Recently, a smart, accomplished person told me:
"I don't believe that the World Trade Center could have been destroyed by controlled demolition . . . how could they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing them?"
In fact, there were plenty of opportunities to plant bombs in the World Trade Center. For example:
Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11
The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11
Workers in the Twin Towers observed heavy work taking place on supposedly empty floors in the weeks before 9-11; supposedly, the work took place on floors the elevators would not stop on without a special access key (toward the end of the video).
There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.
Bombs could have been placed during renovation of the elevators in the Twin Towers.
And -- as an interesting coincidence -- a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.
These are just a few of the known, public examples of opportunities to plant bombs. There were undoubtedly many additional opportunities available to skilled operatives.
See also this video.
How?! Read here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/military.htm
Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11
- The 9/11 Operation: A Summary
- The Development of Bomb Technology Related to the
9/11 Operation
- Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen
Bombs
- View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the
World Trade Center Collapsed
And of course the Finnish military expert knows about what
he is talking! (I have been long enough in the sappers of
an another European country myself, and, in my country
at least, sappers regularly mine bridges, viaducts,
railroads, etc. as an exercise [yes, they undo the thing
at the end of the exercise in *normal* times, you may
imagine].)
Reading Billiard Balls [a Refutation of the Official
ReplyDeleteCollapse Theory] is also *instructive* -- see:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
As *instructive* is reading:
New official 9/11 video: The Pentagon Magic Plane
by Pierre-Henri Bunel
May 19, 2006
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20060519&articleId=2473
[Pierre-Henri Bunel is a graduate of the Ecole Militaire
de Saint-Cyr (the French officers' academy) and a former
artillery officer, whose expertise is recognized in
the following fields: the effects of explosives on
humans and buildings, the effects of anillery weapons on
personnel and buildings, firefighting for specific types
of fire, wrecks and remains of destroyed airplanes. He
participated notably in the Gulf War, at the side of
Generals Schwartzkopf and Roquejoffre.]
Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11
ReplyDeleteIt was not inexplicable, and the dogs were not "removed". The WTC had been on a heightened state of security for a couple of weeks, and a few days before 9/11 the security returned to normal. This normal security still had bomb sniffing dogs, in fact one was killed in the collapse.
If you were trying to wire the building with explosives, why would you add extra security for most of the period you would be doing this?
The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11
Only one guy claimed this, and he said it in the context of the heightened security status. Controlled demolitions takes months of work, you can't do it during a fire drill.
There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.
Scott Forbes was the only guy to claim this. Even he states this only happened in one part of one tower. The building was not closed off, he was even there part of the time. He only speculates to the security cameras not working. Interestingly enough, in regards to Ben Fountains claims, when asked whether he witnessed unusual evacuations, he replied "No".
And -- as an interesting coincidence -- a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.
They didn't "run" security, they had a contract for electronic security. Security was run at the WTC by the landlord Silverstein properties. That is who John O'Neill, who was killed that day, worke for. Was he in on it? The Port Authority Police also had a major security role, dozens of them died too. Were they in on it too?
Marvin Bush BTW, is often said to have been head of security. In fact, he was only on the board of directors, and had nothing to do with day to day functions. He also left in June 2000, over a year earlier.
So basically not a single fact on this post is accurate, but the "Scholars" still bought it. Why does that not surprise me? Judy Wood was right.
James B., Thanks for the rebuttal of G.W.'s points; it made me do some checking. Here's what I see:
ReplyDelete1. The claim that evacuations of WTC had been made prior to 9/11 was made on 9/12/01, long before any alternative explanations about the attacks had been developed, and was made in an article on People Magazine. There's just no reason to think that he was lying, and the claim does not seem to have been disputed except by you.
2. The bomb sniffing claim, also made in an article on 9/12/01, came from a security guard at the WTC. Again, no reason to question either the motives or source, especially at the time they were made.
3. Power down. While I can't see any motive for Forbes to have lied, it does appear that no attempt has been made to corroborate his claims, and that's not good journalism. Mr. Forbes did volunteer that his statements would be easy to verify, and it seems unlikely that he would he have done so if he'd been making it all up - but it's possible.
4. That Marvin Bush left the board a year earlier hardly changes the magnitude of the "coincidence" of his connection to the WTC. It's not as if Marvin was on the board of ATT. It's an obscure company based in the Middle East.
Larry Silverstein is the guy who said that WTC 7 had been "pulled", so stating that Silverstein handled security hardly increases confidence in the official story.
Maybe some people do claim that Marvin Bush "ran security" at the WTC, but George Washington didn't and neither does the article he linked, so in this case you're debunking a claim that the blogger didn't make.
So all in all, I'd say your rebuttal fails.
MLB...a comment of two on your comments:
ReplyDelete1. The claim that evacuations of WTC had been made prior to 9/11 was made on 9/12/01, long before any alternative explanations about the attacks had been developed, and was made in an article on People Magazine. There's just no reason to think that he was lying, and the claim does not seem to have been disputed except by you.
1. It could be any magazine, Jimboes world, or Time. The magazine it was in has nothing to do with the RELIABILITY of the person the magazine got the info from.
2. I didn't see JamesB dispute whether this "guy" said it or not, but merely that (i) it was only one witness account, and (ii) the statement was made about a time when the WTC was under a heightened security state.
3. What the entire point amounts to is you have a single, unconfirmed (unconfirmed by those using the point for an argument) account that states the WTC had ben evacuated a number of times. Does the witness say for how long, who was evacuated, who wasnt? Has anyone who is using this point in an argument confirmed it with other, RELIABLE sources, like a good Journalist would do.
2. The bomb sniffing claim, also made in an article on 9/12/01, came from a security guard at the WTC. Again, no reason to question either the motives or source, especially at the time they were made.
1. I agree. Noone is accusing the guard of LIEING or the MOTIVE.
2. What I get from this snippet, and what I know, and you know, is that a few weeks prior to 9/11 the security
was heightened do to threats to the building. As a result, they increased the security numbers and numbers of bomb sniffing dogs. Several days before 9/11 these numbers were reduced back to their normal security levels.
3. Power down. While I can't see any motive for Forbes to have lied, it does appear that no attempt has been made to corroborate his claims, and that's not good journalism. Mr. Forbes did volunteer that his statements would be easy to verify, and it seems unlikely that he would he have done so if he'd been making it all up - but it's possible.
You are right, it isnt good journalism. Maybe those who actually use this article/statement to further their arguments should have confirmed it. The Debunkers never use it for their arguments, how about the CTers.
4. That Marvin Bush left the board a year earlier hardly changes the magnitude of the "coincidence" of his connection to the WTC. It's not as if Marvin was on the board of ATT. It's an obscure company based in the Middle East.
It absolutely changes the magnitude of the co-incidence. The CT angle on this is that in the weeks and months prior to 9/11 "operatives" secretly planted explosives within the WTC buildings. All parties admit this would have required a long period of access to the building. the security in the buildings prior to 9/11, and since 1993 was increased substantially, so having someone at the top able to get a blind eye turned would have been key. Now, if Marvin Bush had been the "Head" of WTC security at the time of 9/11 and the weeks leading up to it, that would be very significant. James proved he wasnt in this position to start with, and wasnt even connected to the buildings secruity in the year 2001. SO you are wrong, it does change the magnitude of the co-icidence and the significance.
Larry Silverstein is the guy who said that WTC 7 had been "pulled", so stating that Silverstein handled security hardly increases confidence in the official story.
Well the "official" story does not mention Larry Silverstein in any context. The official story does not list him as a consiprator in the attacks, so his role as head of WTC security via his position as landlord, is irelivent to the "Official" sotry. I think what you might say is that Larry's role would be significant to the CT story.
Maybe some people do claim that Marvin Bush "ran security" at the WTC, but George Washington didn't and neither does the article he linked, so in this case you're debunking a claim that the blogger didn't make.
Fair enough.
I would say, on the points he addressed, JamesB substantially decreased the weight and relivence of the claims made in the original blog post wrt to any sort of form of "inside job" theory.
TAM
> Bomb-sniffing dogs were ... five days before 9-11
ReplyDeletefive days before!!! as it would have been possible to mine
a tower such one of the WTC in five days ...
> The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times
Wow: drills, false alerts, etc., so what?
> There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend
> before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many
> workers ran around busily doing things unobserved
Helpful, but unlikely indispensable: who has read Kevin
Mitnick's The Art of Deception, or Syngress' [various
authors] Stealing the Network?
> a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers,
> thus giving it free reign to the buildings
ditto, plus: are we trying to suggest that an operation
such 9/11 has lasted LESS than YEARS of planning and
projecting, hence has NOT started long time before Bush
has stolen his elections?
These are all perfect details and baits. On the other
hand, HOW the towers WENT DOWN is scientifically
irrecusable, or else we have to regress to a prescientific
understanding, in which frogs can bring forth salamanders,
newts and devils, in which putrefied meat generates
worms and flies spontaneously, and the like.
By the way: "Judy Wood was right," I have read ... Well,
unless I am missing something, Judy Wood has said that the
demolition of the towers--as we have observed it--can only
have happened with the use of powerful explosives.
I am not sure how my "rebuttal fails" considering you avoided addressing most of my relevent points. All you did was say I was accusing them of lying. I was not, I was saying that their statements were misrepresented.
ReplyDelete1. Security at the WTC was not decreased, it was increased in the period before the attacks. Bomb sniffing dogs were not removed from the WTC, they were there up until and including the day of the attack.
This is like how politicians claimd that the budget for some department has been "cut", because they increased it 5%, instead of the expected 10$.
2. The Ben Fountain quote was made not in reference to people being able to wire the buildings, but in regards to the heightened state of security.
It is a silly point anyway, you try wiring a 110 story building for demolitions during the time of the average fire drill.
3. The Scott Forbes quote is misrepresented. It only happened in part of one bulding. Security was not pulled, and the area was not closed off.
I would like to point out that "scholars" such as Jim "I never met a lie I didn't like" Fetzer, constantly change this to "strange people went through all of the three buildings replacing wiring" or such variations. If the truth is on your side, how come you keep on needing to change it?
4. Whether Bush was on the board or not is irrelevent. This is what I call a "sinister assertion". This is how conspiracy theorists work, they do google searches until they come up with some odd sounding coincidence, and repeat it in ominous terms, without ever having to explain its actual relevence.
So what if Bush was on the board of a company, which despite the blog's assertion, was not in charge of WTC security, but contracted for the electronic security. What possible difference could it make?
I imagine the conversation....
"Yeah, John O'Neill, this is Marvin Bush."
"Hey Marvin, how is it going?"
"Oh fine. Hey, you know I used to be on the board of directors for Stratesec that does security at your building. I was wondering if you could let a whole bunch of strange men in over the weekend to do some wiring. You can? That's great."
5. The Silverstein quote is just silly. He was obviously referring to pulling the firefighting efforts from around the building (unless you think the fire department was in on the plot too). "Pull it" has never been shown to be a demolitions term, except in reference to using large equipment to literally pull down small structures. CTs just repeat it over and over again, like it is some cool term they used at school.
Besides, would someone please explain why Silversteain would take out a lease on a building, only to blow it up weeks later, and potentially take billions of dollars of losses on it? I must have missed that week in business school.
Address those points successfully, and I will consider my rebuttal failed.
James B your claim that John O'Neill wouldn't give his own life for the conspiracy needs more research.
ReplyDeleteJohn O'Neill's first day on the job was Sept-11, so there is no evidence he was involved in pre 9-11 security.
Wikipedia (I know not a good source) states, “Partly due to personal friction he had within the FBI and federal government, O'Neill left to become the head of security at the World Trade Center, where he died at age 49 in the September 11, 2001 attacks.” John O'Neill was investigating the 1993 trade centre attacks. What friction was there between O'Neill and the FBI?
The FBI (or CIA) were preventing him from full investigating the 1993 attack. Even possibly arranging for him to be denied a visa to Yemen to question leads.
There is evidence Ramsy Yosuf was working for the CIA (New York Times, he stated that he was told he was part of a drill, and he was to place fake explosives in the base of the tower). So if John O'Neill uncovered this and was deemed as unreliable to maintain the secrecy, he could of being taken out, in fact it would have been to risky to presume he would die in the collapse, I would suspect he was dead before the buildings were demolished.
James B your claim that John O'Neill wouldn't give his own life for the conspiracy needs more research.
ReplyDeleteJohn O'Neill's first day on the job was Sept-11, so there is no evidence he was involved in pre 9-11 security.
Not true, he started on August 23rd. I think you need more research.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020114fa_FACT1
>The Silverstein quote is just silly. He was obviously referring to pulling the firefighting efforts from around the building (unless you think the fire department was in on the plot too). "Pull it" has never been shown to be a demolitions term, except in reference to using large equipment to literally pull down small structures. CTs just repeat it over and over again, like it is some cool term they used at school.
ReplyDeleteBesides, would someone please explain why Silversteain would take out a lease on a building, only to blow it up weeks later, and potentially take billions of dollars of losses on it? I must have missed that week in business school.<
You are totally taking the Silverstein quote out of context. "It" refers to the building, clearly. How anyone with a modicum of english skills can understand "it" is the object i.e., building.
Listen for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6ufakK2fIc
Oh yeah, one more thing on Silverstein: He took out a billion plus dollar insurance compensation. He did NOT lose billions on the WTC due to the fact the insurance policy covered what he initially paid (at the time) plus more. I'm curious if some of these posters are actually Dick Cheney in disguise. lol
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
ReplyDelete<
Please explain the following:
1. Why was the fire department involved, over 300 firemen died that day. Why was it their decision?
2. Why was the decision based on "a terrible loss of life". If there wasn't a terrible loss of life, would Silverstein had left the building standing? What possible twisted logic could explain this?
3. Even assuming that "pull it" is an obscure demolitions term, which it isn't, why would Silverstein and the fire commander be using it? Neither one of them had a background in demolitions.
4. Why would Silverstein casually brag about being involved in the murder of 3000 people in an interview with PBS?
5. Please point out a single example of "pull it" being used as a term for demolishing a building, in any other situation.
If you hypothesis that "pull it" refers to demolitions, you have to come up with ridiculously convoluted logic to explain the preceding points. If you hypothesis that he was referring to "it" as the firefighting effort, then it all makes complete sense.
1. The fire department would obviously be in charge of their personnel
2. If the fire department suffered serious casualties (over 300 lives) they obviously would be less willing to take further risks.
3. Pulling the firefighting effort would be an easily understood term between the two.
4. Silverstein was discussing that tragic day with PBS, talking about how they gave up on WTC7 would be a natural topic.
5. Pull, is a common English term for removing something.
Occam's razor people.
> Address those points successfully, and I will consider
ReplyDelete> my rebuttal failed
Pythagoras's Theorem
"[S]'il n'est pas raisonnable de douter de la validite'
du theoereme de Pythagore, ce n'est pas parce qu'on en
a vu une fois une demonstration. C'est parce qu'on sait
que cette demontstration a ete' repetee, et le risultat
applique' et recoupe' un tres grand nombre de fois sans
qu'on ait jamais trouve' le moindre indice d'une faille
dans le raisonnement. De plus, l'enonce' du theoereme est
tres court, et sa demonstration relativement simple, ce
qui renforce encore la convinction, puisqu'un raisonnement
a, toutes choses egales par ailleurs, d'autant plus des
chances d'etre juste qu'il est plus court et plus
simple.^"1
In the above sense and interpretation--as the DIRECT
OPPOSITE of Pythagoras's Theorem logic and simplicity--the
official *explanation* of the 9/11 demolition of the
towers is damned and cursed ... denounced in its absurd,
irrational, arbitrary and convoluted pretense to mock
reality and facts.
NEVER could THREE towers have been demolished the way it
has been officially *explained*--and has collectively been
observed.
The probability of all three towers going *simultaneously*
[in a sense] down for the identical reason is:
p * p * p
where p (0 <= p <= 1) is the probability for a tower to go
down when a given disaster happens.
as you can see the probability that all three events happen the
same is of the order of a cubic function:
take
p = 0.5 (50%) and you have 0.125 (12.5%) for 3 towers
p = 0.3 (30%) and you have 0.027 (2.7%) for 3 towers
p = 0.1 (10%) and you have 0.001 (0.1%) for 3 towers
Notice that I am kindly using ASTRONOMICAL LARGE p's
already: NEVER in history it has been a tower of the kind
of the ones involved come down for the reasons invoked.
But wait, the worse comes now: it's IMPOSSIBLE to
scientifically explain and simulate the disaster that has
been observed using the model of the official narrative of
the demolitions.
Hence it doesn't matter *per se* [though as many plausible
representations one wishes can be made on how things could
have been accomplished still] if bomb-sniffing dogs,
inhaling giant anteaters or galloping tapirs [long noses]
where in the building: eventually explosive charges have
been activated--or else the tower could not have been
demolished the way people have seen.
Security was heightened and Victor Krum [Harry Potter]
was patrolling too? Well, in vain ... unless we start to
appeal on telekinesis.
And so on. (You should at the least do your homework and
read the articles at the URLs I have given, besides.)
Please elaborate on: --This is what I call a "sinister
assertion."
And on Silverstein there should be enough around ...
though I would suggest you to start with Richard P.
Feynman instead.
1. La Fiabilite' des Programmes, Prof. Henri Leroy,
Presses Universitaires des Namur/Belgium
I am not JamesB, but I posted above earlier, so I would like to address your "post":
ReplyDeletePythagoras's Theorem
"[S]'il n'est pas raisonnable de douter de la validite'
du theoereme de Pythagore, ce n'est pas parce qu'on en
a vu une fois une demonstration. C'est parce qu'on sait
que cette demontstration a ete' repetee, et le risultat
applique' et recoupe' un tres grand nombre de fois sans
qu'on ait jamais trouve' le moindre indice d'une faille
dans le raisonnement. De plus, l'enonce' du theoereme est
tres court, et sa demonstration relativement simple, ce
qui renforce encore la convinction, puisqu'un raisonnement
a, toutes choses egales par ailleurs, d'autant plus des
chances d'etre juste qu'il est plus court et plus
simple.^"1
Not sure the point of stating it in French. Was it to show us you speak it, or your love of stating famous scientific theorems in another language...just not sure. How about german, or latin? We could collect them then. For me to understand it I would have to know French. I do not.
In the above sense and interpretation--as the DIRECT
OPPOSITE of Pythagoras's Theorem logic and simplicity--the
official *explanation* of the 9/11 demolition of the
towers is damned and cursed ... denounced in its absurd,
irrational, arbitrary and convoluted pretense to mock
reality and facts.
Nice piece of opinion.
NEVER could THREE towers have been demolished the way it
has been officially *explained*--and has collectively been
observed.
yet another well stated piece of opinion.
The probability of all three towers going *simultaneously*
[in a sense] down for the identical reason is:
p * p * p
where p (0 <= p <= 1) is the probability for a tower to go
down when a given disaster happens.
1. If only real life were a mathematic equation.
2. all three events were not identical. So many differing variables would mean major adjustments to each p value, making each different. Given you have no reference for what p should be (there has never been a previous case of a 767 striking a Steel Framed Skyscraper at 500 mph before either, so your reference as to what p should be is flawed).
as you can see the probability that all three events happen the
same is of the order of a cubic function:
As I have said. With all the different variable of each scenario of the three tower collapses, your p's would each be different, and hence it is not a cubic function, but rather 3 different numbers multiplied together.
take
p = 0.5 (50%) and you have 0.125 (12.5%) for 3 towers
p = 0.3 (30%) and you have 0.027 (2.7%) for 3 towers
p = 0.1 (10%) and you have 0.001 (0.1%) for 3 towers
Notice that I am kindly using ASTRONOMICAL LARGE p's
already: NEVER in history it has been a tower of the kind
of the ones involved come down for the reasons invoked.
I just went through this. read above.
But wait, the worse comes now: it's IMPOSSIBLE to
scientifically explain and simulate the disaster that has
been observed using the model of the official narrative of
the demolitions.
IMPOSSIBLE? Where is your proof that it is IMPOSSIBLE. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof (to paraphrase Sagan).
Now I can see you coming, so I know you will next say you cannot "prove" an impossibility. To that I would say, that NIST certainly has proven the "Most Likely" cause of the collapses.
Hence it doesn't matter *per se* [though as many plausible
representations one wishes can be made on how things could
have been accomplished still] if bomb-sniffing dogs,
inhaling giant anteaters or galloping tapirs [long noses]
where in the building: eventually explosive charges have
been activated--or else the tower could not have been
demolished the way people have seen.
I would love to see your qualifications to say that all of the engineers working for NIST who have said there was no evidence of conventional explosives found, and no evidence they were used, are wrong. That is what you are saying. More exactly, you are saying that ONLY, ONLY, explosives could have brought down the towers...I see.
Security was heightened and Victor Krum [Harry Potter]
was patrolling too? Well, in vain ... unless we start to
appeal on telekinesis.
Childish, I will leave it.
And so on. (You should at the least do your homework and
read the articles at the URLs I have given, besides.)
SOLID EVIDENCE. UNDISPUTABLE FACTS. EXPERT (get that...EXPERT) OPINIONS.
BRING THEM ON AN I AM ALL EARS.
And on Silverstein there should be enough around ...
though I would suggest you to start with Richard P.
Feynman instead.
Maybe you should start with Protec's article, unsolicited by the way (unlike all the Scholar articles), that involved questioning many demolition experts, none of whom say that "Pull It" is used with reference to bringing a building down with explosives. In fact, they say it is only used in reference to manually assisting in pulling the building down to a particular area to avoid colateral damage to a nearby structure. These same Demolition Experts also indicate that a 3rd party such as Silverstein would never have the authority to tell a demolition team to "pull" anything.
Since we know it is the responsibility of Demolition, not the Fire Department to bring down a building, He couldn't have been giving the order to "pull down" the building, as you suggest, as it would have been useless to tell the fire dept such a thing, and if he was talking to Demolition, he had no authority to tell them to "Pull" the building anyway.
Wow, you can quote passages in French, I am so impressed by your intellectualism. Shall I in my rebutal cite an equally irrelevent passage from my Russian copy of War and Peace?
ReplyDeleteSince you failed to address a single factual point that I raised, I will assume that you have conceded that part of the argument and are now moving on to some warped interpretation of probability theory. Typical conspiracy theory logic, when you are proven wrong, change the subject.
Your use of probabilities is absurdly incorrect though. You cannot argue the probability of something (or a series of somethings) happening, based on the fact they already occurred.
What are the odds that both the Seahawks and the Steelers would go to the Superbowl last year? 1 in 500? The Steelers hadn't gone to the Superbowl in years, and the Seahawks had never been there. Then does this prove this could not have happened?
These 3 events did happen, and you would not be asking the question if they had not. Unless you wish to repeat these events a large number of times under the exact same conditions to test their probability of occurence, the only probability you can then assign to them is 1.
I have already defined a "sinister assertion". It is one or more events which are presented in ominous sounding terms, which is intended to prove some sort of sinister event occuring, but no argument is made as to its relevence.
Another famous example with conspiracy theorists is Charles Burlingame, the pilot of AA77. The CTs argue that he took part in a mass casualty exercise (MASCAL)at the Pentagon years before which rehearsed the medical response to a plane crashing into the Pentagon. Whether this is true or not remains up in the air, but for the sake of argument we will assume it is.
But even if it is, so what? It sounds ominous. It sounds like a weird coincidence, but what is its relevence. They don't argue he actually flew the plane. The exercise did not involve actually crashing a plane, so how would him being involved in rehearsing medical triage have any relevence?
It doesn't, and nobody has ever argued that it does, but they repeat it often because it sounds ominous. Thus the term "a sinister assertion".
There's a lot of love in this room.
ReplyDeleteThe prevailing impression seems to be that the window of opportunity for placing explosives prior to 9/11 was pretty brief -- a few weeks, at most.
ReplyDeleteI find that very strange. No doubt there was ample time and opportunity for optimal placement of cutting charges. Why not something more on the order a few years?
Proponents of the controlled demolition theory, such as Prof. Steven Jones, postulate the use of a form of explosive, such as thermite, that was not at all likely to detonate prematurely, e.g., as a result of an ordinary office fire. (As Jones has shown, the stuff just sits there quite harmlessly, even at temperatures approaching 1700 F.)
The only problem with the hypothesis of an extended time frame is that it leaves the perps more time to grow a conscience before finishing what they started. (Fat chance.)
I would like to challenge the idea that the removal of the bomb dogs had any thing to do with the placement of demolition materials. I do believe that the buildings were brought down by demolition, make no mistake of that. Dogs have to be trained for specific stimuli. In fact dogs that sniff for bombs are not necessarily drug dogs at the same time (in fact they probably aren't, being trained for each stimulus is a time consuming matter). This is because they are two different stimuli.A drug dog for example may be trained for pot but not mushrooms. Bombs can be composed of various components depending on the job at hand. I think that it is entirely possible that the demolition materials were materials which the dogs were not trained for. For example the basic components of thermate if brought in separately could easily be brought past gaurd dogs which would in turn mean there are less restrictions on the set up time for the explosives. It would be nice to know the exact training regime's the dogs were on with regards to the stimulants used. I would be willing to wager that thermite/thermate and it's individual components were not any of them.
ReplyDelete> Shall I in my rebutal cite an equally irrelevent passage
ReplyDelete> from my Russian copy of War and Peace?
Because you believe that the original French passages have
been removed or translated from the English or German
editions?
> Your use of probabilities is absurdly incorrect though.
absurdly incorrect?! so you have decided to make a clown
of yourself: and incorrect versus what ... absurdly
correct?! Do you know what absurd does mean?
> You cannot argue the probability of something (or a
> series of somethings) happening, based on the fact they
> already occurred.
It seems that you ignore that statistics permits to
evaluate how much *plausible* and *good* sets of *data*
are, if they are *tainted* or not ...
What does it mean that our three towers have ALL
been demolished in one *strike*? That their p's
alone--which, nota bene, come in in a series of events
whose possibilities of realization were by themselves
beyond imagination already--have *unrealistically* been
TOO HIGH with near certainty ... unless we explain their
destruction with controlled-demolition.
All the three towers *hit* (to speak, never mind for the
3rd tower) and broken down is complementary to: all the
three towers hit and standing, and are the extremes of a
graphic which tells about the chances of the towers to
stand or disintegrate. (And guess, the extremes are the
most unlikely to happen ...)
The case in which the towers stay up is vacuously
not *random*--in the sense that the towers have been
engineered to do that--and is also the desired goal, and
where standing already. ALL THREE towers down is on the
contrary suspect, in particular when NEVER, in history,
such especially engineered towers have collapsed under
comparable circumstances ... not even a single case once
upon a time. But let put these remarks on the *freezer*,
to speak, because it comes now the real meat ... to borrow
from the culinary repertoire.
INDEPENDENT, SCIENTIFIC, RIGOROUS, and SOUND studies
have been made on 9/11, and what gets *discovered*? ...
that neither the mechanics, nor the thermodynamics, nor
the chemistry of the destruction of the towers can be
explained via the conceptual model from the official
account--in fact these studies CLEARLY and CONVINCINGLY
[the reference to Pythagoras of above was hinting on that]
REFUTE the dynamics of the representation by the official
version. [Visit the URLs that I have given already]
On the other hand, these studies DO NOT--even ... CAN
NOT--invalidate the dynamics which constitutes the
*kernel* of what abusively is called collectively: the
*conspiracy-theories*. Tragically, this kernel is also the
ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION that science--and I mean modern
science, not magic--leaves to us. [Notice that there exist
methods of demonstrations which can be used when a direct
proof can't be made ... apropos *absurd*, let's recall
the demonstration by the absurd: in short, you try to
negate a given thesis, after that you are driven into the
impossible; again, visit the URLs from above.]
OK, now combine this shocking discovery--the
disintegration of the towers that can only scientifically
be explained as it has been observed via the controlled
demolition model--with the absolutely phenomenal
probability of the THREE towers becoming destroyed AT
ONCE.
Then look at the current administration. Look at the
similarly impossible official account of what should have
happened at the Pentagon. Look at Madrid; look at London,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, ...
I care the tail of a rat, on sniffer-dogs and the other
*accessory* snippets that have been mentioned. If you
reread my replies you will see that I even try to NOT bite
at the hook as much I can. They are not conditio sine qua
non, though they might have played a role here and there.
I even can skip--for now--the entire *mise en scene* of
the airplanes. FATAL, and indeed it's precisely the rat
glue in which the apologists have stuck--is HOW THE TOWERS
DISINTEGRATE, which can only--and visit the fu###ing URLs
for once--explained via a controlled demolition and NEVER
by the official version.
This is what is relevant at this stage. Anything else
can't diminish the generality of the evidence [controlled
demolition]. If it makes you happy, I don't mind if we
say, as a first approximation, that the charges have been
placed by magical flying armadillos ... we will find later
a more *rational* narrative on how, where in detail, and
by whom, etc. the explosives where placed.
> It is one or more events which are presented in ominous
> sounding terms, which is intended to prove some sort of
> sinister event occuring, but no argument is made as to
> its relevence.
This is circular and arbitrary talking--it's also well
described and analyzed in Prophets of Deceit^1. Tell which
"sinister event[s] occurring" you mean, which are the
"ominous sounding terms," and which shortage of arguments
makes you suffer.
1. Prophets of Deceit: A Study of the Techniques
of the American Agitator, by Leo Lowenthal and Norbert
Guterman, with a foreword by Herbert Marcuse [and an
introduction by Max Horkheimer]
> Not sure the point of stating it in French.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you have not noticed that the book which I have
given as the reference has a title in French, and it does
come from Belgium [where people speak mainly French, then
Flemish, plus several dialects]. I have been tempted to
assume that French is enough an *international* language
for *enlightened* people, I stand corrected. But don't
worry, would have the book have been written in [say]
Italian, or Swedish, I would have translated the passage.
It's less about love of "stating famous scientific
theorems" [it doesn't *state* any theorems by the way,
and I wonder, given the relative simplicity of Pythagoras
theorem, if it has been impossible to figure it out even
by not knowing French]; it's about simplicity, conciseness
and logic of proofs in general [Pythagoras' theorem is
mentioned as the masterpiece of the examples]. While you
need to reverse logic, understanding and science to make
9/11 "accountable" accordingly to the official version.
> As I have said. With all the different variable of each
> scenario of the three tower collapses, your p's would
> each be different, and hence it is not a cubic function,
> but rather 3 different numbers multiplied together.
Not wrong, strictly speaking. Indeed it should have been:
0.00...01 [for the 3rd tower--guess why?] times p**2
which would have made things even *more impossible* [to
speak ... I know what pleonasms are].
You are mistaken for the other two towers [we don't mind
for deltas such perhaps +/- 0.001, yes?]. Notice by
surplus on the other hand that not only have ALL the three
towers disintegrated. They have--magic in the magic--ALL
THREE disintegrated SYMMETRICALLY [guess how much this is
rarer still], virtually.
> IMPOSSIBLE? Where is your proof that it is IMPOSSIBLE.
To pick one out of the MANY--all FATAL by themselves
already--arguments [from the thermodynamics]: the energy
balance--which can be/and has been approximated--has an
INSURMOUNTABLE deficit in energy ... should the tower have
been fallen simply because of gravity.
Even by taking in account the kerosene which has been
burned [mostly *harmlessly* ... but consider it by 100%],
never gravity alone would have been able to pulverize
the towers, heat, melt and vaporize tonnes of steel,
crystallize minerals, create and project clouds at
distance of dust and others debris, proceed downwards
while disintegrating like it has been observed ... why
you don't research at the different, 1st order sites that
exist on the Internet?
What does you make ask: --Where is /your/ proof that it
is IMPOSSIBLE-- are you nuts, do you live at the blog and
under a rock exclusively ... or was it just love for the
rhetoric?
> SOLID EVIDENCE. UNDISPUTABLE FACTS. EXPERT (get
> that...EXPERT) OPINIONS. BRING THEM ON AN I AM ALL EARS.
All ears?! And where have they been--your ears--all the
time, now that it is anno 2006 ... under a hat made of a
loaf like with Pinocchio when he has been in the *Paese
della Cuccagna* and his ears started to embarrassingly
elongate? Or you just have started yesterday to connect to
the Internet? Which kind of a joke are you? Try to type
911 at google.com ... [take note: google.com, and today
you have made your day]
Errata [Pinocchio]: under a kind of turban actually, in
ReplyDeletethe example I have made ...
For those who insists in displaying their--see
ReplyDeletebelow--"utmost total ignorance" ...
WHAT WE KNOW AND DON'T KNOW ABOUT 9/11
by Paul Craig Roberts
August 18, 2006
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROB20060818&articleId=3003
[Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of
the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing
Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny
of Good Intentions]
"[I] will begin by stating what we know to be a solid
incontrovertible scientific fact."
"[W]e know that it is strictly impossible for any
building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake"
at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial
fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the
WTC buildings is false."
"[T]he only explanation known to science for the free fall
collapse of a building, especially into its own footprint,
is engineered demolition, which removes the supports for
each floor of the building at split second intervals so
that the debris from above meets no resistance on its
fall. To call this explanation a "conspiracy theory" is
to display the utmost total ignorance. Any physicist or
engineer who maintains that buildings can "pancake" at
free fall speed has obviously been bought and paid for or
is a total incompetent fool."
Etc.--read the original article
For the Fench Speaking Intellectual Biggot:
ReplyDeleteBring it down a notch. I have 9 years of College Education, a Diploma of Electronic Engineering Tech, Bachelors of Medical Science, and an MD, so just speak like an ordinary person. You think all the people who think most of the official story is correct are just stupid or simpletons...give up the academia nauseum. Not all intelectuals focused their studies on multiple languages.
For the article by Paul Roberts:
I am not an expert in Structural Engineering or Demolition...are you? Is Mr. Roberts? I know the MIT Civil Engineering Dept. are. I known The people at Protec are. I know the people at NIST and FEMA are. I will trust their world any day over anyone less qualified, no argument.
As for the free fall issue, neither of the buildings fell at free fall. They were close to free fall and NIST has addressed this in their FAQ as well as in their reports...I don't claim to understand their explanations fully, as I said, I understand the role of EXPERTS in a given field. What do the experts that believe it was "inside job" have to say about the NIST explanation. Proffesor Jones, or Professor Wood, or Professor...oh wait, are there any other professors of the related sciences, that believe it was an inside job? If so then give the names and tell them to publish their papers on it, so the general public can see their work.
As for falling in its own footprint, it was far from in its own foot print. How many nearby buildings were severely damaged from the fall of those two towers.
You wanna argue the Physics or mechanics of the crash, find someone who is an expert...it isn't me. I have enough sense to quote them.
I can argue the logic of a situation, or what strikes me as strange, or unusual, but then I usually go to the EXPERTS in that field and see what they have to say. I don't assume everyone has an AGENDA on the issue either.
I don’t believe French has been widely used by intellectuals in the last 150 or so years. Things have gone downhill ever since that Napoleon guy, where have you been?
ReplyDeleteI’ll tell you what, how about we embrace your rather original way of determining probabilities and use it to determine the likelihood of an inside job involving controlled demolitions.
What are the odds that the average American would be willing to conduct an attack killing thousands of his fellow citizens? Probably pretty low, I don’t know a single person who would do this, but I will be charitable and say 50%. Figure that on the low side there are 50 people involved in the attack.
What are the odds that without getting noticed, you could emplace thousands of explosives in large office buildings with hundreds of security guards and policemen, that is occupied around the clock by some of the world’s most prominent firms, many with yet again another layer of security. I would say pretty low, but I will be charitable again and say 50%. You allege of course that this took place in 3 buildings, so that lowers the odds.
What are the odds that each these 50 conspirators would, after the fact, keep perfectly quiet, and not leak or expose themselves or others? Well there is no way of knowing, but I will guess that already being involved, most of them would want to stay quiet, so I will just say 10%.
What are the odds that after all of these complex events, none of the thousands of investigators in multiple agencies, the NYPD, FBI, NTSB, NIST, the FDNY etc. would not discover evidence of the plot? I don’t know, but 50% sounds good. How about all the news agencies? The NSA can’t even monitor Al Qaeda cell phone calls without it being printed in the New York Times. How likely is it that they would not find out about the biggest plot in the history of the world? Another 50% sounds good.
So our probability formula (based on your rules) works out to: .5 ^ 50 * .5 ^ 3 * .9 ^ 50 * .5 * .5.
So we have scientifically determined that the probability of this being a plot involving controlled demolitions is 1.43046 x 10 ^ -19
Not exactly betting odds.
Stratesec was briefly one of my clients. My employment was with an insurance broker and my role for Stratesec was to broker for them a surety bond line of credit from an insurance company. A surety bond is a third-party guarantee of a legal obligation - no connection or relationship to bonds in the sense of stocks and bonds. In this instance, the main purpose of the surety bond line of credit was to provide tender (bid) security and peformance and payment bonds to guarantee contracts for security systems work.
ReplyDeleteStratesec came to my employer because the insurance company, Frontier, was broke. In a nutshell, Frontier had had too many contractors go broke and it cost them too much money in their claims from project owners.
Stratesec's first name was Securecom. Another firm had that name, so it was changed. Securecom was a spin-off from a security company named Burns. KuwAm, a firm controlled by Mishal Youself Soud Al Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, initially controlled Securecom directly and indirectly with 90% of shares. Other shareholders included President Geo. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush; Wirt Walker III (a cousin); Lt. General James Abrahamson USAF and Emmit J. McHenry, chairman of NetCom. McHenry's firm, Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), acquired by VeriSign in 2000 for $15 billion, developed the internet domain registry on a grant from the National Science Foundation. Abrahamson was appointed by Reagan to head the Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars" program and I believe that he may have commanded the Air Force in the Persian Gulf War.
Albeit closely held, Securecom / Stratesec was a public company. 10-K and 10-Q documents are thus available online and they include much of this background information.
KuwAm repeatedly pumped additional capital into Stratesec to the tune of about $20 million to cover repeated annual losses. The official story is that Stratesec's original business plan was to increase revenue faster than the profit curve in order to rapidly acquire market share and thereby become a dominant national security firm. Actually, the term "systems integrator" is more appropriate.
A contract to install systems at the WTC towers was identified as a major problem. Contract losses reportedly resulted from problems in developing custom software that they subcontracted to a group of Berkely professors. Its President, blamed for the losses, left when that chapter was closed.
I discussed the WTC contract with Barry McDaniels, Stratesec's last President. He told me that acquisition of the WTC contract had been negotiated by Ron Thomas, his predecessor. McDaniels said that all of the people involved in the matter were gone, that the contract was poorly documented and that, in consequence, nobody understood it well enough to discuss it, so it just wasn't worth delving into. He said that Thomas did not delegate adequately but instead carried a lot of information concerning the contract in his head and that he wasn't available to discuss it either. Thomas had left with a golden parachute that included shares and and a consulting contract for which he had to do virtually nothing. This conversation with McDaniels was in 2000.
I suggest that an appropriate area of research might be to obtain 1) a copy of the contract to determine precisely what sort of equipment and software Stratesec was to install and 2) obtain a copy of the subcontract with the Berkley professors.
Another of Stratesec's major contracts at the time was installing security systems at TVA facilities. Maybe a dam or two will blow up next time.
> Not exactly betting odds
ReplyDeleteEvery tower which has been destroyed on 9/11 has been
built to withstand impacts from large aircraft. Go to
http://www.physics911.net/ or google and research a bit:
never the fire of the kerosene could have damaged the
steel beams significantly. No one comparable building in
history has ever been destroyed by fire structurally.
[Notice that one of the tower has not even been hit by an
aircraft.]
This makes our p VERY, VERY, VERY tiny. Let's add the
additional requirement x tower that the building needs to
break down [merely by gravity nota bene] in a symmetrical
*fashion*. This restricts our already microscopic p
further. Let's pick the biggest one of them [the p's] ...
We get: all three tower disintegrating on 9/11 is of the
order p**3.
Ergo, 9/11 exhibits another *premiere* as well: from a
steady zero in the history of civil engineering to no less
than three towers disintegrating in one blow ... and with
just a nearly disappearing p**3 of likelihood!
Wow, if this is not statistics of the phenomenal and a
*performance*.
>What are the odds that the average American >would be willing to conduct an attack >killing thousands of his fellow citizens? >Probably pretty low...
ReplyDeleteI concur wholeheartedly. Unfortunately it is pure speculation about the situation. If an individual was told to place detonation devices so that the buildings could be brought down killing the inhabitants more than likely only a sociopath would go through with it. On the other hand if someone was told to install devices for a legitimate demolition in which all the inhabitants would be cleared at the time of demo., someone used to doing their job would probably do it even if it wasn't performed in the normal manner. This is a matter of perception control, something the US government has researched extensively. The matter of how to get someone to do something is to manipulate their view of the situation. For reference I recommend looking up "Solomon Asch" on "social conformity".
>What are the odds that without getting noticed, you could emplace thousands of explosives in large office buildings with hundreds of security guards and policemen...
Again this is speculation. Maybe the people bringing in the demo's weren't hidden but the materials they brought in were or were masked. The WTC's had a large number of people working there could it possibly be that hard to blend in?
>What are the odds that each these 50 conspirators would, after the fact, keep perfectly quiet, and not leak or expose themselves or others?
For all we know some story could have been concocted to fool the people planting the demo's. To speculate even further the people who were not in the know could have been told to report to the WTC that day to do some 'other' work and in the process they could have been killed and thus silenced. We should steer clear of speculation because we have plenty to work with as is. The buildings were pulvarized in a manner inconsitent with gravitational forces alone.
>The NSA can’t even monitor Al Qaeda cell phone calls without it being printed in the New York Times.
Not every call monitored makes the headlines. Generally the ones the government wants us to hear about to manipulate our opinion on matters.
>So we have scientifically determined that the probability of this being a plot involving controlled demolitions is 1.43046 x 10 ^ -19
This statement is a joke. Either you are willfully ignorant and trying to rationalize your own cognitive dissonance on the matter or you are trying to confuse others who are seeking the truth.
Well when speculation is all you have, such as with all the Conspiracy Theories, I guess you are entitled to speculate here, so go ahead, speculate away.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why not calculate the probability that out of all the people that would be required to set up this "legitimate" Demolition, noone involved would tell someone about it.
Oh, I know, you'll say they were told "not to tell", but the same is said to all those who whistleblow or leak info, so it is irrelivent.
Please explain the following:
ReplyDelete1. Why was the fire department involved, over 300 firemen died that day. Why was it their decision?
Don't you think the fire department was on the scene of where a fire was located? Moreover, you'll have to ask Mr. Silverstein why he used the firemen in his story.
2. Why was the decision based on "a terrible loss of life". If there wasn't a terrible loss of life, would Silverstein had left the building standing? What possible twisted logic could explain this?
Well, in controlled demolition there is precision vs. burning inferno. In context the "terrible loss of life was in reference to what had happeened that day." You're not dealing with logic on a made up story.
3. Even assuming that "pull it" is an obscure demolitions term, which it isn't, why would Silverstein and the fire commander be using it? Neither one of them had a background in demolitions.
First of all, let's get one thing straight: Silverstein is trying to explain WTC 7, hence his story doesn't make logical sense, but he CLEARLY, in the context of language refers to it as the building. You keep avoiding this concise point by posing questions on a bogus story to begin with...it's all about the context, which clearly demonstrates it=building them=firemen.
4. Why would Silverstein casually brag about being involved in the murder of 3000 people in an interview with PBS?
Uh, how is he bragging? Again, your questions bypass the context (you keep avoiding).
5. Please point out a single example of "pull it" being used as a term for demolishing a building, in any other situation.
Okay, you do realize when people describe certain events/actions, different words are used. For example, I might say, "yank it" that does NOT necessarily mean it's a technical term for demolition, rather it's all about the context.
If you hypothesis that "pull it" refers to demolitions, you have to come up with ridiculously convoluted logic to explain the preceding points. If you hypothesis that he was referring to "it" as the firefighting effort, then it all makes complete sense.
1. The fire department would obviously be in charge of their personnel
per Silverstein's story
2. If the fire department suffered serious casualties (over 300 lives) they obviously would be less willing to take further risks.
Agree, but once again Silverstein clearly references the firefigthers when discussing WTC 7.
3. Pulling the firefighting effort would be an easily understood term between the two.
4. Silverstein was discussing that tragic day with PBS, talking about how they gave up on WTC7 would be a natural topic.
True.
5. Pull, is a common English term for removing something.
Euphemism perhaps? Either way, all these questions don't answer the context of Silverstein's dialogue. You're really trying hard to change the obvious meaning of Silverstein's comments to "pull it".
On the other hand if someone was told to install devices for a legitimate demolition in which all the inhabitants would be cleared at the time of demo., someone used to doing their job would probably do it even if it wasn't performed in the normal manner. This is a matter of perception control, something the US government has researched extensively.
ReplyDeleteHuh? That has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. How could you possibly find a group of people cunning enough to serreptitiously emplace thousands of explosives in a secure office building, but yet utterly moronic enough to think that this was an entirely innocent act? Geez, you people are desperate to find some logical explanation for your ridiculous theories.
About the whole, "You can't have secrecy like that, someone would squeal!" myth.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of organized secrecy, there are numerous accounts of different projects and operations that did not get exposed until well after the execution was observed:
1) The Manhattan Project: Noone knew that this existed until well after the project was finished (i.e: creating the first nuclear bomb). Obviously there were a lot of people involved in the project, but noone squealed as you say.
2) The "remember the Maine" incident. Although the resulting destruction of this ship is either from deliberate action by top US officials at the time OR it was an accident resulting from ammunition stored too close to the engine, what it wasn't was the story given by then president William McKinley and his administration. US leaders of the time falsely stated that Spain blew up the ship, so America could use it as a pretext for war. The leaders of the time knew the truth, but decided to keep it a SECRET for a very long time (we didn't recieve any conclusive evidence until 1976).
3) Operation Gladio: Gladio was part of the Italian Secret Army. The operation was to create multiple false flag operations including the bombing of public transit systems, and public plazas. In 2001 the former head of Italian counterintelligence said of the Piazza Fontana massacre: "The CIA, following the directives of its government, wanted to create an Italian nationalism capable of halting what it saw as a slide to the left". There are other numerous testimonies from both former Italian government officials and American intelligence officers on this subject. NOTE: This operation has been secret for over 20 years, no one leaked, squealed or gained a conscience until Judge Casson discovered documents revealing the existence of Gladio and its connection to the US.
This list could go on, as this is but a smattering of operations that have been made public over the years. Also, you might want to ask yourself this question: If someone was directly complicit with a secret operation that would lead to no less than the hangman's noose for treason, do you think that might be a good reason for them NOT to speak? Or, what if someone inside casually stated, "you know Bob, if you go public with your story, I don't know if we can protect your family from some crazy person that isn't happy with your statement". The list of reasons to remain quiet also could go on and on. Just wanted to give people some simple answers to the myth that a secret operation can most certainly be kept a secret (it is after all, by definition SECRET if it is kept secret).
>Huh? That has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard.
ReplyDeleteI see that you're acknowledging willful ignorance. If you took the time to look up the study I cited you might be able to understand how perception can be manipulated. Yes, that's right the average Joe can be manipulated. Here's another person you should look up Muzafer Sherif. Just take 10 minutes to google and read some of his study layouts and results. You and the rest of the sheep need to start waking up because this country is going downhill fast.
>How could you possibly find a group of people cunning enough to serreptitiously emplace thousands of explosives in a secure office building, but yet utterly moronic enough to think that this was an entirely innocent act?
Again young grasshoppah. Perception management. It's the type of things PR firms do.
>Geez, you people are desperate to find some logical explanation for your ridiculous theories
Take the time to examine the studies I mentioned. There are many other very fascinating social psych studies out there but these hit close to the mark on getting others to do something by fooling them. Kinda like all the combat examples list by Anonymous. The most ridiculous theory of them all is that those planes dropped the buildings. But if you repeat something enough times with out any critical questioning of it the sheep follow.
Bahhhh bahhh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzafer_Sherif
Pro memoria, and with Pythagoras in mind [see above] ...
ReplyDeleteRef. is:
9-11 Anomalies
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html
"[A]ccepting the official story of the 9/11/01 attack
requires one to accept a long series of anomalies --
extremely improbable events, amazing coincidences, and
contradictions. This page lists many such anomalies."
BUILDING COLLAPSES
- On 9/11/01 three skyscrapers totally collapsed with fire
given as the sole or primary cause. Fires and bombings
have never before or since caused steel-frame buildings to
collapse.
BUILDING 7
- Building 7 imploded late on 9/11/01. It was not hit by
an aircraft.
- Building 7 experienced total collapse, allegedly because
of fires, when no steel-frame building before or since has
ever collapsed, totally or even partially, due to fires.
Building 7 was an over-engineered 47-story steel-frame
skyscraper, standing over 350 feet from the nearest of the
Twin Towers. Only small fires burned in it on September
11th.
- Building 7 collapsed in a nearly perfectly vertical
fall, leaving the buildings only 60 feet on either side
virtually unscathed.
- Building 7 collapsed into a remarkably small rubble
pile of mostly pulverized remains, when no steel building
falling for any reason has ever pulverized itself.
- Building 7 contained a 23-million-dollar emergency
command center, but instead of using it for its ostensible
purpose, then-Mayor Giuliani evacuated his team to a
makeshift command center as soon as the September 11th
attack started.
- The emergency command center was destroyed along with
the rest of the building, even though it was constructed
as a bomb-hardened shelter.
- The remains of Building 7 were rapidly removed and the
steel recycled, evidently without any on-site and only
extremely limited off-site examination. The rapid disposal
operation proceeded despite the fact that no one was
believed buried in the rubble, and the tidy rubble pile
was not blocking adjacent roads.
- The building's owner, Larry Silverstein, stated on a PBS
documentary that he had conferred with the fire department
commander on a decision to "pull it." Neither the FEMA nor
NIST reports commented on this remark.
TWIN TOWERS
- The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel,
a behavior inconsistent with the known behavior of steel
structures outside of explosive demolition.
- The South Tower was struck 17 minutes after the North
Tower, and in a less damaging manner, and it had less
severe fires, yet it collapsed 29 minutes before the North
Tower.
- The South Tower's core structure was largely undamaged
by the off-centered jet impact, unlike the North Tower,
yet it collapsed sooner.
- The South Tower had much less severe fires than the
North Tower, and yet collapsed sooner.
- Smoke from the fires in the South Tower became
progressively darker up to the time it collapsed.
- Firefighters reached the crash zone of the South Tower
and calmly described controllable fires.
- Both towers started to disintegrate at regions above and
below the crash zones in the first seconds of their falls.
- Both towers fell straight down, through themselves,
following the path of maximum resistance, a behavior never
before observed in spontaneous collapses of any type of
vertical structure.
- The collapses of both towers exhibited features never
otherwise seen except in controlled demolitions: sudden
onset accompanied by thunderous bangs, visible explosions
ringing their perimeters, energetic ejections of dust at
regular intervals, and copious production of dust.
- Both towers exploded outward and where shredded
and pulverized -- a pattern of destruction much more
destructive than normal controlled demolitions, yet this
result was supposedly produced without the added energy of
explosives.
Pro memoria, and with Pythagoras in mind [see above] ...
ReplyDeleteRef. is:
9-11 Anomalies
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html
"[A]ccepting the official story of the 9/11/01 attack
requires one to accept a long series of anomalies --
extremely improbable events, amazing coincidences, and
contradictions. This page lists many such anomalies."
BUILDING COLLAPSES
- On 9/11/01 three skyscrapers totally collapsed with fire
given as the sole or primary cause. Fires and bombings
have never before or since caused steel-frame buildings to
collapse.
BUILDING 7
- Building 7 imploded late on 9/11/01. It was not hit by
an aircraft.
- Building 7 experienced total collapse, allegedly because
of fires, when no steel-frame building before or since has
ever collapsed, totally or even partially, due to fires.
Building 7 was an over-engineered 47-story steel-frame
skyscraper, standing over 350 feet from the nearest of the
Twin Towers. Only small fires burned in it on September
11th.
- Building 7 collapsed in a nearly perfectly vertical
fall, leaving the buildings only 60 feet on either side
virtually unscathed.
- Building 7 collapsed into a remarkably small rubble
pile of mostly pulverized remains, when no steel building
falling for any reason has ever pulverized itself.
- Building 7 contained a 23-million-dollar emergency
command center, but instead of using it for its ostensible
purpose, then-Mayor Giuliani evacuated his team to a
makeshift command center as soon as the September 11th
attack started.
- The emergency command center was destroyed along with
the rest of the building, even though it was constructed
as a bomb-hardened shelter.
- The remains of Building 7 were rapidly removed and the
steel recycled, evidently without any on-site and only
extremely limited off-site examination. The rapid disposal
operation proceeded despite the fact that no one was
believed buried in the rubble, and the tidy rubble pile
was not blocking adjacent roads.
- The building's owner, Larry Silverstein, stated on a PBS
documentary that he had conferred with the fire department
commander on a decision to "pull it." Neither the FEMA nor
NIST reports commented on this remark.
TWIN TOWERS
- The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel,
a behavior inconsistent with the known behavior of steel
structures outside of explosive demolition.
- The South Tower was struck 17 minutes after the North
Tower, and in a less damaging manner, and it had less
severe fires, yet it collapsed 29 minutes before the North
Tower.
- The South Tower's core structure was largely undamaged
by the off-centered jet impact, unlike the North Tower,
yet it collapsed sooner.
- The South Tower had much less severe fires than the
North Tower, and yet collapsed sooner.
- Smoke from the fires in the South Tower became
progressively darker up to the time it collapsed.
- Firefighters reached the crash zone of the South Tower
and calmly described controllable fires.
- Both towers started to disintegrate at regions above and
below the crash zones in the first seconds of their falls.
- Both towers fell straight down, through themselves,
following the path of maximum resistance, a behavior never
before observed in spontaneous collapses of any type of
vertical structure.
- The collapses of both towers exhibited features never
otherwise seen except in controlled demolitions: sudden
onset accompanied by thunderous bangs, visible explosions
ringing their perimeters, energetic ejections of dust at
regular intervals, and copious production of dust.
- Both towers exploded outward and where shredded
and pulverized -- a pattern of destruction much more
destructive than normal controlled demolitions, yet this
result was supposedly produced without the added energy of
explosives.
In terms of organized secrecy, there are numerous accounts of different projects and operations that did not get exposed until well after the execution was observed:
ReplyDeleteuh Huh...and?
This list could go on, as this is but a smattering of operations that have been made public over the years.
uh Huh...and?
Also, you might want to ask yourself this question: If someone was directly complicit with a secret operation that would lead to no less than the hangman's noose for treason, do you think that might be a good reason for them NOT to speak? Or, what if someone inside casually stated, "you know Bob, if you go public with your story, I don't know if we can protect your family from some crazy person that isn't happy with your statement". The list of reasons to remain quiet also could go on and on.
Ah, now here we go, some relevent meat and potatoes.
You see this the Conspiracy Theorist's Paradox.
You say that it was carried out, and everyone involved would be afraid to tell, yet all of your critical information comes from these "heroic" whistleblowers. WHERE ARE YOUR HEROIC WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO FILLED THE WTCs WITH EXPLOSIVES????
Where is your wilson? where are your MI6 drop outs?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
So lets assume, if you have no whistleblowers, that your suggestion that they were naive to the true intentions, and that PR spin convince them they were placing explosives for a "planned" demolition of the WTCs.
If, however, that were the case, there would be no fear in telling your wife, or children, or friends about your latest job. And what exuse would PR have for telling the guys that it is all above board, a planned demolition, but then tell them "Dont tell anyone - Noone". And even if they did tell them, without threats, it would not hold.
"Hey maggie, you'll never guess what are current job is. We're taking down the WTC's Been along time coming if you ask me. Joe over at headquarters says its been planned for a while now."
Come on??
> here's my translation of the French passage
ReplyDelete*Merci* [thanks!] ;)
P.S. is also a translation of first rate, kudos.
>You say that it was carried out, and everyone involved would be afraid to tell, yet all of your critical information comes from these "heroic" whistleblowers.
ReplyDeleteActually, if you try hard you might be able to remember that our own main stream media gave us a lot of evidence, not whistleblowers. Like the footage of the collapses which gave us information regarding the time it took for the buildings to fall. Which is the biggest give away to demo charges. Unfortunately,we do not at this time know all the small details of how the charges were set, but we do know one thing- they were set. Why don't you explain to us the freefall speed of the building. Just focus on that one detail and explain how the buildings were able to collapse at that speed. Don't ridicule me for offering "possibilities" while offering none yourself(other than believing in government sponsored fairytales).
I predict the following either: 1) you don't respond 2) you respond and don't focus on explaining the freefall speed or 3) you give some BS response about the speed which does nothing to scientifically explain the physics about it.
What's it gonna be punk?
Don't overlook the incurable, ruinous point of the 9/11
ReplyDeleteportrait for the use of the cannon fodder of the world
(America counted in, *noblesse oblige*) ... 99.9% of it,
that is; a kind of *postmodern parody* of "to-the-showers"
at a larger scale. [As a ... *curiosum*, let's recall
that in the slang of the death concentration camps of the
Nazis, those who *dropped out* from the line, and where
about to die, were called the "Muslims," research the
literature to known more on it].
But I am digressing. Don't overlook that:
there is ==NO WAY== if we accept input A as the official
narrative, and B as what we have witnessed objectively,
measurably, at the output, to go from A to B, and then,
inversely, to explain/solve B given A.
There exists a *gap*, a kind of aphasia and faint of
logic, between the two, A and B. Except that we live in
times which this can't be accepted.
Where can we see this pattern typically ... in fact,
this pattern there is, in general, exactly the sought
one? In the cryptology! There, where to hide, screen and
mask is the required *side effect*, we don't want let
for an observer any correlations between the As and the
Bs become practicable and visible. It works, it can be
achieved, though not too easily, and it's perfectly and
scientifically sound ... figure, it's also a king domain
of mathematics.
In the cryptology, on the other hand, no one would
bother--and why should he?--to cheat and trying to make
you believe that [see just here above] the As can be
reconstructed starting from the Bs. Hence, I wonder WHY,
on the contrary, the administration under whom 9/11 has
happened, is doing EXACTLY THAT, to TAKE YOU IN.
"Pancake theories," and all the other *official*
but inescapable fibs and whoppers ... let's talk of
"conspiracies" seriously, eh? Would you dish up a corpus
of drivel and nonsense, accuse others to be lunatics
or terrorists, even--say--in the case you would *know
nothing* on 9/11 objectively, and could not give a
plausible or factual interpretation of it, would you?
I am responding. With so many possible predictions, like most CTers, you have set up a situation where you can't be proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteI am unsure if your use of the word "punk" was an attempt to (1) get my temper up, (2) drag me down to your level, or (3) the way you speak to everyone. Regardless, it will not work.
I am assuming from the way you express yourself that you are far from a scientist or engineer, so any explanations of the tower collapse you could give me I would consider useless, as you have no qualifications to do so.
As for me, I am a professional, but not in a field directly related to building construct or demolition, so I can do nothing more than refer to NIST, or FEMA, or the ASCE, or Protec, all I know you consider to be "Shills" but such it is when you are a "shill" like me :)
So bring on your own personal scientific theories on the collapse and I will see if I can find a real expert to critique them for you.
I predict (1) you will respond, (2) you wont respond, and (3) you will be a rude neanderthal.
What will it be?
Paul Craig Roberts concludes with exactly these
ReplyDeletetwo, 1) and 2), paragraphs his typically acute and
insightful--read it--article
Five Years After and We Still Don*t Know
September 7, 2006
www.uruknet.info?p=26493 and
informationclearinghouse.info/article14874.htm
...
1. "[T]here are many holes in the official 9/11 story
and very little evidence in its behalf. Did the
government, terrified by possible public reaction to
the catastrophe and expected to have an explanation for
the terrifying event, simply concoct a story?"
2. "[T]he reason so many people doubt the 9/11 story
is not because they have psychological needs for
conspiracies, but because the 9/11 story is not
believable."
Paul Craig Roberts seems to *politically* and
*philosophically* progress and unfold--and it's a
compliment--like Victor Hugo has done before him, KUDOS!
[Read Hugo's biography] But to the point, I LARGELY [and I
do come from the opposite side from where he does!] agree
with Roberts, and want to comment 1) and 2).
1) can't only be answered with: --no, not longer, not
anymore.--
Since those FIVE YEARS we have seen a CONSTANT, STEADY
pattern of "not believable," self-servicing, weird,
incongruous *stories*.
NY, Bali, Madrid, Jakarta, London, Egypt, and all the
others ...
In NY the great majority of those who died come from the
workers, the *common people*, those, i.e., who can be
accounted and recorded as *collateral damage* without
worrying and fussing too much [shows for the cameras and
the speeches not counted].
Idem for Bali. (For those who don't know, Bali is a
mostly INEXPENSIVE--for Westerners, typically [surprise]
Aussies--holiday resort ... inexpensive for a start,
*extras* not counted: researchers in Indonesia have
recently told that 700 thousand children under the age
of 15 work in the business of prostitution, mostly of
them in Bali and, if I recall correctly, Sulawesi; other
places such the *classic* Batam/Indonesia, in front of
Singapore--are not mentioned; and Jakarta is in ...
well, Java, not Sulawesi [I have read Americans are not
champions in geography].) Anyway, VIPs, executives, and
rich people do not mix with the *dregs*, be it in Bali,
Milano Marittima, Kathmandu or Ibiza.
Then, Jakarta kills Indonesian Muslims exclusively,
damages the asphalt of the street and perhaps the stucco
of a facade of an embassy in a couple of places.
Madrid kills workers mostly--again--regular, *spendable*
people going to do their jobs with the train, not with
their Harley, Augusta [helicopter], or Bentley.
Egypt kills mainly Muslims workers, and a couple of
late-comers from the tourists wandering in the night. [Oh
dear, again?!!!]
Let's skip London, because it's even too easy to be
*sarcastic* ...
etc.
OK, now, what do we have, an administration that tells:
--this is mad, those who are behind all this are playing
at the nth degree, i.e., acting and performing like
WE, the administration in first instance, are the
originators!!! Because EVERYTHING, aside being beyond
believability, description and explanation, always seems
to come EXACTLY when we are in difficulty the most, and
are about to become exposed as the corrupt and scruple
less we ... ehm, are indeed--
Does the administration say that, that it doesn't know
what is going on, who is doing it, that it's desperate and
doesn't have the least idea on how to stop this?
2) Not only. In the pure Guy de Maupassant--*Boule de
Suif*--tradition, people start now, beyond *love* for the
science, to FEAR too. As the minimum, they have seen, and
listened, that blackmailers don't stop after their first
requests; hence, appeasing, satisfying them, and playing
in their hand, is not going to be a solution.
>Where is your wilson? where are your MI6 drop outs?
ReplyDeleteYour argument is completely invalid. I just gave you a small sampling of "secret conspiracies" that are now a part of historical record....where was the "wilson" or "MI6 drop out" when these events that I listed occured? Those whistleblowers didn't exist for those events, so what makes you think that they are a necessary requirement for a secret operation? Again...time to reiterate: something is secret IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. No MI6 drop outs or whatever you want to call a whistleblower is needed for the actual existence of a secret operation as I have proven using factual history (please, read some books and chillout on the Fox network) Jeezus, don't be so foolish.
> I am a professional, but not in a field directly related
ReplyDelete> to building construct or demolition, so I can do nothing
> more than refer to NIST, or FEMA, or the ASCE, or
> Protec, all I know you consider to be "Shills" but such
> it is when you are a "shill" like me :)
"[T]he Milgram experiment (Obedience to Authority Study)
was a famous scientific experiment of social psychology.
The experiment was first described by Stanley Milgram,
a psychologist at Yale University, in an article titled
Behavioral Study of Obedience."
"[T]he article was published in the Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology in 1963 and later discussed at book
length in his 1974 Obedience to Authority: An Experimental
View. It was intended to measure the willingness of
a participant to obey an authority who instructs the
participant to do something that may conflict with the
participant's personal conscience."
"[T]he experiments began in July 1961, three months after
the start of the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem.
Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question
--Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in
the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call
them all accomplices?-- (Milgram, 1974)"
Milgram summed up:
"[T]he legal and philosophic aspects of obedience
are of enormous importance, but they say very little
about how most people behave in concrete situations.
I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to
test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict
on another person simply because he was ordered to by
an experimental scientist."
"[S]tark authority was pitted against the subjects'
[participants'] strongest moral imperatives against
hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants']
ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority
won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults
to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority
constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact
most urgently demanding explanation."
Method of the experiment
"[S]ubjects were recruited for the Yale study through
newspaper ads and direct mail. The experiments occurred
in two rooms in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall on
the university's Old Campus. The experiment was advertised
as lasting one hour, for which the respondents would be
paid $4.50 ($18.70 adjusted for inflation in 2006). The
participants were men between the ages of 20 and 50, from
all educational backgrounds, ranging from an elementary
school dropout to participants with doctoral degrees."
"[T]he participant and a confederate of the experimenter,
who was an actor pretending to be another participant,
were told by the experimenter that they would be
participating in an experiment to test the effects of
punishment on learning."
"[A] slip of paper was then given to the participant
and another to the confederate. The participant was led
to believe that one of the slips said "learner" and the
other said "teacher," and that the participants had
been given the slips randomly. In fact, both slips said
"teacher," but the actor claimed to have the slip that
read "learner," thus guaranteeing that the participant was
always the "teacher." At this point, the "teacher" and
"learner" were separated into different rooms where they
could communicate but not see each other. In one version
of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to
the participant that he had a heart condition."
"[T]he "teacher" was given a 45-volt electric shock from
the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock
that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the
experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word
pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began
by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The
teacher would then read the first word of each pair and
read 4 possible answers. The learner would press a button
to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the
learner would receive a shock, with the voltage increasing
with each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read
the next word pair."
"[T]he subjects believed that for each wrong answer,
the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality,
there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated
from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder
integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played
pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number
of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang
on the wall that separated him from the subject. After
several times banging on the wall and complaining about
his heart condition, the learner gave no further responses
to questions and no further complaints."
"[B]efore the experiment was conducted Milgram polled
fellow psychologists as to what the results would be.
THEY [emphasis is mine] UNANIMOUSLY BELIEVED THAT ONLY A
SADISTIC FEW (0.1%), WOULD BE PREPARED TO GIVE THE MAXIMUM
VOLTAGE."
"[I]n Milgram's first set of experiments, 67.5 PERCENT
(27 out of 40) OF EXPERIMENTAL PARTICIPANTS ADMINISTERED
THE EXPERIMENT'S FINAL 450-VOLT SHOCK, THOUGH MANY
WERE QUITE UNCOMFORTABLE IN DOING SO [emphasis is mine
again]; everyone paused at some point and questioned the
experiment, some even saying they would return the check
for the money they were paid. No participant steadfastly
refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level.
Variants of the experiment were later performed by Milgram
himself and other psychologists around the world with
SIMILAR RESULTS [emphasis mine]. Apart from confirming the
original results the variations have tested variables in
the experimental setup."
> So bring on your own personal scientific theories on the
> collapse and I will see if I can find a real expert to
> critique them for you.
Are you kidding?! Did you not see the series of references
and URLs from top to down? Did you not try to put a
glance at these as the minimum? What do you want more, a
spoon slipped into your mouth? But wait, first start with
this URL--which refers with above--
Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
> I am a professional
8-)
And how old are you, with 14-15 already?
I am closer to 40 than 30 for your info.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your long winded experiment example, The caviat is that The opinions of the experts do not disagree with my concience, so the experiment means little to my situation.
Your links do bring me to SOLID EVIDENCE of anything relivent, nor are they references to EXPERT OPINIONS from people in the field in question.
Try again...and don't assume we are all 14-15 years of age. ignoramous.
DO NOT bring me...the last post should read
ReplyDelete> I am a professional ...
ReplyDelete> so the experiment means ...
** that understanding WHY the official narrative of 9/11
is nonsense, and a lie, and to infer the consequences
from that, demands not more than BASIC physics and logic
understanding--for which you don't have to ask permission
to the others
** that with reference the remarks on Pythagoras above,
you can reasonably trust that both this basic physics and
logic--in particular when applied to the, in a sense,
*limited* 9/11 context [to understand us: we don't need,
nor want, to implicate relativity]--are perfectly good and
sound, hence you don't have to [though you can, if you
like] verify every formula till the least detail.
** that if "professionals" are not required to study exact
sciences deep like it happens with the engineers, they
nevertheless, so to be able to frequent an university, to
show in their curriculum that they have grasped the A-B-C
of mathematics, physics, and chemistry.
I am not saying that one cannot have an opinion as to the "Who" of the 9/11 attacks. I am not saying that one cannot have an opinion as to the "how" of various aspects of the 9/11 attacks.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is that, in my opinion, and i would think, in the opinion of most people with a little common sense, the more expertese one has in a given field, the more qualified one is to speak on aspects of said field. From that I am saying that the strongest evidence should be based, at least in part, on the expertese one has in a given field or aspect of an event.
If you disagree with it, fine, I do not care, just do not try to tell me that I am wrong, as it is merely your opinion that I am so.
As a group, the philosophy/history/english/political science scholars will have a hard time convincing the general public that they are more qualified to speak on matters of building construct and demolition, than experts in those fields.
> I am not saying
ReplyDeleteExcellent, enough making noise then, read:
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
The study has more pages than, you tell, years in your
age. Take your time, before trolling again.
Oh, and don't forget--it's just a click away--in your
ReplyDeletethirst and impetus to learn the truth, to put a glance at
the
Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven
http://www.physics911.net/spine.htm
in which ... guess?, Steven E. Jones is listed too, so
to get a boost of belief and courage extra--you who
apparently need them absolutely--in the sense Milgram [see
above] has researched.
nah, I prefer to call it discussion, not noise making, but thanks for the insult. Very big of you old chap.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Jones paper, I have read it. As a professional outside of the engineering/physics realm, I, unlike most I see posting, am humble enough to leave it to the experts. That said, I tend to believe the Panel of MIT CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS and their conclusions on the collapse. I tend to believe the hundreds of experts with NIST. You call them shills, I call them experts. This argument, I can see will get us nowhere, if you really believe that all those people are lying.
Listen, we have had this argument here at nauseum. 9/11 Truth followers don't believe any experts except those who support their theories. Debunkers don't believe the 9/11 Truth "experts", for the most part, because they are (a) not experts in the RELIVANT field, or (b) They are so few in number.
BTW, Sulfur residue is hardly proof.
It has been enlightening. Toodle doo!
> As a professional
ReplyDelete> BTW, Sulfur residue is hardly proof.
Professional?! You are a *professional* troll, and a bad
one at it.
From Jones' paper:
"[O]ne of the RELATIVELY FEW previous PEER-REVIEWED
papers relating to the WTC collapses" --Jones writes [the
emphasis is mine]-- "provides "An Initial Microstructural
Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but
important letter states:"
-- While the exact location of this beam could not be
-- determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found
-- in this beam warranted a study of microstructural
-- changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of
-- other sections in this beam is underway.
-- ANALYSIS
-- Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result
-- of heating with oxidation in combination with
-- intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur.
-- The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and
-- iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid
-- can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that
-- the temperatures in this region of the steel beam
-- approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a
-- "blacksmith's weld" in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
"[H]ow" --Jones is continuing here-- were these ~1000°C
temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above
in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach
temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse fires
evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel
columns where heat is transported away by the enormous
heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures
deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are indeed
remarkable."
"[T]hen there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the
steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this
sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the OFFICIAL
REPORTS." [emphasis is mine]
"[O]f course, there is a straightforward way to achieve
1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence
of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar
variation of thermite)."
Etc.
Do you see the pitfall in which you have been caught
while trying to confuse, muddle and garble? [Re-read, and
observe the remarks: Jones is speaking, and the emphasis]
"Enlightening"--agreed--is your fainted, self-obliging:
"BTW." Because, beyond trying to make Jones appear
an original and an eccentric, it totally ignores the
rock-solid core of his paper. Don't tell me that you have
hunted for something to palm off, snak-oil seller style,
such the *sulfidation*, which is not even Jones' own work,
but have overlooked Jones stating in the intro:
"[I] provide THIRTEEN REASONS for rejecting the official
hypothesis, according to which fire and impact damage
caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, in
favor of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. The
goal is to promote further scrutiny of the official
government-sponsored reports as well as serious
investigation of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. (No
rebuttal of my argument can be complete, of course, UNLESS
IT ADDRESSES ALL OF THESE POINTS.)" [emphasis mine]
I had to come back just one more time. If I thought it was worthwhile, I would come back more.
ReplyDeleteAs far as my being a professional, I am, and you can question it all you like, makes no odds to me.
The Jones paper, which I noted after looking at the new, revised version, is now at least formatted somewhat properly for a scientific paper.
"PEER REVIEWED" what a sham. The only journal it has been published in, that I can find, is the cyberjournal that is linked from the "Scholars" website. That Journal, which has Steven Jones hands throughout, both on the selection of its editors and other positions, as well as indirectly involved in the selection of your so called "Peer Review" is an embarrassment to the scientific community. If there were a body that could decide on what is and isn't fit to be called an "internet-based scientific journal" they would certainly have voted that rag out long ago.
When I see his paper published in a proper, respected scientific "peer reviewed" journal, then I will pay it some real notice, and lend it some real credibility. If the paper is so valid and so solid, it should be a relatively easy process. So if I am to take your word for it, I won't have to wait long before I am reading it in any number of respected journals.
I won't hold my breath.
See I do not question Professor Jone's credentials, only his conclusions, and how much bias has entered into his science.
oh, and I no longer have the desire to debate with you, so you can consider your argument won via disinterest based forfeit.
ReplyDelete> to debate with
ReplyDeleteDebate?! Is the verbal device of muddling, eluding
answering punctually and elaborating factually, feigning
to *aim* somewhere or at something while keeping
permanently in the imprecise and the ambiguous, the
expedient of shifting from one countersense to the other,
*debating* for you?
> so you can consider your argument won
and no wonder. But not because of
> disinterest based forfeit
You have jumped out of the frying-pan into the fire every
time you have *replied* [trolled] ... as it logically
is to expect with one who conveys ZERO arguments in a
"debate." (And zero because he has none.)
Even your desperate, Milgramesque, and nebulous deferring
to MIT, NIST, FEMA, and other unspecified panels of
*engineers* and *experts* is worth nothing. Their supposed
and suggested *aura of authority*, delegated voluntarily
or not I don't know--but it recalls me the assignment the
Nazis have given to the Judenraete^1 A LOT [and I know the
subject well]--fails ... though scandalous, ruinous, vile,
dishonorable FIVE YEARS seem to have needed to elapse,
nevertheless.
ALL the conjectured *findings* and *conclusions* by MIT,
NIST, FEMA, etc. to whom you allude are in fact or kept
off-limits, not shown in the detail, can't be reproduced
nor verified; or then fall through fast and flatly and are
contradicted as soon they are exposed to scrutiny.
While everything Jones (let's talk of Galielo tried by the
Inquisition) tells and presents is logical, transparent
and available for reviewing.
1. Judenraete (singular Judenrat; German for "Jewish
council") were administrative bodies that the Germans
required Jews to form in each ghetto in General Government
(the Nazi-occupied territory of Poland) and later in the
occupied territories of the Soviet Union.
These bodies were responsible for local government in
the ghetto, and stood between the Nazis and the ghetto
population. They were generally composed of leaders of
the Jewish community (with the exception of in the Soviet
Union, where Jewish organizations were eliminated in
1930s). They were forced by the Nazis to provide Jews
for use as slave labor, and to assist in the deportation
of Jews to extermination camps during the Holocaust.
Those who refused to follow Nazi orders or were unable to
cooperate fully were frequently rounded up and shot or
deported to the extermination camps themselves.
Etc., see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenrat
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete> I am responding. With so many possible predictions, like most CTers, you have set up a situation >where you can't be proven wrong.
I see you can't give me a scientific explaination for the timing of the collapses. Imagine that!
> I am unsure if your use of the word "punk" was an attempt to (1) get my temper up, (2) drag me down >to your level, or (3) the way you speak to everyone. Regardless, it will not work.
My use of punk is to describe you for what you are. You can't give me a good explaination for the timing of the building collapse which is at the core of the Truth movement's arguement. Running amok with speculation isn't going to win the arguement in this case, so you question my qualifications.
> I am assuming from the way you express yourself that you are far from a scientist or engineer, so >any explanations of the tower collapse you could give me I would consider useless, as you have no >qualifications to do so.
Don't assume. It's the mother of all mistakes. I am on my way to graduate school for Neuroscience thank you. I think having two publications under my belt from a lab in the National Institutes of Mental Health qualifies me as a young scientist. Think what you will of it. Keep in mind Mr. Tunnel vision, fields within science overlap tremendously these days. It leads to what we, scientists, call converging evidence. Most scientists are no longer isolated in their own little domain. Take for instance an FBI profiler, they must gather information from many different expertise fields to come to a conclusion. It interesting seeing your flock mentality of only trusting your shepard (the oh so honest US government). If you won't trust my judgement on physics then maybe you'll trust my judgement on the psychology of the situation-you're being told the Big Lie as Hitler called it. Wake up sheep.
> As for me, I am a professional, but not in a field directly related to building construct or demolition, so >I can do nothing more than refer to NIST, or FEMA, or the ASCE, or Protec, all I know you consider to be >"Shills" but such it is when you are a "shill" like me :)
You can learn some basic physics and determine the merit of the arguement for Controlled Demo.
http://physics.webplasma.com/physicstoc.html
> So bring on your own personal scientific theories on the collapse and I will see if I can find a real >expert to critique them for you.
I concur with the theory of controlled demolition as proposed by Stephen Jones. His hypothesis stands up to all the evidence so far collected. Go read it rather than blindly supporting the NIST report.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Start thinking on your own and start doing more reading of the theories other than the governments. Ignorance is killing this country. Always putting ones trust in another opens the possibility for abusing ones trust.
Addendum:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenrat is, also because of
the definition and range of an encyclopedia, a bit--to
speak--*bucolic* and *take-it-easy* in its explanation of
the Judenreate.
The truth is MUCH more tragic, less *edifying* a
posteriori to tell, and A LOT worrying.
A significantly more *realistic portrait* of the
Judenraete, on how they have been *forced* by the Nazis,
can be studied in, e.g., Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in
Jerusalem. [suggested reading]
Bah. Adorno CORRECTLY tells that half-truths do not sum up
[to form a whole ... in the sense of the understanding].
On the other hand, it's too late now to change with a
better URL [I should also google]. For what our context
is, let's pass of the *details*, and get the definition by
wikipedia.org as GOOD ENOUGH.
>What I am saying is that, in my opinion, >and i would think, in the opinion of >most people with a little common sense, >the more expertese one has in a given >field, the more qualified one is to >speak on aspects of said field. From >that I am saying that the strongest >evidence should be based, at least in >part, on the expertese one has in a >given field or aspect of an event.
ReplyDeleteWell guess what? You're wrong! Geologists laughed at the guy who came up with the theory of plate techtonics and they WERE the experts at the time. Science is complicated and one has to be open to revising ones ideas based on all relevant evidence. What you're doing is called an "appeal to authority". Just because someone is an expert does not make them correct on certain issues even within their field.
>If you disagree with it, fine, I do not >care, just do not try to tell me that I >am wrong, as it is merely your opinion >that I am so.
Now you're stating that you will blindly follow these authority figures. Don't be ashamed(I'm sure you aren't. Ignorance is bliss!) because most people in most civilizations tend to follow the herd. It's a regrettable trait of the human species.
>"PEER REVIEWED" what a sham. The only >journal it has been published in, that I >can find, is the cyberjournal that is >linked from the "Scholars" website. That >Journal, which has Steven Jones hands >throughout, both on the selection of its >editors and other positions, as well as >indirectly involved in the selection of >your so called "Peer Review" is an >embarrassment to the scientific >community. If there were a body that >could decide on what is and isn't fit to >be called an "internet-based scientific >journal" they would certainly have voted >that rag out long ago.
ReplyDeleteToo bad NIST doesn't have the balls(or the evidence) to debate Jones and other from the site. NIST bailed on the first scheduled debate. With allllllll the funding the federal government has given them you think they could at least send out one person to debate for their side. That is the sham sir.
>See I do not question Professor Jone's >credentials, only his conclusions, and >how much bias has entered into his >science.
Have you stopped to think of how much bias the government workers may have?? Maybe they want to keep their cushy jobs and get bumped up to the next paygrade??? Everyone has bias, unfortunately for the government, in this situation Jones has the facts on his side.
> See I do not question Professor Jone's credentials, only
ReplyDelete> his conclusions, and how much bias has entered into his
> science.
Example of *scientific reasoning* [and demonstrating]:
"[T]homas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT,
has studied the collapse of the twin towers. ''At first,
I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come
down in their own footprints,'' Eager says. ''Then I
realized that it wasn't that amazing -- it's the only way
a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent
air can come down.''^"1
And again:
"''[D]emolition experts say, 'Ohhh, it's all science and
timing.' Bull!" Eager says. "What's the technique? If
200,000 tons gives way, where do you think it's going?
Straight down.''^"1
Summa Cum Laude. Alternatively, could you kindly give us
the references of [more] serious examples pertaining 9/11
by the *authoritative experts*?
1. The disbelievers: 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists
Building Their Case Against the Government From Ground
Zero Responses to NIST's FAQs September 8, 2006,
WashingtonPost.com, Michael Powell
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html
Compare [Thomas Eager ... nomen est omen, "the professor
ReplyDeleteof materials science at MIT" who "has STUDIED the collapse
of the twin towers," emphasis is mine; see above] with:
[I]n perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can
be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air
is 1520° F (825° C). When the World Trade Center collapsed
the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen
and their temperatures would have significantly decreased.
[W]hy was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly
500° F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of
jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses? There
were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they
collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep in their
wreckage?
[D]r. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert, on the jet fuel fires
which burned in the WTC buildings:
"[Y]our gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made
the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's
what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not
melt." [Firehouse.com]
[M]olten steel did not exist in the WTC buildings prior to
the collapses, but...
[M]olten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks
later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 &
2]," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at
7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
[American Free Press]
[O]ne of the more unusual artefacts to emerge from the
rubble is this rock-like object which has come to be known
as "the meteorite". "This is a fused element of molten
steel and concrete all fused by the heat into one single
element."
[W]hat caused the steel to melt? How did it stay molten
for weeks after the collapses? How did fires in the WTC
wreckage manage to burn for more than 3 months?
[T]hermite provides a plausible answer.
[A] thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high
temperatures (>2500° C) and provides a credible
explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel
(a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the
collapsed buildings - they were a result of thermite
detonations in the buildings on 9/11.
Etc.
Source is:
9-11 5 years later: Thermite and the WTC Collapses
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm
I don't know if anybody has even thought of looking the word "Pull" up in the dictionary but here is what I found when looking at the site called Dictionary.com. Please note example number 38. If "pull" has never been a term used for demolition then dictionary.com would not have listed it as a demolition term at all.
ReplyDeleteDictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
pull /pʊl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pool] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to draw or haul toward oneself or itself, in a particular direction, or into a particular position: to pull a sled up a hill.
2. to draw or tug at with force.
3. to rend or tear: to pull a cloth to pieces.
4. to draw or pluck away from a place of growth, attachment, etc.: to pull a tooth; to pull weeds.
5. to strip of feathers, hair, etc., as a bird or hide.
6. to draw out (as a knife or gun) for ready use (usually fol. by on): Do you know what to do when someone pulls a knife on you?
7. Informal. to perform successfully (often fol. by off): They pulled a spectacular coup.
8. Informal. to carry out (esp. something deceitful or illegal): Police believe the men pulled all three robberies. What kind of trick did she pull this time?
9. to put on or affect: He pulled a long face when I reprimanded him.
10. to withdraw or remove: to pull an ineffective pitcher.
11. to attract or win: to pull many votes in the industrial areas.
12. to bring (a horse) to a stand by pulling on the reins.
13. Printing, Graphics. to take (an impression or proof) from type, a cut or plate, etc.: to pull a print.
14. to be provided with or rowed with (a certain number of oars): This boat pulls 12 oars.
15. to propel by rowing, as a boat.
16. to strain (a muscle, ligament, or tendon).
17. Military. to be assigned (a specific task or duty): I pulled guard duty our first night in port.
18. to hold in or check (a racehorse), esp. so as to prevent from winning.
19. Sports. to hit (a ball) so that it travels in a direction opposite to the side from which it was struck, as when a right-handed batter hits into left field.
–verb (used without object) 20. to exert a drawing, tugging, or hauling force (often fol. by at).
21. to inhale through a pipe, cigarette, etc.
22. to become or come as specified, by being pulled: This rope will pull.
23. to row.
24. to proceed by rowing.
25. (of an advertisement) a. to have effectiveness, as specified: The ad pulled badly.
b. to be effective: That spot announcement really pulled!
–noun 26. the act of pulling or drawing.
27. force used in pulling; pulling power.
28. a drawing in of smoke or a liquid through the mouth: He took a long, thoughtful pull on his pipe; I took a pull from the scout's canteen.
29. Informal. influence, as with persons able to grant favors.
30. a part or thing to be pulled; a handle or the like: to replace the pulls on a chest of drawers.
31. a spell, or turn, at rowing.
32. a stroke of an oar.
33. Informal. a pulled muscle: He missed a week's work with a groin pull.
34. a pulling of the ball, as in baseball or golf.
35. Informal. the ability to attract; drawing power.
36. Informal. an advantage over another or others.
—Verb phrases37. pull away, a. to move or draw back or away; withdraw.
b. to free oneself with force: He tried to pull away from his opponent's powerful grip.
c. to move or start to move ahead: The car pulled away into traffic. The faster runners began to pull away from the others.
38. pull down, a. to draw downward: to pull a shade down.
b. to demolish; wreck.
c. to lower; reduce.
d. Informal. to receive as a salary; earn: It wasn't long before he was pulling down more than fifty thousand a year.
39. pull for, to support actively; encourage: They were pulling for the Republican candidate.
40. pull in, a. to reach a place; arrive: The train pulled in early.
b. to tighten; curb: to pull in the reins.
c. Informal. to arrest (someone): The police pulled her in for questioning.
41. pull off, Informal. to perform successfully, esp. something requiring courage, daring, or shrewdness: We'll be rich if we can pull the deal off.
42. pull out, a. to leave; depart: The ship pulled out of the harbor.
b. to abandon abruptly: to pull out of an agreement.
43. pull over, to direct one's automobile or other vehicle to the curb; move out of a line of traffic: The police officer told the driver to pull over.
44. pull through, to come safely through (a crisis, illness, etc.); survive: The patient eventually pulled through after having had a close brush with death.
45. pull up, a. to bring or come to a halt.
b. to bring or draw closer.
c. to root up; pull out: She pulled up all the crab grass in the lawn.
—Idioms46. pull apart, to analyze critically, esp. to point out errors: The professor proceeded to pull the student's paper apart.
47. pull oneself together, to recover one's self-control; regain command of one's emotions: It was only a minor accident, but the driver couldn't seem to pull himself together.
48. pull someone's leg, leg (def. 23).
49. pull the plug. plug (def. 35).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: bef. 1000; ME pullen (v.), OE pullian to pluck, pluck the feathers of, pull, tug; cf. MLG pūlen to strip off husks, pick, ON pūla to work hard]
—Related forms
pull‧a‧ble, adjective
puller, noun
—Synonyms 2. See draw.
—Antonyms 2. push.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source new! pull (pl) Pronunciation Key
v. pulled, pull·ing, pulls
v. tr.
To apply force to so as to cause or tend to cause motion toward the source of the force.
To remove from a fixed position; extract: The dentist pulled the tooth.
To tug at; jerk or tweak.
To rip or tear; rend.
To stretch (taffy, for example) repeatedly.
To strain (a muscle, for example) injuriously.
Informal. To attract; draw: a performer who pulls large crowds.
Slang. To draw out (a weapon) in readiness for use: pull a gun; pulled a knife on me.
Informal. To remove: pulled the engine; pulled the tainted meat product from the stores.
Sports. To hit (a ball) so that it moves in the direction away from the dominant hand of the player propelling it, as to the left of a right-handed player.
Nautical.
To operate (an oar) in rowing.
To transport or propel by rowing.
To be rowed by: That boat pulls six oars.
To rein in (a horse) to keep it from winning a race.
Printing. To produce (a print or an impression) from type.
v. intr.
To exert force in moving something toward the source of the force.
To drink or inhale deeply: pulled on the cold beer with gusto; pull on a cigarette.
Nautical. To row a boat.
Informal. To express or feel great sympathy or empathy: We're pulling for our new president.
n.
The act or process of pulling.
Force exerted in pulling or required to overcome resistance in pulling.
A sustained effort: a long pull across the mountains.
Something, such as a knob on a drawer, that is used for pulling.
A deep inhalation or draft, as on a cigarette or of a beverage.
Slang. A means of gaining special advantage; influence: The lobbyist has pull with the senator.
Informal. Ability to draw or attract; appeal: a star with pull at the box office.
Phrasal Verbs:
pull away
To move away or backward; withdraw: The limousine pulled away from the curb.
To move ahead: The horse pulled away and took the lead in the race.
pull back
To withdraw or retreat.
pull down
To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
To reduce to a lower level.
To depress, as in spirits or health.
Informa. To draw (money) as wages: pulls down a hefty salary.
pull in
To arrive at a destination: We pulled in at midnight.
To rein in; restrain.
To arrest (a criminal suspect, for example).
pull off Informa.
To perform in spite of difficulties or obstacles; bring off: pulled off a last-minute victory.
pull out
To leave or depart: The train pulls out at noon.
To withdraw, as from a situation or commitment: After the crash, many Wall Street investors pulled out.
pull over
To bring a vehicle to a stop at a curb or at the side of a road: We pulled over to watch the sunset.
To instruct or force (a motorist) to bring his or her vehicle to a stop at a curb or at the side of a road: The state trooper pulled the speeding motorist over.
pull round
To restore or be restored to sound health.
pull through
To come or bring successfully through trouble or illness.
pull up
To bring or come to a halt.
To move to a position or place ahead, as in a race.
Idioms:
pull a fast one Informa.
To play a trick or perpetrate a fraud.
pull (oneself) together
To regain one's composure.
pull (one's) punches
To refrain from deploying all the resources or force at one's disposal: didn't pull any punches during the negotiations.
pull (one's) weight
To do one's own share, as of work.
pull out all the stops Informa.
To deploy all the resources or force at one's disposal: The Inaugural Committee pulled out all the stops when arranging the ceremonies.
pull (someone's) leg
To play a joke on; tease or deceive.
pull something
To carry out a deception or swindle.
pull strings/wires Informa.
To exert secret control or influence in order to gain an end.
pull the plug on Slan.
To stop supporting or bring to an end: pulled the plug on the new art courses.
pull the rug (out) from under Informa.
To remove all support and assistance from, usually suddenly.
pull the string
Basebal. To throw an off-speed pitch.
pull the wool over (someone's) eyes
To deceive; hoodwink.
pull together
To make a joint effort.
pull up stakes
To clear out; leave: She pulled up stakes in New England and moved to the desert.
[Middle English pullen, from Old English pullian.]
puller n.
Synonyms: pull, drag, draw, haul, tow, 1tug
These verbs mean to cause something to move toward the source of an applied force: pull a sled up a hill; drag furniture across the floor; drew up a chair; hauls wood from the forest; a car that tows a trailer; tugged at the oars.
Antonyms: push
--[ continued ]--
ReplyDelete> See I do not question Professor Jone's credentials, ONLY
> HIS CONCLUSIONS, AND HOW MUCH BIAS has entered into HIS
> SCIENCE.
[emphasis mine]
[T]he laboratory director from a South Bend firm has
been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal
investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's
twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001. Kevin R. Ryan
was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental
Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters
Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing
giant.^1
[R]yan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports
suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires
no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree
temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also
much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to
melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.^2
"[T]his story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his
e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's
metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in
the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings
did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this
was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let
alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm -
The 9/11 WTC fires - Where's the Inferno?
1. South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning
federal probe, JOHN DOBBERSTEIN / South Bend Tribune
22nov04
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
2. http://911review.com/articles/ryan/letter.html
From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov
Date: 11/11/2004
Dr. Gayle, ...
[read it]
--[ To sum up ]--
ReplyDelete[T]he items below highlight the MAJOR QUESTIONS
surrounding 9/11 but do not constitute a detailed
recounting of the evidence available:
** [O]NE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The
Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion.
[... etc.]
** [T]WO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade
Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to
earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did
not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed.
All three were most probably destroyed by controlled
demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11. A
substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues
and byproducts from such demolition charges were present
in the three buildings after they collapsed. The quality
of the research done on this subject is quite impressive.
[T]hese first two points provide the STRONGEST EVIDENCE
available that the "official story" of 9/11 is not true.
[O]ther, LESS IMPORTANT POINTS supporting the theories
include:
** [T]HREE: For at least one hour and 45 minutes after
the hijacking of the first aircraft was known, U.S. air
defense authorities failed to take meaningful action. [...
etc.]
** [F]OUR
...
** [N]INE: Machinations in the U.S. stock market in the
days before 9/11 suggest that some inside players in the
market knew [... etc.]
[P]oints ONE and TWO above are the most important.
[I]f something other than an airliner actually did hit the
Pentagon on 9/11, and if the North and South Towers of the
World Trade Center actually were dropped to the ground by
controlled demolitions rather than by anything connected
to the hijackings, the untrue stories peddled by The 9/11
Commission Report are clearly susceptible of being turned
into major political issues.
Reference is:
Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11
by Bill Christison
dissidentvoice.org
August 14, 2006
http://www.physics911.net/christison.htm
And more on the:
Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt
Sections of the WTC Core Columns
by Derrick P. Grimmer, Ph.D.,
20th June, 2004
is at:
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
--[ And to conclude ]--
ReplyDelete> Recently, a smart, accomplished person told me:
>
> "I don't believe that the World Trade Center could have
> been destroyed by controlled demolition ... how could
> they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing
> them?"
This is being *smart* in the limited, relative sense; is
trying to develop *arguments* similar to those devised
in the classic paradoxes of the antiques, such Achilles
and the tortoise, the dichotomy paradox, the arrow
paradox, etc., which baffle at a first sight, but have
all been solved using the tools and the methods of modern
mathematics.
This is the way to sketch the problem:
We have a reality, the towers that have been destroyed.
A tragic reality. These towers have measurably,
incontrovertibly, NOT been destroyed because of the
reasons that have been invoked by the official version.
Experience shows--and it's the only other option that
remains--that behind what we have witnessed on 9/11 is
controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.
The fact that we are not [yet]--and not, because
permission to scrutinize has NOT been given us--able to
answer in the detail HOW the explosives have been planted,
can't be used logically as a premise for invalidating our
thesis and our experience of reality.
A truly "smart, accomplished person" would know that an
answer can't only be as good as the question that has
preceded it has been good too.
JamesB said: Not true, he started on August 23rd.
ReplyDeleteCan you supply more sources? I have seen plenty saying he started on Sept-11, and I want to know if this is not true, but I can't change my mind on one article.
Wow, serious logic. I really have nothing to add intellectually.. Good work, Frenchy!
ReplyDeleteFor those people who actually read this far and still have questions, I have video. Here is the term Pull used in reference to building demolition. Oh yeah, and it comes from the same freakin' movie as Silverstien's quote. Nobody watched the whole movie, did they? Me niether.. Lazy motherf*ckers, ain't we? Well, here's the answer to the "Could pull mean demo?" question... Yes, it could. Now who's got the equation for "requisite force for total destruction evidenced at event", because that will answer the "Whodunit" question.
None of this diminishes the likelihood of explosives. It would be nice to have evidence for power downs and other "opportunities", but the fact is there were many empty floors and offices and there were plenty of opportunities for people to come and go unnoticed. There was certainly NO SHORTAGE of witnesses who heard explosions and saw evidence of bombs on 9-11, in fact bombs and explosions are all you hear about as the event unfolds, yet strangely the "911 Commission" whose members all had major conflicts of interest, did not investigate any of this or queston anyone who came forward with the information. NIST (with it's Bush appointed director) also failed to check for explosives.
ReplyDeleteSecuricom was in charge of electronic security and the release on the door to the roof failed that day which was very unusual. The man who was trying to gain access to the roof had a key and could get through the main door but there were other doors which were usually unlocked , he called downstairs to have this other door unlocked and it could not be, the software was not working. There were other incidences of locked doors which were not usually locked which I consider to be a function of Securicom. Their Saudi ownership was also noteable and the inception of their contract with the WTC and Dulles was around the time of the first wtc bombing.
and one more thing, "pull it" is used by the demolition team working on ground zero. You can hear them use it while working at the site after 9-11 at the end of 9-11 mysteries, a new documentary.
ReplyDeleteThe question:
ReplyDelete"how could they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing them?" shouldn't be directed at those who have enough common sense to recognize what took place before their own eyes. This question should be asked in a criminal investigation. It should be asked by state and federal prosecutors-maybe prosecutors in the world arena.
How many times should we allow stall tactics that sound more like "I didn't see the schedule to set up the bombs, so physics doesn't apply to the 3 buildings."
Equally laughable is the statement "every real-life scenario has anomalies." Is it me or has somebody created a new energy source with steel, concrete, office contents and jet fuel? No temperature coefficients, no stress formulas, no computer animations will ever explain how gravity and smoldering jet fuel fires provide anywhere near enough energy for the following:
1. The pools of molten steel in the basements of all three demolished buildings.
2. The speed of the collapses of all three buildings.
3. The complete anhilation of the Twin Towers and their contents.
Keep in mind we should also view Popular Mechanic's laughable attempt to mathematically demonstrate a "spontaneous collapse" as criminal evidence. In fact, the article is self incriminating. They are accomplices.
No industry-funded nonprofit, no regulatory agency, no media conglomerate, and no trade-group has the right to usurp common sense from the people. And if they try to sell these cow patties to us, we should be taking notes.
All this banter. Your forgetting that the first protocol of the illuminati and the CIA (sic Ollie North) is plausible deniability. That's all that is needed to make a mockery of any other explanations. If we really cared about the truth we would have had independent investigations, not the government investigating the government!
ReplyDeleteTime, patience, money. Pick two. If the CIA wanted to make you look like a toad fucker, the would come up with pictures and two or three toads to testify. Grow up. we are moving towards a one world government.
ReplyDeleteIf "they removed bomb-sniffing dogs from the WTC 5 days before 9/11" is the best you can do ... I will go back to regularly scheduled programming.
ReplyDeleteTo plant the amount of explosives needed to do what you guys claim, it would have taken 5 days AROUND THE CLOCK ... someone might have noticed something ...
This shit is all a diversion. But I feel compelled to check in every so often, just in case.
Please post a more idiotic length for the description of the word pull...omg
ReplyDeleteweird person..very...
Please post a more idiotic length for the description of the word pull...omg
ReplyDeleteweird person..very...
Anonymous way up there said he worked on the Stratesec account sounded pretty interesting and smart
ReplyDeleteHas any one followed up on KuwAm and Stratesec ?
WTC 1 & 2 underwent "elevator upgrades" in the year prior to 9/11. (Interestingly, you can't get to this article by navigating the Web site.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0103-002.html-ssi
NIST scientists are not wrong. The outcome of the investigation is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteBut that's because they were told what conclusions to come to.
They used the assumption that the towers were brought down by plane impacts and fires and work their way bAckwards.
Anyone with half a brain can see the evidence pile up.
And then there are the disinformation agents and people who can't see past the parts they won't be able to accept.