only molten metal on site was ALUMINIUM.

Go read all of that stuff, but at least watch the video.





In fact, if you wanna claim pools of molten steel you are debunking your own thermite, controlled demo nonsense.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
reply to post by seethelight

 

my question is, are there 1000 engineers that oppose 9/11 truth and support the Official Story? Not just the idle engineers sitting on the fence. Ones that actively oppose it? Show me a paper, or organization, or movement where 1000 engineers are willing to put their reputation on the line in defense of the Official story. Please.

Look at the Catholic Church -- contains millions of engineers. The graduate engineers are the ones with the sheep skins. Germany, before WWII had millions who followed Hitler.

Look at all the engineers on this thread -- all following either the OS or the Controlled demolition side. Neither can be true for many absolute "engineering" reasons. But they are here for the BS.

You don't do creative problem solving by counting how many are sitting on each site of the fence.

Most people are wrong, almost all the time.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by etcorngods]

reply to post by benoni


Might want to read my post again. It contains two other examples of mis-reporting by news sources that day. The point is just to prove that news reports are not always correct when reported. BBC is not perfect just like other news sources are not perfect.

There is a Reverend that calls Obama "long-legged mack daddy" and he is on TV news (more often heard on conservative radio) doesn't make it true though does it?

NIST denies witnesses


NIST did not test the steel from building 7 and thereby did not follow the scientific method.

NIST claims they could not find the steel.

Even though FEMA had tested the steel earlier, and found the steel had endured extreme temperatures.
www.fema.gov...
RJ Lee Group and Dr. Astaneh-As found exteme temperatures too

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

www.nytimes.com...

"The temperatures required for the observed spherule-formation and evaporation of materials observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures reachable by the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings"
www.journalof911studies.com...



NIST admits free fall

Freefall can only occur if ALL resistance has been removed, simultaneously across the whole width of the building within a small fraction of a second. This is a smoking gun for use of explosives. NIST refused to even look for evidence of explosives, and release the results, even though its standard investigation procedure, and required by fire protection codes.



Barry Jennings was trapped in WTC7 for several hours by an explosion BEFORE the towers came down. BBC and NIST twisted his timeline to make it seem like the explosion was the north tower coming down. which doesn't make sense

Barry Jennings died on August 19th 2008 at age 53 - there's been no official cause of death. Michael Hess, who was with him at the time, was interviewed by the BBC in september of 2008 and agreed with the official timeline
Hess is still alive


Michael Hess interview, where he says the same thing as Barry Jennings!



regarding the nano-thermite:
to refute the claim that nano-thermite could have brought down the buildings, National Geographic used ordinary thermite (narrator explaining that they had no access to nano-thermite). Moreover, instead of using the thermite to make shaped charges, which can cut through steel, NatGeo simply placed a bag of thermite next to a steel column and lit it. When the burning thermite did not melt the column, the narrator concluded, triumphantly, that science had disproved the conspiracy theorists.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by conar]

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by billybob

 

I would like to apologize for my part in that credentials 'thing'.
That was a very good post you put up there. Star for that.
I am sorry for the off topic crap.....
...........and gone.

to you for this post. I may the one to blame for bringing it up in the first place, so I apologise for doing so.

reply to post by etcorngods


Dood, are you still going on about the aliens and the plop?

I will be on the exact opposite of any issue you are on, guaranteed.

Look truthers, here's someone that doesn't believe the OS!

Why not join him in the bliss that is hearing god talk to you... and making business decisions based on seeing rainbows...

oh and guess what... he's an engineer.

An engineer that doesn't believe the OS... in fact, God told him aliens did it.

So this is your company.

And to anyone that claims you can shape imaginary thermite to create molten steel, you are fools.

Look up how thermite is used by the railroads... if it created molten pools of steel it would be an UNUSABLE tool.

Nanothermite is such bull#... you might as well listen to God's rainbow messages.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by benoni

 

Dood, that's been explained about a million times.

Read this:

www.debunking911.com...

and this:

www.debunking911.com...

and watch this:

If you can watch that video and still believe that Jones isn't guilty of manipulation of evidence to essentially create propaganda, then you're delusional.

The thing you need to understand is that thermite and controlled demos DO NOT leave behind pools of MOLTEN STEEL.

In fact, the only molten metal on site was ALUMINIUM.

Go read all of that stuff, but at least watch the video.





In fact, if you wanna claim pools of molten steel you are debunking your own thermite, controlled demo nonsense.

That is a very interesting video and damning for Jones. Seem like there are other pictures he uses which have aroused suspicions :-

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:79

reply to post by Alfie1


EXACTLY!

The Faithers are ADAMANT that all they want is the truth, but they keep throwing Jones out their as an unbiased expert.

Jones is a con-artist at BEST.

But think about this.

He claims, essentially, that the US government colluded in the death of thousands of Americans and he fakes evidence to back up those accusations of murder.

Why would ANYONE associate themselves with that?

I understand that many of you guys think the US killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, but would you be willing to fake evidence to "prove" it?

Would you?

I know many of you guys (probably accidentally) re-post debunked stuff to prove your points, but how many of you knowingly fake evidence?




Jones does, that's clear.


Think about that before using his claims in the future.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by seethelight]

Originally posted by bigyin

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by billybob

 

I would like to apologize for my part in that credentials 'thing'.
That was a very good post you put up there. Star for that.
I am sorry for the off topic crap.....
...........and gone.

to you for this post. I may the one to blame for bringing it up in the first place, so I apologise for doing so.

No need, but thanks.
Star for you!
All's well that ends well!

[edit on 25-2-2010 by redgy]

Originally posted by redgy
No building can ever be structurely sound after planes crashing through them, fires burning inside for hours on end or falling debris smashing against it's sides. The reason they fall then is because of damage sustained from all or part of these. nothing more.

Hours on end? The buildings burned for less than 2 hours before falling to the ground in under 15 seconds, sending tons of pulverized concrete into the air like the flow of hot ash and debris from an erupting volcano...

Compare that to the Madrid apartment building fire that burned like a hot torch for over 24 hours--a fire much hotter that truly did burn for "hours on end" without any danger of collapse.

As the Official Story tells it, no building can be structurally sound just being near a building that was hit by an airplane, a la building 7.

There are enough peculiarities and incongruities at the WTC to warrant a true fact-finding investigation (as opposed to a let's only say what we can unanimously agree on investigation like the first one). Whether or not you believe that thermite was used, the pools of molten iron that remained liquid hot under the site for over 6 weeks should pique everyone's curiosity. Why the steel was removed and kept away from investigators until it was sold to China of all places begs another set of questions that should be answered. It seems there is also a vast amount of gold that was missing from the basement vaults. Why weren't standard airplane crash protocols followed for reconstruction of the event? Why was the EPA instructed to lie about the air quality following the attacks? Why did Larry Silverstein report in an interview that the Fire Department decided to "pull it" and bring down Building 7? Why did the BBC report that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did? Who told Mayor Giuliani that the buildings were about to come down? How did Condoleezza Rice know to tell San Francisco mayor Willie Brown not to fly the week of the attacks? The list goes on and on...

To those infamous one line debunkers like Dereks and seethelight: you choose to believe the Official Story, we know that. You are very big on calling people liars and other names and failing to support your contentions with rhetoric and one or two "debunker" websites that use the same kind of inference that you find fault with when it is done by those who disagree with you. The fact is, you weren't there. neither was I. Neither were the authors of your favorite website. All of your alleged "facts" are simple hearsay, conjecture, and speculation--just like the suppositions and theories that so-called "truthers" put forward. Your statements do not refute or prove anything, except that you have made a choice based on belief, not facts, just as the "truthers" have. Why the moderators allow your rhetoric, name-calling, & one-line posts to go on without censure is very curious to me & makes me wonder what agenda they are promoting, considering that this is a conspiracy web forum, but so be it.

The only salient fact you can "prove" is that you have chosen to believe that the questions most people have are meritless, nothing more. You have an opinion, which you fervently believe. Big deal. That makes you no different than anyone else who claims they know something about an event that you weren't involved in, have no first-hand knowledge of, and that you learned about on the internet or through the media. You have no moral high ground to preach from, no superiority of information or logic from which to deliver insults or labels upon those with a different opinion, and the moderators on this site ought to frikkin' recognize that fact and do their jobs in upholding the rules and T's&C's here.

Even the 9-11 Commission members have claimed that theirs is a flawed effort, but that isn't good enough for you to call into question their findings or suspect that there could be more to this event than we have been told. Certainly the Bush administration's heel-dragging & obstruction raises suspicions--enough that in most polls, over 80% of the general public claims that they believe the Bush administration either allowed the attacks to occur or took some active role in them, despite the MSM's failure to cover most of the issues in question.

But the adherents to the Official Story believe that this majority of Americans have no right to have their questions answered or their suspicions addressed. Most of the victim's families also have called for further investigation, many of them tried filing lawsuits against the Bush administration in an effort to bring the truth into the light of day, whatever it turned out to be. The DOJ stopped those lawsuits, & that, too, seems very questionable to me. Those who believe the Official Story don't seem to want these people to have their questions answered, either. Isn't that a very un-American stance to take, to be so emotionally invested in preventing the truth from being known one way or another? If the Official Story is true, & it may be, why wouldn't those who believe it also call for a more complete investigation just to shut the "truthers" up once & for all? If it is all so cut & dried & there is no chance that any of the questions so many are asking will debunk the Official Story, why are they so opposed to allowing these issues to be settled once & for all?

There is a very good thread here which supports the theory that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The arguments are sound, the rhetoric logical. But that doesn't PROVE what actually happened. There is only one way to prove what happened, & that is for the Defense Department to release the evidence it is withholding. The fact that they don't is the real smoking gun here: certain branches within the federal government have overstepped their charter & see no need to be responsive to We the People, regardless of circumstance or the possibility of treason.

Treason? Yes: how convenient that the Pentagon attack destroyed the investigation into missing funds from the Pentagon. How convenient that when building 7 fell it destroyed the investigation into ENRON's misdeeds, as well as many other SEC investigations. How convenient that the attacks filled the prescription that so many of the Bush administration's leaders had signed off on in the PNAC call for a new Pearl harbor. Aren't these questions that deserve answers?

Originally posted by redgy

Originally posted by conar

NIST did not test the steel from building 7 and thereby did not follow the scientific method.

NIST claims they could not find the steel.

have you anything to back your claim of no test being done by NIST.
how about this,

Analysis of Recovered WTC Steel.
NIST believes the collection of steel in its possession is adequate for purposes of analyzing the quality and properties of steel for the Investigation.

NIST has 236 pieces of steel in its possession.

The regions of impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection of steel pieces for the investigation. As a result, NIST has all 14 specified steel grades for the exterior panels in the WTC towers, 2 specified grades
that represent 99 percent of the core columns, and both specified grades for the steel trusses that comprised the composite floor truss system.

And yet the best they can do with this limited selection is come up with a theory that they themselves admit has a low probability of occurrence. Gosh, do you think they could do better if they were allowed more and better samples? And did they mention whether or not any of those samples actually came from the specific steel pieces that allegedly failed during the "collapse?"

From the blurb you quoted, it almost seems as though they had what they needed to fail to confirm anything except what they "knew" to be the facts already. Doesn't sound like very good science to me, and the results they derived appear to support that contention. Why couldn't they come up with a theory that had a high probability of occurrence?

There are questions that won't go away with the contradictory white-wash the NIST and the 9-11 Commission put forward. We the People have a right to have those questioned answered with hard facts and disclosure of all of the available evidence, phony "national security" issues be damned. The job of the federal government is not to protect us by removing the very freedoms our nation stands for and by denying its own accountability. The terrorists have not taken away our freedoms or our liberties, the terrorists have not destroyed our economy. The "elected" officials in the federal government have. Those who swore to uphold and protect the Constitution are the ones who are abrogating it, "to protect us." To me, this is nothing if not treason, treason most foul. And who is bankrolling these efforts to protect us so much that we are no living under tyranny rather than liberty? Private multi-national corporations. And their tactics are far more insidious and do much more damage than nation-less enemy combatants hiding in caves in the middle east. So who is to be feared and mistrusted here?

The rule of law needs to be reinstated for the law makers, since so many of them have fallen under suspicion of being law breakers.

Originally posted by without_prejudice

To those infamous one line debunkers like Dereks and seethelight: you choose to believe the Official Story, we know that. You are very big on calling people liars and other names and failing to support your contentions with rhetoric and one or two "debunker" websites that use the same kind of inference that you find fault with when it is done by those who disagree with you. The fact is, you weren't there. neither was I. Neither were the authors of your favorite website. All of your alleged "facts" are simple hearsay, conjecture, and speculation--just like the suppositions and theories that so-called "truthers" put forward. Your statements do not refute or prove anything, except that you have made a choice based on belief, not facts, just as the "truthers" have. Why the moderators allow your rhetoric, name-calling, & one-line posts to go on without censure is very curious to me & makes me wonder what agenda they are promoting, considering that this is a conspiracy web forum, but so be it.

The only salient fact you can "prove" is that you have chosen to believe that the questions most people have are meritless, nothing more. You have an opinion, which you fervently believe. Big deal. That makes you no different than anyone else who claims they know something about an event that you weren't involved in, have no first-hand knowledge of, and that you learned about on the internet or through the media. You have no moral high ground to preach from, no superiority of information or logic from which to deliver insults or labels upon those with a different opinion, and the moderators on this site ought to frikkin' recognize that fact and do their jobs in upholding the rules and T's&C's here.

EXCUSE ME, I think a lot can be said about your so called "facts' as well.
In no posts that were made by me here have I ever called someone a lier or name called them in any way.
Fact is you wouldn't have any clue to where I was at the time of event. you don't have a clue on what my favorite web sites might be or the people that I might know.
Most of what's been posted by me has factual links or quotes by parties involved in the investigations of the towers.
The only name-calling being made is by yourself.
we all have opinions, some don't seem to want to hear anything other than their own theories or any other proof that would say otherwise.
you also speak about my morals when it seems yours are in dire need of fixing, preaching of which you have no clear view of and deriving misinformation, insults, lies or degradation of my opinions and moral self.

good luck in your frenzied outragious beliefs, I really couldn't give two hoots.

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by rainfall
reply to post by john124

 

john, who are you working for..?..

If I typed MOSSAD or CIA would you actually believe it?

Or would you just believe the opposite of whatever I said, and if I said nobody, then it means the top line.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by john124]

Yes, john, I would believe it. Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying you work for nobody? Or are you not saying anything at all, and leaving the question unanswered? Please clarify it if you will. I, for one, will believe what you say, so long as you actually say something that answers the question.

A lot of conjecture has been put forward with little or no science behind it to impugn the reputation and character of Dr. Steven Jones. Accusations have been made that he has faked evidence. The basis of these claims? A photograph that could very well have been included by mistake. There is no proof that the inclusion of that particular photo was motivated by a desire to deceive anyone, and indeed, it is merely an illustration of a concept, not something offered up as "proof" of molten metal.

The video previously posted that supposedly "proves" that Jones is a fraud is ludicrous, and entirely based on conjecture. I think this video is a bit more substantial and addresses many of the objections made by the straw man arguments posted by the supporters of the Official Story.




This shows that there were indeed pools of molten metal. This is an accepted fact, unless some here are calling 9-11 "hero" Rudy G a liar. It gives the estimated temperature of the material by those on the scene, not by someone who wasn't there and is using conjecture to support a theory that is provably incorrect. It also shows that an analysis of that metal has been done, and, despite the video's misleading title, it is neither steel not aluminum.


[edit on 2/25/10 by without_prejudice]

Originally posted by without_prejudice
Originally posted by redgy

Hours on end?

Yes

The buildings burned for less than 2 hours before falling to the ground in under 15 seconds, sending tons of pulverized concrete into the air like the flow of hot ash and debris from an erupting volcano...

Bldg 7 burned for almost 7 hours. Dust always looks the same no matter the place or the source.

Compare that to the Madrid apartment building fire

Why?

As the Official Story tells it, no building can be structurally sound just being near a building that was hit by an airplane, a la building 7.

No it doesn't.

There are enough peculiarities and incongruities at the WTC to warrant a true fact-finding investigation (as opposed to a let's only say what we can unanimously agree on investigation like the first one).

Making stuff up does not suffice as a basis for a new investigation.

Whether or not you believe that thermite was used, the pools of molten iron that remained liquid hot under the site for over 6 weeks should pique everyone's curiosity.

If it were true.

Why the steel was removed and kept away from investigators until it was sold to China of all places begs another set of questions that should be answered.

Here is your answer: That's not true.

It seems there is also a vast amount of gold that was missing from the basement vaults.

There wasn't.

Why weren't standard airplane crash protocols followed for reconstruction of the event?

Because it wasn't an accident - it was a crime, there is no real doubt about why the planes crashed.

Why was the EPA instructed to lie about the air quality following the attacks?

Prove they "lied" not that they were simply wrong - there is a difference you know.

Why did Larry Silverstein report in an interview that the Fire Department decided to "pull it" and bring down Building 7?

He didn't.

Why did the BBC report that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did?

Like you, they make mistakes.

Who told Mayor Giuliani that the buildings were about to come down?

Building (s)?

How did Condoleezza Rice know to tell San Francisco mayor Willie Brown not to fly the week of the attacks?

She didn't.

The list goes on and on...

So do the answers.

To those infamous one line debunkers like Dereks and seethelight:

They're called answers. You should try and listen to them.

Why the moderators allow your rhetoric, name-calling, & one-line posts to go on without censure is very curious to me & makes me wonder what agenda they are promoting, considering that this is a conspiracy web forum, but so be it.

Is there anybody not "in on it"?

over 80% of the general public claims that they believe the Bush administration either allowed the attacks to occur or took some active role in them, despite the MSM's failure to cover most of the issues in question.

Maybe in your special world.

But the adherents to the Official Story believe that this majority of Americans have no right to have their questions answered or their suspicions addressed.

You are pretty much all alone with your "questions" and be advised that there is a difference between a real question and a baseless accusation with a question mark at the end.

Most of the victim's families also have called for further investigation,

No they haven't.

The DOJ stopped those lawsuits, & that, too, seems very questionable to me.

No they didn't.

Those who believe the Official Story don't seem to want these people to have their questions answered, either. Isn't that a very un-American stance to take, to be so emotionally invested in preventing the truth from being known one way or another? If the Official Story is true, & it may be, why wouldn't those who believe it also call for a more complete investigation just to shut the "truthers" up once & for all? If it is all so cut & dried & there is no chance that any of the questions so many are asking will debunk the Official Story, why are they so opposed to allowing these issues to be settled once & for all?

The truth has been told, everything that will probably be known and that is relevant.

There is a very good thread here which supports the theory that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Its not a theory.

The arguments are sound, the rhetoric logical. But that doesn't PROVE what actually happened.

Yes it does, it is done.

There is only one way to prove what happened, & that is for the Defense Department to release the evidence it is withholding. The fact that they don't is the real smoking gun here: certain branches within the federal government have overstepped their charter & see no need to be responsive to We the People, regardless of circumstance or the possibility of treason.

Says who - you? Why don't we vote on it in the democratic way - Oh we did - you lost.

Treason? Yes: how convenient that the Pentagon attack destroyed the investigation into missing funds from the Pentagon.

It didn't.

How convenient that when building 7 fell it destroyed the investigation into ENRON's misdeeds, as well as many other SEC investigations.

It didn't.

How convenient that the attacks filled the prescription that so many of the Bush administration's leaders had signed off on in the PNAC call for a new Pearl harbor. Aren't these questions that deserve answers?

No.

Both FEMA and NIST admitted to not testing for explosive materials in the course of their investigation. That is outrageous and points to a coverup. There is a mountain of evidence from officials on the scene, newreporters and average citizens!




Another...




From an NBC reporter...



There are hundreds of these videos also the oral testimony of firefighters taken immediately after the event.

So after seeing this evidence and taking into account the 1993 truck bombing of the WTC it is beyond incompetence...really criminal that FEMA and NIST didn't bother to test for explosives. It is a damning indictment of a coverup!

reply to post by redgy


The section of my post that you object so strongly to was not addressed to you, and I made that fact very clear.

Were you at ground zero that day? If you were, that certainly would lend some credibility to your statements or opinions. So please, put the matter to rest. Were you there?

Your bluster and willingness to take umbrage over a comment that clearly does not apply to you strikes me as out of place for someone who is rational thinker interested only in the truth, but if I misled you somehow into thinking I was talking about you, I apologize. Please let me know how I could have made it any plainer.

And I also think that my post is very clear in saying that all of us, myself included, are merely stating our conjecture and ideas or questions about the event as we have derived them from indirect sources at best. If you have a basis that makes your viewpoint something more than just an opinion, we would all be enlightened if you would clearly state how it is that you have facts, whereas the rest of us are merely stating opinions or posing questions.

reply to post by without_prejudice


Yes, but the Madrid building was steel re-enforced concrete.

Find ANOTHER building over 40 storeys tall built like the WTCs that's been hit by a giant jet full of fuel at top speed.

The Madrid comparison is NOT apt.

I know it seems SIMILAR, but it not THE SAME.

Concrete doesn't behave the same way as steel.