LOL. Suddenly we do have temperatures to liquify steel! Sheesh - talk about a moving target.

I admitted no such thing. You accused me of it because of my views about one person - and I replied that "if disliking idiot mormon professors counts as bigotry, then I am happily guilty".

That's quite different to being a bigot, or admitting to it. Thanks.

The personal invective is coming all one way here. No surprise. I haven't personally insulted anyone - but I am being insulted. Hmmm.

 

r u pretending u dont understand or u actually don t?

 

Actually, you stated that if disliking "mormons" makes you bigoted... There is a difference. When did I argue that we never had temperatures hot enough to liquify steel? I think you are confusing my arguments with those of others. Also, you haven't actually answered any of my very direct questions.

 

You perhaps want to raise that with DuskWings:

I dislike mormons. I dislike any and all religious nutters, to be honest. Bigoted? No. Rational revulsion, that's all. And as for your automatic assumptions about me - you don't know anything about me, but you reveal much about yourself, through your automatic assumptions. Because I don't agree with you, you paint me as an enemy, a supporter of the war on terror! You missed the part where I said I was very sympathetic to 911 Truth. BUT I CHANGED MY MIND. Based on the evidence. None of which was available, at first. But it is now. I'm not afraid to change my mind. Other people very obviously are. As for a war supporter.....get stuffed! I marched against it, thank you very much, and agitated against it in every way I could.

You're slipping into binary thought mode - because I don't believe in 911 Troof then.....I must be one of them!!! Gee, I must be Mossad, right? [You know how many times people have said that? lol]

So, there's little point arguing over evidence because it doesn't make any difference. And you people are getting rude and personal.

So, let's try something else?

As you're all so convinced that this was purposeful demolition - a conspiracy - who do you think is behind it, and why did they do it?

 

The real deal is: how did they do it? You can tell even without any evidence that the logistic behind this project is clearly impossible to realize. Think about it: all the people involved and no one talking about it? All possible agents so kean to kill other fellow citziens just for the sake of money? And the list goes on.
Allowing an attack is much more easier and clean instead. Nobody to accuse, negligence everywhere...
I am stressing this point too much maybe but it seems to me the most logical one on simple rational terms.

 

i give up,people won t change their mind whatever it is here

 

I'm just going to repeat the points i made earlier as i think they're valid points

1. Why won't nist release the algorithms they used to generate the computer simulation they released to explain their theory?

2. Explain how 2.25 seconds of freefall could occur other than through the use of explosives?

 

Actually predicted this kind of discussion in the beginning. No need to convince anybody of the clear 'truth'. Those who want to find out more will do the research, there are lots of resources on the web.
And SAiNT, music is WAY MORE POWERFUL than terrorist attack (which actually stirrs only the low and middle class)

 

Good shout on using music to get the message out guys

I wish more mainstream established artists/actors/celebs would come out more as 9/11 is the most important issue in our lifetime

All the banking and financial scandals, the bullshit terror 'laws' the wars in Iraq & Afghan have all stemmed from it

I'm surprised by most peoples ignorance to it acyually, we're more concerned about the issues that don't matter it seems to me

EG: we'll debate for hours over stupid political scandals like expenses, but as soon as you mention 9/11, you're a nutjob, a kook, a loonie

If that's what it is, then i'm happy to be a nutjob, because, if society as i see it it deemed to be sane, then thank fuck i'm seen to be crazy by that lot '0)

 

I'm not sure why you address that to me. And only me.

The people with really strong feelings about what happened are on the other side.

I did this 10 years ago.

http://soundcloud.com/the-last-name-left/sympathy-for-dubya2

Not saying it's brilliant........but it's a decade old. I don't need telling. Thanks. Others do. But you don't tell them. Oh well. I would expect from that track you'd get at least a scent of where I'm at. I'm a socialist - no idiot Troofer.

sure, under normal circumstances, who gives a shit?

However, I know from experience that it is better to be as straightforward as possible (in arguments with nutters about 911) - which means no edits, but instead multiple posts. I have never understood the netiquette against posting multiple posts. It separates points, it prevents headaches over edits, etc etc. Why care?

***ETA - It's one thing editing one's own posts - but it's obviously very poor form to edit other peoples' posts especially ***without saying that it has been done***. Normally it's fine, but with a contentious issue under discussion, disputes over edits is the last thing anyone needs. Text files are tiny. Don't worry about the space. Nobody is (yet) going crazy posting pages of spam.

 

G String, I think you misunderstand me. I am an atheist and also think that religion plays a large role in the horrors present throughout history and in contemporary times as well. However, one's religious beliefs have nothing to do with laboratory results. That is my point. To dismiss the results because the man doing the testing believes something completely unrelated is ludicrous and it is infact bigoted, xenophobic, and closed-minded. However, if you interpreted this as attacking you, I can assure you that this is certainly not the case. One is entitled to their beliefs. However, others are equally entitled to view you through the prism of context that you present.

 

I dismiss the results because they're rubbish, not because an idiot mormon produced them.

There are a whole litany of reasons that undermine Steven Young's "work" and which suffice to refute his claims.

You either don't know those reasons - or you ignore them.

1) The samples used have no verifiable chain of custody. Anybody could have handled the powder that was tested.
2) Jones will not provide any dust to any other researcher to test. JONES' result CANNOT be independently verified.
3) There are all sorts of technical objections to Jones' methods, AND on his interpretations of the results. *** SEE NOTE BELOW***
4) Jones did NOT submit his results for peer-review. Instead he published in a pay-to-publish, vanity press.....which itself was embroiled in scandal - because it published crap (and charged for it) and peer-review never happened properly throughout their titles. ie the claim Jones' work was "peer-reviewed" and "published in a scientific journal" are a sham.

All of that contributes to the rest of the facts which support the legitimate and reasonable opinion that Jones is a charlatan, and a wholly obnoxious individual. His idiot theories about Christ, his idiot theories about WTC and "nano-thermite", his working with a Fascist newspaper reporter, his earning a living out of it.........sheesh.



Also, what about this:

Duskwings and you disagree about this - but you both believe in demolition. How to square that circle? I mean, if both things are mutually exclusive, yet you both use those things to conclude the same thing, then it appears somehow you are both reaching the same conclusion.....but with contrary evidence! That sounds like picking the answer first, and justifying it any which way one can.




---
NOTE:

For more on Jones' dishonesty and how this nano-thermite claim is a sham...see here, for example. Plenty more out there. Ignore it at your leisure.



Here's a picture of Steven Jones, alongside his 'colleague', Christopher Bollyn.



Christopher Bollyn was a paid employee of Willis Carto's Fascist Newspaper - The Spotlight, now The American Free Press.

But Bollyn isn't a real fascist, is he?

This is from STORMFRONT - the world's largest Nazi website:

The Barnes Review is a Nazi sponsored Holocaust Denial rag. Nice company he keeps.

What goes on at these Barnes Review Conferences, at which Bollyn The Troofer speaks as guest and for whom he works? Here are some highlights:

Fight the good fight!!?!!??? SS Wiking was a division connected to Einsatzgruppen, and are accused of war crimes, obviously. Fight the good fight, huh? Seriously.....these are the folks at the heart of 911 in so far as it exists as "a movement".

See how 911 Truth fits right alongside Holocaust denial and Nazi apologism. Our dear trusty Janitor from the WTC - William Rodriguez - taking money and plaudits from a Nazi conference? Nice. He's flown around the world as a 911 "witness", thanks to his use to the "911 Movement". He has a personal financial interest in keeping the tale going. What else will he do? Become a janitor again? I doubt he looks forward to that. $$$$$

 

Interesting points G String. Many I was not aware of. I'd tell you to independently test other beams from ground zero but the government has obfuscated any sort of investigation of the WTC collapse materials. The cleanup wasn't left intact and analyzed forensically like any other disaster involving an airplane or a building collapse. Why? I for one would LOVE to see a litany of scientists analyze what really happened. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem possible given the intensely expedient removal of all metal structures from the wreckage. All requests for access to it have been denied. Why? It seems to me that the only reason they wouldn't allow it to be released is that there in something that they (conspirators within the US government) do not want us to know. Why else would they not release it? National security because of potentially dangerous information coming to light that could help terrorists in future plots? I think not. There is information about explosives, demolition abundantly available throughout the internet.

Out of curiousity, what do you think of the Warren Commission lone gunman theory (not to hijack the thread, just curious)?

 

G string, you've raised some good points, I applaud you as I was unaware of any far right connections, but, just because one is, or a few are, that doesn't mean the whole movement is does it?

Even if we disregard Stephen Jones' work completely, and even if he is a Nazi with the Hitler moustache, cross and everything say for arguments sake, and it really is just paint chips in the dust, it still doesn't explain 2.25 seconds of freefall in building 7

Or, it doesn't explain the explosions coming out of the two towers, nor the molten steel burning in the basement for 3 months

I'm sure in any movement people have their own personal beliefs, it doesn't mean that because of their personal beliefs that what they're talking about is wrong though does it?

Plus, if you're talking about fascists, then you need look no further than the American government you know?

Freefall of building 7 is a question that needs to be answered, and for me, fire induced progressive collapse just doesn't cut it

 

Ta. ;)

No they haven't. They conducted an enormous investigation.

The cleanup was 'analysed forensically' - the entire place was a crime scene. The debris was scoured for what investigators thought were important items - they were taken away and analysed. There is no need (and no realistic possibility!) of checking every single piece of steel and debris. You take the most important and relevant stuff.

That's what they did. So.....they DID investigate and they did 'analyse forensically'.

No - the most important and relevant steel members and other artifacts were separated out of the debris - and the debris was epeditiously removed. It's downtown New York!!! You want them to still be picking through it, checking every single piece? It's not necessary - and it's absurd.

It was investigated - massively. All these notions that it wasn't are formed out of myth. Everything was checked to find the important stuff - the important stuff was checked intensely - the rest cleared up and disposed of. I don't see any reason to adopt the perspective that "it wasn't investigated". It very definitely was.

I don't have a view as I don't know much about it. I'm put off by it as a topic as every man and his dog has a "theory", and there's years of junk to get through. I looked it into a few times but...I dunno. I don't feel I need an answer, tbh. I guess I'm more interested in the social/political phenomena of 'conspiracism' and its history amongst the far-right and especially in USA, rather than the supposed conspiracies they peddle. I just happen to have deeply pursued "911" from day one.....and having journeyed all the way to Troofer I crossed back again. So I know it from both sides and I understand the mentality.......and the claims, counter-claims, whatever.

I spent 10 years looking into this stuff - most of them spent going back over what we (as Truthers) believed, and having done so, trying to warn people......about what is really going down with this stuff. I would suggest you try and go source all the stuff that you think you know about it. And find out what the original source of the claims is. Also look into who is behind the 911 "movement" - in terms of ownership, organisation, finance, publishing, broadcasting, etc. I'll tell you what you'll find - the far-right. When you find yourself believing the same stuff Nazis do.......because you've been reading Nazi sourced stuff (without realising it!) then one needs ask themselves some tough questions, I think.

If you believe you can investigate 911, try investigating "911 Truth Movement" with the same rigour. Very few ever bother, that much is clear.

Thanks, and you make a fair point. Doubtless many people into 911 Truth certainly don't feel they are, nor wish to be, supporting a far-right movement. However, the point is about the functioning of "the movement" - its beliefs, leadership, finance, organisation, propaganda system, etc. And that is undoubtedly fascist in character. But you'd have to know quite a bit about "the Movement" to understand that. For obvious reasons Fascists and Nazis operating in 911 Truth don't like to make it too obvious. It's pretty obvious though. You just need properly look. That's not something Troofers are inclined to do.

There's also the important point that people can be fascist without realising it. It's an objective description from political science - it doesn't need self-recognition. When people swallow stories and political narratives sourced from fascists and Nazis, they are susceptible to picking-up beliefs, agendas and views that accord with that propaganda. Especially if they don't know it is actually fascist.

And your response is classic - "How can fighting the US Gov (a la 911 Truth) be fascist when the US Gov is fascist!"

Well, for one you're slipping into binary thinking. And the US Government is not fascist. It's highly unpleasant and disgusting in all sorts of ways - but that doesn't make it "fascist".

Think about it like this, perhaps: if the USA was fascist, it would care about its own "real" population such that it wouldn't ship jobs overseas - it would keep them in America - for REAL AMERICANS. That sort of thing is what "real" fascists would do. (And it would get considerable support from many Americans - 'cept just not when it came from obvious fascists and Nazis.) Fascists would have nationalised the banks ("FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION!") following the bank crisis......and liquidated many of the (foreign - Jewish?) bankers. Again - this would get a lot of popular support - but not if it comes from obvious fascists.

The US Gov did not do any of these things. The US government is nationalist, sure, but it is also internationalist, because it is capitalist - and liberal. Not fascist. It has elections, rulew of law, a Bill of Rights to protect individuals, racial equality legislation, constitutional rights, etc. It's horrible, but not fascist. Obama is not a fascist.

There weren't any.

Try jumping on a piece of wood with a tomato underneath. Is that "explosive"?

Comparing the report with everything we know about WTC7 gives a very good fit, imo. I don't see any reason to suppose they got anything much wrong. Part of the collapse (1/3) was judged to be "effective freefall". (That was calculated from video, btw!) So what? IIRC The NIST report suggests that by collapse the building only remained standing because of the strength of the building skin - and once that gave, obviously there was only one thing going to happen.

It seems that because one part of WTC7's collapse was "effective freefall" you are convinced all 3 buildings were demolished. I think that's a major stretch - one you're not reasonable to take.

 

On point 1, I would argue that the variables and models that NIST used are being withheld from the public. This makes independent verification impossible. As I recall, this was one of your primary concerns with claims made by the professor.

On points 2 and 3: How can they determine what is relevant and what is not BEFORE analysis has taken place? This seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

Basically, what I am arguing is that I would like to see some level of transparency in regards to the evidence, information, and other data pertaining to the WTC (among other things: see Warren Commission omissions, killed witnesses, burying of testimony/evidence, etc lol). I have had it up to my eyeballs with this National Security blanket of secrecy. As Jim Garrison once famously said: "I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."

OFF TOPIC: I think you should at least check out some of the discrepancies of the Warren Commission report. My experience in doing so is one of the major reasons that I take government fact finding panels/commissions with a very large hunk of salt. Many of the people involved have since admitted roles in the plot (E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession among them--whoa the transient in the famous picture WAS him after all). Fascinating. IMO that wasn't an assassination so much as a coup...

 

I would say "What do you mean exactly?" What is being "withheld"? Who wants what released? Who says it won't be released? etc.

There's a big difference between criminal investigation and science research. Criminal investigations aren't put out to peer-review! The government - as ever - is secretive as fuck about everything, perhaps? Nothing new there. But your Professor has no reason to be. And that's supposed to be science - up for peer-review and duplication by others (made impossible by Jones).

One can regret any Government secrecy and whatever.......but it has a point, perhaps, and has always been so. National security relies on some secrecy. It isn't hard to imagine some reason for some parsimony with info. So it doesn't necessarily point to Grand Conspiracy - not at all. Whereas personal and professional behaviour on the part of a supposed scientist who is supposedly fighting for something much better........should be......much better. Obviously?

It really isn't very surprising.

Why wouldn't they have a very good idea of what they should keep an eye out for? 10,000 trucks full of the same dust hardly matters. Whereas heat-effected, deformed main members would be obvious targets (to this untrained eye, at least). They had criteria for salvaging items for the forensic part - as opposed to the clearance. The two had to go hand-in-hand, of course. They're top-notch accident engineers.......they know what they're doing.

[Which brings about the issue of scope of conspiracy - easiest way out is to include NIST in The Conspiracy - and say it's a bunch of lies. However, that means NIST are pulling the wool over the eyes of the world's expert opinion. Or are they all in on it too? And if America's Building Code is based on spurious science......as well as ruthless cost-cutting (such as at WTC)......well, God help you!]

Incidentally, in the 70s the outgoing Fire Chief of MAnhattan warned that new buildings (such as WTC) were a disaster waiting to happen - they didn't provide his men with anything like the protection that older, more stone-based, and rigid structures did. Modern methods and materials were leading to dangerous buildings. But who cares, huh? Nobody till 911.....and seemingly they still don't. Instead let's imagine they were demolished, huh? Because American buildings should be able to withstand anything!!!! Hmmmm.

Sure. But that's a perennial complaint about Government (and big business, and capital, and whatever) - it needn't be taken as proof of conspiracy. There's no reason to do so.

Sure. But the fascists are well into "911 Truth" too. And they're the real McCoy. I believe that fact explains why 911 Truth became so.....odd. So regardless of truth.

Yes, a coup is certainly possible to imagine. Or rather, difficult not to. I probably use that as my default position - but it's miles away from believing "that is what happened!" Because I just don't know.

I don't need persuading of the malevolence of USA - I've read my Chomsky. I take his "propaganda model" as self-evident. But it doesn't need conspiracy - class interest is enough.

And that brings me to a major issue progressives should have with Conspiracy Theory (CT):- CT conceives as the world spoiled by a group of people.......if only they could be sorted out, everything would be ok. Or much better, at least. Whereas, really, the issue is not of individuals and groups but the system itself which tolerates gross inequality, in economics, in politics, in education, in healthcare, in incomes, etc etc. Circa 10,000 children die every day....from easily preventable causes. Mostly a bit of food. that isn't because of a grand conspiracy - it's because we all tolerate it. And concentrate on enriching ourselves, of course. Conspiracy Theory diverts people from that reality - and makes it about "some particular group" instead - be it Jews, Bankers, International Capital, The Globalists, The Jewish Cabal, BushCo, whatever.

Don't get me wrong - Bushco are genuinely vile imo - (and Obama little better (but better!)) But it isn't the individuals involved - it's the system. You can't expect to deal with a conspiracy and everything will be fine. YOu need to change the system. And if you change the system, any conspiracy will be dealt with along the way anyway - because you make a world where it's impossible.

Nazism put Jews at the head of the world-conspiracy supposedly ranged against Germans and Germany. That's how conspiracism works - that's how it can be instrumental.......towards Hell. I would suggest one thinks about how "conspiracy theory" was such a part of the rise to power of the Nazis in 20s and 30s Germany. It had the power to mobilise the most modern country in the world towards the Holocaust. [That's one thing Nazis do know. They're good at it - they've done it before.]

Thanks for responses, btw. I apologise if I am at all hostile over this stuff. Hopefully you understand - it isn't personal. ;)

 

You certainly answer all the points raised concisely G string I'll give you that '0)

But, you're making assumptions with your responses I think

You're assuming that NIST done an open, honest and independent investigation, NIST is part of the US department of commerce, do you think if they found anything suspicious in their investigation that they'd report it, think about it, don't NIST have a conflict of interests?

NIST also had to change their original 'theory' after the independent scientists and experts pointed out the flaws within the original pancake collapse theory

Here's how I see it, either I'm a complete braindead moronic idiot who just can't see what the mainstream media and the majority of the general public can obviously see, or, them three towers were brought down by controlled demolition

Ps I did not have sex with that woman, and I had a pull but I did not Inhale

Did I mention the molten steel burning underground for 3 months after, or has that one already been debunked by the journalists from the BBC, NYT, Popular Mechanics & skeptic magazine?

So, for me, it boils down to this simple question, Who's opinion do I value more, Bush & Co, BBC, NYT, Popular Mechanics & skeptic magazine with everything to gain, or independent scientists with everything to lose

 

Another thing, off topic but still relevant

There's paedophiles rampant and protected in the churches, they've dropped the atomic bomb twice, gulf of tonkin, operation northwood, they stole land off the red indians, they smart bomb women and children, military drones, banking corruption, private prisons, they burned so called witches at the stake, the Spanish inquisition, Guantanamo bay, corruption in the police force, Nazism, KKK, Stalin, Bosnia, Rwanda, Gas chambers, Colonialism, slavery, public executions, the death penalty, and a million other things that anyone would say, well yes, that definitely happened or that sounds rational

But, mention anything suspicious, anthing even remotley suspicious about 9/11 and you're a complete idiot and get told to shut up by everyone and anyone, but hey, believe in an invisible man in the sky, oooh that sounds rational, I think we should teach that in the schools

Society is full of mainly braindead idiots who believe anything they're told by the mainstream media....fact

I have a question for you...

Is there anything, anything at all about 9/11 that raises any questions in your mind about the truth about 9/11

It seems to me that the truth movement have all the questions, and the debunkers have all the answers

None of the debunkers have any doubts at all about 9/11....why is that?