• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jesse Ventura Is A Lying Truther

but I'm not really going to be getting into 9-11 issues very much. (especially with the latest releases and comments related to the video of the firefighters describing how the main lobby of building 7 exploded and collapsed on them and the related 'debunking'...

I fully understand B'man, for it can be an at times a contentious issue, there is a LOT of supposition involved.

But I will correct one small wee mistake here ... this video has been widely touted in conspiracy circles as Fire Fighters talking about the lobby of either the Towers or WTC 7 ... when in fact they were talking about the Marriot Hotel lobby.

They were from Ladder Company 24 which was sent to a staging area INSIDE the Marriot Hotel lobby ...

FDNY F/F James Duffy ...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110444.PDF

FDNY F/F Tyrone Jonson ...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110443.PDF

But the thing you have to understand about all these videos is that they are NOT proof of anything ... except that reports can be wrong during live events.

A news report saying there were bombs does NOT mean there were actual "bombs", things can and do get confused in the fog of war kind of thing.

There were many reports of bombs in other places that turned out to be not so, have you ever looked retrospectively at live news and seen how often they turn out to be wrong ...

News reports from a live, chaotic event are NOT GOSPEL !!!

You must understand that you need MORE than some jumbled testimony from frightened, tired, shattered people during a terrifying time as being wholly authorative.

Have you never been involved in a chaotic event where no-one "really" knew what was happening ... it is all very well for us to sit here years later with the benefit of hindsight and shout bombs ... but WITHOUT further corroborating physical evidence ... all those reports NEED to be taken with the proverbial pinch of salt.

Live news reports are NOT proof of anything other than chaos ...

I also find it very telling that all truthers whom loudly tout the Fire Fighters testimony as proof of explosives have to this very day NEVER shown the moral or intellectual backbone to actually GO AND SEE these people and see if they agree with your "interpretation" of their words ... you simply CANNOT in all moral decency and honesty use these peoples words WITHOUT checking you are right first !!!

And that is what your whole movement has failed to do ... check first !!!

First responders are public employees and this was a historic event in the full glare of publicity, there has been NOTHING stopping any truther group or individual from approaching a public employee and office and double-checking your interpretation of their witnessing.

Why has the truth movement failed to even attempt this ???

Oh... maybe I misunderstood, and since I first posted that I did learn that there's probably about 50 different concoctions of explosives / high level incendiaries that can be made into sol-gels.

No worries ... but sol-gels were not and never were past the theoretical and laboratory stage at that time and were not and still not available in large scale manufacture.

Thoeretical stuff does not cut it, then OR now !!!

At the very least, NIST should have performed the test for explosives to be able to say conclusively that there were no explosives, rather then the justification which amounts to 'we didn't test for explosives because it would have been too difficult' or 'because the buildings collapsed at the floors that were impacted'... I forget the specific reasoning, but it was along those lines.

They had no need to test NOR explain themselves, for scientifically, it was self-evident what caused the buildings demise, building collapse forensics is well known and understood ... and for them to have tested to suit the non-expert demands of the public is nonsense.

WITHOUT physical evidence of explosives ... there was no legal, moral or ethical reason to check ... you do not have a dentist check your teeth for an obvious broken leg !!!

Every single piece of debris was subjected to a detailed fingertip search at Fresh Kills, inspected, poked, prodded and analysed by a plethora of acknowledged experts in multiple fields, as well as sniffed all over by teams of dogs ... not a teeny, weeny, wee speck of anything bomb-like or explosive like was EVER found.

Explosives do not just disappear into thin air ... they ALWAYS leave "physical" evidence.

None was found ... oh! maybe then that is because there was NONE there !!!

The difference I was referring to was more like how you can put your hand into the flame of a candle for about half a second before it will start to burn you... so, the extra material would serve to extend the burning time in order to accomplish the objective reasoning behind it being there, whether it was explosive (2X TNT will provide at least 2X the explosive force), or incendiary to heat the steel further. (assuming that this stuff being in the building was accurate of course)

There is a difference between temperature and heat ... and whilst the duration of log fires can be "extended" by addition of another log, and no increase in heat output ... the same cannot be said of an incendiary material like thermite.

Thermite is not a combustable like a wooden log ... it is a chemical compound that reacts chemically.

But the scientist ALSO lied by performing a test that he KNEW would not be sufficient to destroy the steel... which was my point.

What lie ... he was tasked with performing a simple test between regular and super thermite ... he did that ... where is the "lie" ???

Stop trying to dodge and twist reality to suit ... it is weak !!!

Is it possible that Ventura as UDT might have been working WITH SEALS teams directly?? I mean in the sense that you might have a squad of soldiers on the frontlines working directly with a squad of artillery (probably a bad example, but I'm mostly ignorant on military affairs beyond certain basic understandings)

No B'man the point is he DELIBERATELY lies and calls himself a Navy SEAL when he has NO right to ... he never was a SEAL ... and even working closely with them does NOT give you the right to "claim" you were one of them, any more than my RAF career gives me the right to claim I am the pilot of the aircraft I am going on holiday in !!!

, as per usual I'm an advocate for discernment, separating the truth from the lies to the best of my abilities.

Yes, seperating the wheat from the chaff is a skill, but here is a hint B'man ... considering the amount of outright lies and compete psuedo-scince told by proponets of the Truth Movement they are more likely the chaff !!!

There's no simple answer to that... THERE ARE, however, MANY with credentials that do speak within their expertise, and anytime they are mentioned, every attempt to slander their character is made... just to specify a single factor of this.

Name just one B'man, but why do you think telling how UNQUALIFIED (think Gage ...the architect) to speak with authority is an attack on character ... it's not !!!

Saying someone is speaking wholly without their field, yet claiming authority is NOT slander ... it is a FACT !!!

Gage as an architect without experience of high buildings does NOT have right by credentials to speak about high rise building collapse ... FACT !!!

I would ask the same of the 'F.olks A.ccepting G.overnment S.tories' as well

Please point to one single outright blatent lie told by NIST or anyone else ???

BUT, to give an analogy of how his experiment gets into flawed territory, would be like taking a 9mm pistol and shooting an elephant and when it continues to charge at you make the conclusion that elephants are bullet proof...

Sorry, but this shows you have no understanding of scientific methodology, some tests to carry out on a real world scale would be impossible, due to size or expense ... so smaller tests are conducted, but by scaling up mathematically you can predict, quite accurately the real world outcome of the larger event.

Science works ... scientists and engineers use modelling all the time and just because a scientist used a much more simplified model, than he would routinely use, to suit a more lay audience does NOT in any way diminish the test.

Conceptual modelling is a proven and accurate method of finding out real world results ... happens all the time, from designing a new car to a new building.

Van Romero was demonstrating a principle that holds up in the real world, in that thermite (of whatever flavour) does NOT have enough heat energy for long enough to sever columns, such as at the WTC nor can act against gravity ... just because it is dumbed down for general viewing does not negate it any more than the "volcano" projects of schoolkids goes against the science of real volcanos !!!

volcano-finished-model.jpg


Yes, this little papier-mâché project is über simpified and not quite reflecting the scale and reality of an actual volcano it STILL suffices to demonstrate principles !!!

So, had the guy used a heavy gauge steel stud and applied the same amount and it STILL didn't cut through, I'd have no choice but to shut up on that issue.

Yes B'man, I do understand that for many "seeing is believing" ... but when you consider the ability of modelling and mathematical scaling it becomes clear you do not actually need to do this, but I do understand that for many they do need to ... so why do you not contact some groups and get them to do a bigger better replay of Truth Burn at the Burning Man festival of 2007 ... which was another predictable abject dose of fail !!!

Getting hold of some equal size steel beams and jimmying them up with some thermite should be do-able ???

Then you can see with your own eyeballs what scientists know in their hearts ... it canna be done !!!

TruthBurn: TRUTHBURN Art Project at Burning Man 2007

Truth Burn at Burning Man - Democratic Underground

My overall point was that BOTH were lying and NEITHER made their case.

Wrong ... only one was lying, and he already has a record of such dishonest claims !!!

Yes, his experiment stands that there are different concoctions that can still fall under the category of thermite... but if he was so confident in the results, he should have made a better test scenario. That's all I'm saying.

So what ... the energy signatures are already well-known, so what difference would it have made ???

Do you not think he was so confidant because REAL scientists already know these claims are junk ... and that answers why truthers do not have the support, but rather the ridicule of the worldwide scientific and engineering communities, because they already know this is crud !!!
 
It's a matter of scale.

Correct ... but not in energy density ... just size and energy release but not energy output !!!

Take the difference of coffee and espresso... (there may be more differences, but as far as I know) Coffee beans get ground up so that the water filters through turning the water into coffee... this would be like 'macro' thermite. But with Espresso the beans are ground up into super-fine particles (I think also the water gets pushed through with more pressure, but not important), and so MORE of the caffeine gets released from the beans when the water passes through because the smaller particles means that there is a greater surface area for each particle to dissolve the caffeine and flavor into the water.

Completely and utterly wrong ...

Instant coffee actually contains the highest level of caffeine ...

"In coffee brewing terms, espresso and brewed coffee should have the same extraction (about 20% of the coffee grounds are extracted into the coffee liquid), but espresso has a higher brew strength (concentration, in terms of dissolved coffee solids per unit volume), due to having less water."

Espresso - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the same with the particles of the materials for the chemical reaction... the smaller particles allow for a more efficient reaction, potentially so much more efficient that it borders on explosive (as is my understanding from the papers I've read on the subject)

But here is the thing B'man ... efficient does NOT mean stronger or more powerful ... it just reacts quicker and faster ... NOT hotter, your reading is wrong B'man.

There is still the exact same energy potential and density, it just reacts differently.

I've read a number of papers on the subject, and the findings of these papers discussing sol-gels SUGGEST differently...

That is because this is still all just THEORETICAL ... it has not yet been demonstrated in reality

That as you decrease the size of the particles you exponentially increase the rate of the energy release....

Energy RELEASE ... not energy amount ... see the difference, release is just a function of time here, the same energy as ordinary is just RELEASED quicker and easier ... NOT more of it !!!

but I'm not gonna stress over this any longer because it involved going to such great lengths to get the papers, and then finding the referenced papers going back to the late 80's... and I don't expect it would change the position anyway, so I'll just agree that we disagree for this particular issue.

And still yet not one of these papers is beyond lab work !!!

Which, I'm no longer even fully convinced by stephen jones and Harrit's paper... first, their choice of reviewer (with pay to publish policy) was a politically poor choice, but I don't know if that was done out of necessity or choice.

Complete and utter choice ... as established scientists they would KNOW for a fact this was not credible, but as they were trying to convince a lay public with psuedo-science (gotta keep up those book and DVD sales) it was enough to give the "impression" of legitimacy.

Still shows that they must know their work is deeply flawed to need to try to by-pass the gold standard in science and appeal directly to a lay audience ... that is bad, bad science !!

Also, the particular tests performed, as has been noted, were not the ideal techniques... HOWEVER, as they say there are many ways to skin a cat, so I'm not in doubt that they DID find SOMETHING, I'm not convinced that what they claim it as is accurate,

Wrong B'man ... for this there was ONE definative test involving trying to get their samples to burn in an oxygenless atmosphere which they utterly failed to do ... that was wilful negligence !!!

Thermites can burn without oxygen so "the" DEFINING test is to see if it will ignite and burn in the airless enviroment of a vacumn ... no need to skin many cats regarding this one B'man.

There is ONLY one reason for failure to do such a test ... that they already knew it was not thermite and were trying to fool their unscientific followers !!!

I don't doubt they found something explosive... or possibly like a fuse to the real charge... I don't know.

See this is where the lay understanding gets mixed up ... finding something that has an explosive quality at the molecular level is entirely different to "explosive" in the sense that you understand it.

Dust molecules are "explosive" ... and "explosion" at such a small level in no way indicates explosive materials ... there are thousands of chemicals, elements, minerals, molecules that can be scientifically described as "explosive reacting" WITHOUT them being actually explosives.

http://www.iptonline.com/articles/public/IPTSEVE124NP.pdf

Curly Arrow: Evil Molecules Part 1 - Explosive Azides, Diazidomethane

If it was a demolition made to appear as a collapse due to fire, they utterly failed at that in building 7 because there were explosions going off BEFORE either tower collapsed in the main lobby.

So what ... what does some explosive noises prove ... that something went "boom" ... doesn't mean it was bombs !!!

Besides please explain what type of bombs or explosives used could blow up BEFORE the Towers collapsed and yet keep the building standing for HOURS before collapsing later in the day ... it is nonsensical and idiotic to think those noises had ANYTHING to do with deliberate demolition many hours later !!!

Buildinga and cars are chock full of equipment, chemicals, electrical, mechanical objects which can cook off and explode due to fire and/or damage ... there is no need to appeal to explosives alone !!!

Look for OTHER more logical explanations first, if nothing else, to eliminate them from the list of suspects FIRST before loudly proclaiming "explosives".

Simple detective work ... eliminate all other possible sources of explosive sounds first !!!

And a structure CANNOT, as in PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to collapse within 3% of free-fall acceleration for at least 17 measured stories WHILE simultaneously performing the 'work' of destroying the structure and pulverizing the concrete.

Slight wee problem here B'man ... it was NOT the "structure" that collapsed with a period of freefall ... it was a BIT of the structure ... the "bit" that was most damaged !!!

And that is entirely within reason.

The 60% of free-fall in the towers, is STILL a fair bit faster then the verinage demolitions, which I've personally measured which accellerate at about 40% of gravity, and that's with the buildings mostly rigged to collapse. HOWEVER, it's 'believable', if not for the other oddities noticed that are not supportable.

So what ... the bigger they are the harder they fall !!!

Erm, another wee problem here too B'man ... in verinage the buildings are NOT mostly "rigged" to collapse ... there is NO structural pre-weakening involved ... just the removal of walls to allow equipment in, matters not whether they are load-bearing or not, removed for convience and visability.

And yet when asked of by REAL demolition experts these "oddities" turn out to be fully explainable ... just because you personally do not understand what you are seeing does not mean the real experts don't.

Do you never stop to wonder why it is only NON-experts that question these things ???

I'm sorry, but there's PLENTY of unexplained explosion sounds going on... it's all be 'debunked' as 'natural' loud sounds, but whatever... to answer the question : either; as a fuse to ignite the proper explosions, as the explosions themselves, or some combination...

So what ... just because you do not know nor have looked for other explanations does not prove or demonstrate they were something else ... for if you genuinely believe they were some sort of explosive and/or combination you DO need demonstrate more than your thoughts.

You NEED to explain the mechanism and thinking behind "explosives" that can survive inside fires ... that can "go off" but not instantly remove support ... and somehow "go off lower" but trigger collapse from the EXACT impact zone much higher up !!!

I've seen devices made to 'project' thermite sideways... it's on youtube somewhere... but like I said earlier, the size is exponentially inverse to the speed of energy release when it starts getting into nano-scales.

And yes, B'man did you see the SIZE of the canister needed to cut the tiny and slender little bit of metal ???

To cut columns the size of the WTC ones would require proportionately large canisters ALL AROUND them ... ON EVERY SINGLE ONE ... so not ONLY would they be HIGHLY visible ... they would be structurally damaging as well !!!



Now I know you will tout this as authorative because it "claims" to be a company (whose link is broken) but further googling provides this highly suspect and not exactly professional site for what they claim is a "leading developer" and that there is simply not credible information regarding the background of those in this "leading" company ...

Spectre Enterprises

Spectre Enterprises

Spectre Enterprises, Inc. Company Profile - Located in West Palm Beach, FL - Charles Mohler, Ciaran Swords, Jonathan Mohler, Tim Mohler
(Domestic for profit ... hardly sounds high-flying and leading now)

And although there is a patent for this ... that again does NOT mean this exists in reality ... anyone can file a patent for anything, a patent is just a protection of INTELLECTUAL property ... even an idea can be patented ...

"What has not been disclosed in the prior art, however, is use of a thermitebased apparatus for directing or focusing a cutting flame derived from the activation of a thermite charge for the purpose of cutting substantially thick material such as steel plates and bars, for example. In addition, the prior art has not provided a practical solution for effecting an extended, linear cut in a piece of material. The prior art also has not sufficiently addressed concerns related to the health and safety of a user using an explosive shape charge apparatus to create high velocity explosions to cut material. As a result, the prior art has also not adequately considered use of a thermite-based cutting apparatus to alleviate hazards associated with debris, noise and pressure waves generated from using explosive charges to cut material having a substantial thickness."

"Preferably, the cutting apparatus of the present invention may be employed, for example, to cut steel bars of up to one inch in diameter. It is believed that the diameter of a bar which can be successfully cut by the present invention is proportional to the diameter of the thermite charge employed in the cutting apparatus of the present invention"

Cutting torch and associated methods - Patent 6183569

Public money wasted on useless patents

Bucketload of salt with this one B'man !!!

Besides even Mythbusters used a THOUSAND pounds of thermite which could not fully melt through a car ... so just how much would be needed to burn through thick columns, when this huge amount could not even cut through a car roof ... and that was FOLLOWING gravitional influence ...



I didn't know that was jones' attempt...

Sorry, my mistake, :3oops: not actually "his" attempt, but he did jump all over it and used in in some of his "buddy-reviewed" stuff ...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf
 
One should not devote too much time or detail to debating 9/11 Truthers on technical points. It's what they want and MANY are not intellectually honest to begin with. All many want is to put text after text, photo after photo, into Cyber Space to just give a false impression to the barely informed.
 
I though you weren't getting into this much anymore (???)

I was addressed directly, and, overall, I do respect I_gaze_at_the_blue's opinions enough to give her that response. That said, I'm going to keep this short.

I fully understand B'man, for it can be an at times a contentious issue, there is a LOT of supposition involved.

I especially feel bad about being put in a position where I have to accuse someone that's ACTUALLY lost someone of parading the memory of the lost for an agenda... and I don't even think that this person realized how they were using this as a tactic. That really hurt, because believe it or not I do have a deep sense of empathy.

It is such an important issue, and let's say that NIST and the commission were both bang on... to spite the fact that the commission members and admitted that they felt lied to, or that there was cover-ups going on, and that they may not have the full account, let's say it was all correct.

The REACTION was ALL WRONG. I mean, you don't send an army to capture a single person, you'd send a small elite group to track him down and sneak up on him. Especially when the afghan government was willing to extradite him given proper evidence.
BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Bin Laden extradition raised
That's why I say he was scapegoated. Honestly, in ALL the chaos of that day, and the dust is barely settled and we know who orchestrated the attacks and all...

Then the solutions provided were ALL wrong... Going to war with afghanistan, holding off an investigation (400+ days), instituting the 'patriot act' (which sections were deemed unconstitutional, but it's still being used to this day, mostly against american citizens who are selling drugs... not that drug dealers are a good thing, but that's not a sign of a free society), then came a war on Iraq, which never STATED that it was related to 9-11, EVEN THOUGH the words '9-11', 'terrorism', 'global war on terror' and other keywords were used that tugged the strings of the people and allowing them to be convinced that Saddam Hussein had nuclear or chemical WMD's somewhere in the north, east, west or south of tikrit and bagdhad, but we had to go before a mushroom cloud appeared in the US.

Just to say THE ONLY people that have in ANY way benefited are those in control in the country, they got a tighter reign over the people, they are now the biggest opium producers in the world (+/- 96% of world supply), there were all sorts of no-bid contracts after the Iraq invasion as well.

SO, just to say that even if everything is at the story goes the repurcussions were not the same as how things were dealt with when Kennedy was assasinated, or when the OKC building got blown up, now it's a new set of rules that are MUCH more draconian.

On a similar note of how contrived events help governments accomplish aims... so, in July / august orders for body scanners were made deliverable in about 6 months. THEN, in december last year a guy puts a firecracker in his pants... the truth of the matter is that the man was given the explosives (the same kind used in the OKC bombings as 'coincidence'), was let on the plane by a sharp dressed man (according to professional witness), and the entire event was filmed by a person sitting a few rows behind the man with the explosive crotch. Now, here's the catch, the next day on the news while they are reporting this guy as 'al quaida' and a lone wolf, they say 'it's ok we have these body scanners that we'll start putting in everywhere' (even though they don't tell you that the radiation dose per scan is just somewhat lower then a chest x-ray, according to radiologists)

Anyway, I'm only going to address a few points :

- Firefighters : I wasn't aware... BUT, NIST had these tapes for years and did not release them, SO with ALL the people talking about either bombs going off or explosions wherever... wouldn't it be prudent to at least perform the testing required on that merit alone?? What reasoning could you really have for not performing these tests, or gloss over the details in such a way?

Just the fact that they are making the statements initially, even if they thought about it and justified it as something else for whatever reasons... that to me is AT LEAST a legitimizing factor for thorough testing for explosives.

I'm pretty sure it was in the NIST report itself the reasoning behind not testing for explosives... so, any testing that you mention was not actually part of the NIST investigation... I'll probably be corrected on this, but if memory serves even if such testing was done it was merely glossed over in the actual reports.

- News : It can't be taken as gospel, but its not something to be summarily dismissed either.

But I will correct one small wee mistake here ... this video has been widely touted in conspiracy circles as Fire Fighters talking about the lobby of either the Towers or WTC 7 ... when in fact they were talking about the Marriot Hotel lobby.

Oh... well, SOMETHING happened to them... it wasn't ketchup under the one guys nose.

And that is what your whole movement has failed to do ... check first !!!

There are first responders on both sides of the fence. It's just on one side of the fence incessantly demonizes anyone who does so.

WITHOUT physical evidence of explosives ... there was no legal, moral or ethical reason to check ... you do not have a dentist check your teeth for an obvious broken leg !!!

But if you got a bunch of people telling you that you look out of shape you don't ignore having the blood pressure taken, even if it's a 'hassle'.

Thermite is not a combustable like a wooden log ... it is a chemical compound that reacts chemically.

The term explosion refers FIRST to the expansion of gases. If the efficiency of the reaction is increased sufficiently it would generate that expansion of gasses, and given the temperature would be different then the effect of the incendiary simply sticking to the side and the slag running down.

What lie ... he was tasked with performing a simple test between regular and super thermite ... he did that ... where is the "lie" ???

It's more subtle then that. If he wanted to make the claim that it wouldn't work he would have applied it more thoroughly. OR used a piece of steel that was adequately scaled... The point is BOTH are lying to push their own agendas, and the fact is that his tv show is going to be biased... I mean, at least it's not as flawed as that attempt at demonization...

No B'man the point is he DELIBERATELY lies and calls himself a Navy SEAL when he has NO right to ... he never was a SEAL ... and even working closely with them does NOT give you the right to "claim" you were one of them, any more than my RAF career gives me the right to claim I am the pilot of the aircraft I am going on holiday in !!!

That's not quite the relation I meant... more like SEALS performed their mission and he tagged along with them to provide for their expertise... but I can't speak much to that... I hope he gets called out on that publicly so he can defend himself.

Yes, seperating the wheat from the chaff is a skill, but here is a hint B'man ... considering the amount of outright lies and compete psuedo-scince told by proponets of the Truth Movement they are more likely the chaff !!!

That's true regardless of position... don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Gage - That's fine to point out that he 'doesn't know what he's talking about', it's a whole other point to disseminate the information... which more often then not is never done, but used as a tactic to avoid disseminating his points.

Please point to one single outright blatent lie told by NIST or anyone else ???
"They hate our freedoms"
"The fireproofing was removed by the planes collision"
"I watched the first plane hit the first tower"
"I left the room immediately and started giving orders." (Bush waited about 45 min before doing that... not quite what I'd call 'immediate')

Completely and utterly wrong ...

Instant coffee actually contains the highest level of caffeine ...

Well, almost completely wrong, I was talking about taste, not caffeine... but instant coffee is dehydrated coffee. Otherwise, I was more right then I expected, I just said it wrong.

But here is the thing B'man ... efficient does NOT mean stronger or more powerful ... it just reacts quicker and faster ... NOT hotter, your reading is wrong B'man.
There is still the exact same energy potential and density, it just reacts explosively.
Fixed.

And still yet not one of these papers is beyond lab work !!!

With 2 years after publishing to be able to take it beyond lab work ;)

Still shows that they must know their work is deeply flawed to need to try to by-pass the gold standard in science and appeal directly to a lay audience ... that is bad, bad science !!

It's not the scientists that will change the world.

So what ... what does some explosive noises prove ... that something went "boom" ... doesn't mean it was bombs !!!

Which also does not MEAN that it was the sound of one floor crashing to the next floor.... I'm just saying.

Look for OTHER more logical explanations first, if nothing else, to eliminate them from the list of suspects FIRST before loudly proclaiming "explosives".

Right... Rather then LOSING BILLIONS of dollars to remove asbestos from the towers, Silverstein took the reigns and cashed in on double his insurance. That alone is justification for investigation.
So what ... just because you do not know nor have looked for other explanations does not prove or demonstrate they were something else ... for if you genuinely believe they were some sort of explosive and/or combination you DO need demonstrate more than your thoughts.

No, I suspect that there's a reasonable chance that there was SOMETHING more then the flames going on in the towers... SOMETHING blew up the main floor lobby (not the elevators, because the elevators went down past the lobby). I KNOW that the 'soon to be' Bush administration are a few hairs shy from outright calling for 'a new pearl harbor' attack to accomplish the agenda.

I KNOW that there's NO WAY that they could have anything more then a 'feeling' that OBL would be responsible by the time he was being accused publicly... and even less so when they called for his extradition.
BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Bin Laden extradition raised

You NEED to explain the mechanism and thinking behind "explosives" that can survive inside fires ... that can "go off" but not instantly remove support ... and somehow "go off lower" but trigger collapse from the EXACT impact zone much higher up !!!

I would have to assume careful planning.


Now I know you will tout this as authorative because it "claims" to be a company (whose link is broken) but further googling provides this highly suspect and not exactly professional site for what they claim is a "leading developer" and that there is simply not credible information regarding the background of those in this "leading" company ...

Nope, just point out 'proof of concept'

Bucketload of salt with this one B'man !!!

Besides even Mythbusters used a THOUSAND pounds of thermite which could not fully melt through a car ... so just how much would be needed to burn through thick columns, when this huge amount could not even cut through a car roof ... and that was FOLLOWING gravitional influence ...
On this one ya... BUT, that was a 'common' thermite... But the point is that we're debating an assumption here... even if it's plausible doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened... So, while I strongly suspect something not adding up scientifically.. politically and legally 'qui bono' DOES NOT IN ANY way shape or form help any 'al-quada', UNLESS then intention IS to radicalize the middle east.

That's one thing I DO know about middle eastern cultures... they hold VERY strongly to honor codes.

The ONLY people that benefited are those in control of the anglo-american empire.
 
One should not devote too much time or detail to debating 9/11 Truthers on technical points. It's what they want and MANY are not intellectually honest to begin with. All many want is to put text after text, photo after photo, into Cyber Space to just give a false impression to the barely informed.

Hi Ned, I do tend not to get involved for many are just trolls, but I do think that B'man is slightly different in that in that he does genuinely believe the junk that many conspiracy sites churn out, and unlike the obvious trolls and crazies, he at least is polite to me and willing to engage at a more adult level.

Besides I have the time to do it being retired now, and it is waaaay more fun than knitting !!!

comp-knitting.jpg
 
Hi Ned, I do tend not to get involved for many are just trolls, but I do think that B'man is slightly different in that in that he does genuinely believe the junk that many conspiracy sites churn out, and unlike the obvious trolls and crazies, he at least is polite to me and willing to engage at a more adult level.

Besides I have the time to do it being retired now, and it is waaaay more fun than knitting !!!

comp-knitting.jpg



Oh, I respect that point of view , but with many I do sometimes wonder about their age and their overall depth of knowledge concerning Huge events in recent History.

I once had a Friend who from like 1967 thry 1976 was obsessed with the JFK assasination. He read every book and then some and was in contact with a few Hard Core Critics of the Warren Commission. As knowledgable as he was he could NEVER explain WHY they never found the Curtain rods on that upper floor in the Depository.

He also never focused on the clear subliminal need for a guy like Oswald to Be a "Big Man" and achieve Something - like Anything .
 
Oh, I respect that point of view , but with many I do sometimes wonder about their age and their overall depth of knowledge concerning Huge events in recent History.

I once had a Friend who from like 1967 thry 1976 was obsessed with the JFK assasination. He read every book and then some and was in contact with a few Hard Core Critics of the Warren Commission. As knowledgable as he was he could NEVER explain WHY they never found the Curtain rods on that upper floor in the Depository.

He also never focused on the clear subliminal need for a guy like Oswald to Be a "Big Man" and achieve Something - like Anything .

I fully get what you mean Ned, there seems to be a psychological need for big events to have big causes ... the simple reality that people such as JFK can be killed for something as stupid as the Small Man Syndrome, or a Princess be killed in something as ordinary and mundane as a drunk-driving accident seems anethema to them.

They find it inconcievable that extra-ordinary events could have ordinary causes.

Something "big" MUST have an equally "big" reason !!!

For them very single historic event is history is motivated by greed and lust for power of those they consider "them", that every event of history or magnitude is some deliberate act by "them" and yet that is a wholly simplistic evaluation ... chaos and chance do happen !!!

There is also the very real ignorance (for some wilful) but for many they make judgements about matters they have zero knowledge or learning of ... and that is idiocy !!!

For example, in another forum I debate some of the Princess Diana conspiracists, and one of their greatest points is that Diana was not taken to the nearest hospital ... but that is just ignorance of how the French emergency system works.

In France, different to how it is in the US and the UK, rather than stabilize the patient and take them hell-for-leather to the nearest hospital ... they spend more time at the site, with a doctor already as part of the emergency team, more equipment and medicines onboard than our ambulances here ... and then take you to the BEST hospital for the injuries you have.

Paris also works a rotational system of emergency cover.

There was no conspiracy here ... just standard practice for France, but unless you already knew that, then by being so different to what you knew and understood it just "seemed" suspicious !!!

Funny how real life always turns out simpler than you think ... :peace
 
The JFK/Dealy Plaza Crowd is still around too. Nobody ever brings up the missing curtain rods.

On 9/11/01 AQ exploited a weakness they had detected possibly over 2 years earlier in our Airport Security system and our Visa requirements. They weren't 100% succesfull because only 4 Jackers got on UA93 and they didn't consider the Cell phones. They knew it probably would work only once because NOW the Passengers will fight because the intentions are obvious.
 
I fully get what you mean Ned, there seems to be a psychological need for big events to have big causes ... the simple reality that people such as JFK can be killed for something as stupid as the Small Man Syndrome, or a Princess be killed in something as ordinary and mundane as a drunk-driving accident seems anethema to them.

This falls into the 'want to believe' category... but no, I don't look at every car accident as a 'conspiracy' nor every plane crash, or every IED going off killing soldiers in afghanistan. Now, when you get into the large scale events, the ones that get USED to push political agenda's, MORE OFTEN THEN NOT there is this 'simplified' explanation... but then there are extra details that come out that COMPLETELY defy this explanation... like how secondary devices were FILMED being removed from the OKC building in the aftermath of that bombing, or little details like the secret service agent behind JFK who was ordered to stand down moments before the shooting, or the political steps that were taken in the 40's that all but forced the Japanese to attack pearl harbor... or the fact that the gulf of tonkin incident was completely fabricated (not the first incident, the second incident which was used to justify vietnam).

The devil is in the details... those details that get glossed over or ignored in offering the explanation that allows a justification for the agenda of the day (JFK was an exception to this, because he was doing a bunch of stuff that went counter the agenda's of american power brokers of the day... I don't know the actual reason for his assassination, but there's a short list of things that he did that may have been seen as justification)

They find it inconcievable that extra-ordinary events could have ordinary causes.

Rather, I find it inconceivable that evidence can be ignored when it does not suit the case.

Something "big" MUST have an equally "big" reason !!!

No, more like if it looks like a cover-up, smells like a cover-up, odds are that there's something being covered-up.

For them very single historic event is history is motivated by greed and lust for power of those they consider "them", that every event of history or magnitude is some deliberate act by "them" and yet that is a wholly simplistic evaluation ... chaos and chance do happen !!!

To save a treatise on the 'them', in short we're talking about the power elite, the financial elite, the academic elite, the military elite, etc... who are working towards an end-goal that is just as easily described as world conquest. That said, there's a variety of styles that these events take :

- The frame-up / false-flag : You're at a party and someone and there are two people that hate each other, and you want to see them fight... you turn off the lights for a second punch one in the face and when the lights come back on you point to the other.

- The staged event : If a picture really says a thousand words
window.jpg
(Notice the 20+ cameras surrounding the single "protester")

- "security failed" : Allowing an attack to take place knowing that it COULD be stopped because the results will work to your benefit, or finally when all else-fails ...

- The fabrication : Just tell people you were attacked and react accordingly.

There is also the very real ignorance (for some wilful) but for many they make judgements about matters they have zero knowledge or learning of ... and that is idiocy !!!

For example, in another forum I debate some of the Princess Diana conspiracists, and one of their greatest points is that Diana was not taken to the nearest hospital ... but that is just ignorance of how the French emergency system works.

In France, different to how it is in the US and the UK, rather than stabilize the patient and take them hell-for-leather to the nearest hospital ... they spend more time at the site, with a doctor already as part of the emergency team, more equipment and medicines onboard than our ambulances here ... and then take you to the BEST hospital for the injuries you have.

Paris also works a rotational system of emergency cover.

There was no conspiracy here ... just standard practice for France, but unless you already knew that, then by being so different to what you knew and understood it just "seemed" suspicious !!!

Funny how real life always turns out simpler than you think ... :peace

I can't really speak to Dianna's death, not knowing the details in depth... though I'm aware that there are people with the sentiment that she was murdered.

Though, I remember hearing about some 'oddities' with the case involving the numerological coincidences... things like the car hit the 13th column, the date and time, etc... but that alone is not enough to make any case.

At the same time that you say that 'not every big event has a big reason', I would urge you to consider that not every significant event happens by pure chance either. Not that I don't believe in luck, but if you won the lotto jackpot prize 5 draws in a row, 10 draws in a row, every day for a year... there will come a time where you get questioned on how you are beating the odds in such magnificent ways... and justifiably so...
 
I only read the First Half. These things JFK was doing - was one of them trying to stop Israel from getting the Bomb????? That one pops up around the Internet once in awhile.
 
I only read the First Half. These things JFK was doing - was one of them trying to stop Israel from getting the Bomb????? That one pops up around the Internet once in awhile.

I never heard that one before... the ones I was thinking of was that he was going to end the war, also was planning to end the federal reserve, bring back a gold / silver standard of currency, drastically lowering taxes, and stuff like that... not that he was perfect, but these things meant MASSIVE losses to certain powerful groups...

Either way, Mr Hunt confessed on his deathbed, on video and in writing for his part in JFK's assassination.

BTW, you couldn't have made it past the first half of the first paragraph, so I look forward to your comments on the rest.
 
Last edited:
I'm really fascinated by the E.Howard Hunt revelation. Tell me more.
 


lol. I love how the dude posts his license when he calls Ventura a crock. The chopped picture on it of him and his girl is hilarious.
I can't belive I actuall sat through the whole thing.

Save me from myself. Does anyone watch Jesse on the television?
 
I think it's funny how people like to criticize Ventura's military service, yet most who do have never served. He was UDT, not a SEAL, but they are closely related. I had one guy tell me, "well I heard his DD214 doesn't have him being a SEAL or being in combat". My first response to that was, "show me your DD214", before you criticize a man's military career, attain one yourself. Also, I've heard Ventura in his own words say he's never been in combat, and for him to be blasted for not being in combat is disgusting. A member of our military service doesn't have a choice if he goes to combat or not, it's his superiors, give me a break. I'm a veteran, and I'm proud of the people who have given time of their lives to serve this nation in the armed services. Jesse Ventura has more military experience than the majority of the American population that haven't served a day in their lives.

:lamo

very funny post. thank you. Lying about one's service can be a crime.
 
My browser doesn't run a lot of Video. Kindly fill me in on the Main Points.
 
My browser doesn't run a lot of Video. Kindly fill me in on the Main Points.

Video 1 : He describes it as a conspiracy with LBJ at the head who was an opportunist who desperately wanted to become president and gathered help from a CIA agent (Cord Meyer Jr.) who tasked a different CIA agent who JFK happened to take his wife as a mistress. To keep it brief... He does say that he was a benchwarmer for the big event.

Video 2 : Said mistress describing the attitude of LBJ the day before, as well as what she was doing that day...
 
Video 1 : He describes it as a conspiracy with LBJ at the head who was an opportunist who desperately wanted to become president and gathered help from a CIA agent (Cord Meyer Jr.) who tasked a different CIA agent who JFK happened to take his wife as a mistress. To keep it brief... He does say that he was a benchwarmer for the big event.

Video 2 : Said mistress describing the attitude of LBJ the day before, as well as what she was doing that day...



Do You think That's WHY Mary was eliminated in May 1964 while walking along some Canal????? She knew too much ?????
 
I especially feel bad about being put in a position where I have to accuse
someone that's ACTUALLY lost someone of parading the memory of the lost
for an agenda... and I don't even think that this person realized how they
were using this as a tactic. That really hurt, because believe it or not I do
have a deep sense of empathy.

But do you not think that maybe it is in fact you whom has the agenda.

This person was NOT parading their loss and personal memories but responding to you ... and I can fully understand their anger, for these people whom DIRECTLY witnessed or lost someone have much more stake in these discussions than you or I ... and if they see that people are wrong in interpretation and understanding they have the full right to be angry with you.

By what right do you claim to speak for them ... especially since you never asked them whether they needed your voice ???

Have you ever thought to contact these people to see if you are correct and they need you ... because as I see it the most successful voices and advocates for something ... be it a road safety campaign or this ... are those directly involved.

And the simple FACT that the Truth Movement does NOT have thier support says something ... not one single of the recognized and credible survivors or family groups support you ... the simple FACT that you do not have their backing should tell you something.

Their silence speaks volumes !!!

So when people whom have lost speak directly to you ... you SHOULD fully listen AND take on board what they tell you, for these people are better placed and able than you to know the genuine reality of the day.

Wrong is wrong ... and if you are told by these people that you ARE wrong ... that should give you pause to think on where you stand.

If somebody told you something you know, for a fact did not happen and they kept telling you that they knew better ... would you not too feel anger at their pig-headed stubborn refusal to accept reality ???

Like how so many people fell for the ignorant rantings of teenage boys against known experts ... that is idiocy extreme !!!

It is such an important issue, and let's say that NIST and the commission were both bang on... to spite the fact that the commission members and admitted that they felt lied to, or that there was cover-ups going on, and that they may not have the full account, let's say it was all correct.

The account itself is correct ... when you look fully into what those Commission members were referring to it was the WAY the account was presented ... not the account itself.

That there was a general reluctance to put up for scrutiny their own failures is NOT saying the account itself is wrong.

Every single Commission member signed off on the report ... the doubts and omissions were more PROCEEDURAL than matters of fact.

The REACTION was ALL WRONG. I mean, you don't send an army to capture a single person, you'd send a small elite group to track him down and sneak up on him. Especially when the afghan government was willing to extradite him given proper evidence,

And this I do understand B'man ... but just because the government handled it badly does not mean they caused it.

Yes, Bush disgracefully took advantage afterwards, and yes, the 9/11 Commission was rushed and flawed, but that is just your bog-standard response of government covering their own incompetances and failings to see this coming.

As for the NIST and ASCE reports, they were proper considered engineering ones, which may not have been far enough looking ... but when you consider that once collapse started NOTHING could stop it ... it would have been an expensive white elephant to look further really.

Once collapse has started it is always just going to go in the direction of gravitational influence, which is down ... so really it WAS only the collapse initiation that was important.

That's why I say he was scapegoated. Honestly, in ALL the chaos of that day, and the dust is barely settled and we know who orchestrated the attacks and all...

Well, there was ample background intelligence to implicate, but it was never joined-up thinking or sharing by the various agencies involved ... as well as that bin Laden had issued a fatwa against the US, specifically mentioning that they intended to kill Americans.

He does have a rather long history of being involved in terrorism and been very vocal as to it too.

Then the solutions provided were ALL wrong...

Kneejerk ones usually are !!!

Going to war with afghanistan, holding off an investigation (400+ days), instituting the 'patriot act' (which sections were deemed unconstitutional, but it's still being used to this day,

Yes, all wrong ... but still not enough to accuse them of "doing" it !!!

mostly against american citizens who are selling drugs... not that drug dealers are a good thing, but that's not a sign of a free society),

So what would you advocate instead ... even a free society DOES need some societal controls, else you just have lawlessness and anarchy ???

then came a war on Iraq, which never STATED that it was related to 9-11, EVEN THOUGH the words '9-11', 'terrorism', 'global war on terror' and other keywords were used that tugged the strings of the people and allowing them to be convinced that Saddam Hussein had nuclear or chemical WMD's somewhere in the north, east, west or south of tikrit and bagdhad, but we had to go before a mushroom cloud appeared in the US.

And again all that is wrong, but Bush was all gung-ho and wanted to make him name as a great war leader, like Churchill, except without the greatness !!!

Yes, it is all immoral and wrong ... but again, is no proof of causation of 9/11, I understand the resentment of involving your nation in another horrendously expensive and costly Vietnam, which you have zero chance of winning, and which will be kept ongoing for as long as possible, due of the egotism of politicians that are too big-headed to admit fault ... back-tracking is a foreign concept to them.

But that is just the moral and psychological shortcomings of the fragility of the human ego ... no-body likes to admit they were wrong, it feels like a weakness, and no-one likes feeling weak ... ordinary people do this too, it is just that their failing of human nature do not have such far-reaching consequences or influence.

Even da ebil gubmint is just a collection of imperfect, flawed human beings subject to the same pettiness, piques and feelings as you and I are !!!

And yes, I do think they vastly "overstated" the dangers of WND's and Saddams abilities to use them against the West ... but there were some there and they were used by Saddam against others ... he was a despot and dictator !!!

BBC ON THIS DAY | 16 | 1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack

The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein

So yes, yes, yes, B'man all that is wrong ... but you still cannot use their dishonest conduct AFTER to justify thinking they "did it" and you cannot deny that there was wide-spread global dissention to the war, people did not just swallow it up ... do you not see that ???

Just to say THE ONLY people that have in ANY way benefited are those in control in the country, they got a tighter reign over the people, they are now the biggest opium producers in the world (+/- 96% of world supply), there were all sorts of no-bid contracts after the Iraq invasion as well.

As it ever has been ...

they say 'it's ok we have these body scanners that we'll start putting in everywhere' (even though they don't tell you that the radiation dose per scan is just somewhat lower then a chest x-ray, according to radiologists)

A dosage which is not dangerous unless you sunbathe in them ...
 
BUT, NIST had these tapes for years and did not release them,

Yet, most of those videos were already out there, very, very, very few of them are "new" ... what NIST had was the original copies, which hadn't been through the endless editing and re-hashing of YooToob.

Regardless not one single on of those videos has shown what truthers loudly proclaimed they would !!!

SO with ALL the people talking about either bombs going off or explosions wherever... wouldn't it be prudent to at least perform the testing required on that merit alone?? What reasoning could you really have for not performing these tests, or gloss over the details in such a way?

Because you need MORE than traumatized eyewitness testimony ... eyewitnesses are known as being notoriously unreliable, not deliberately, but we do use hyperbole and rely on metaphorical language to describe events we are going through at that time, full of anxiety, fear and adrenaline.

People describe cars back-firing as gun-fire ... look to every single other frightening event, people use language like "bombs" and "explosions" for even NATURAL events ... and so WITHOUT any further reliability of more PHYSICAL evidence all those testimonies can be taken for what they are ... immediate impressions of what people thought was happening or were.

It simply isn't enough as any sort of evidence of real explosives ... and in the complete LACK of any physical evidence such as the brisance and noise associated with supposed explosives AND that people suffered not as much as a burst eardrum from such proximity to supposed explosives, as well as no physical evidence of blasting caps, detonation cord, etc, etc, etc ... there is no good reason to look further.

It has to do with preponderance of evidence, and the wholesale lack of physical evidence as opposed to some traumatized testimony outweighs it completely !!!

Just the fact that they are making the statements initially, even if they thought about it and justified it as something else for whatever reasons., that to me is AT LEAST a legitimizing factor for thorough testing for explosives.

To you maybe, but to those that have worked in the fields relevent, whom have come across real explosives before then THIS had nothing in commonality aside what frightened people thought it was.

Your personal incredulity is not enough B'man ... sorry !!!

- News : It can't be taken as gospel, but its not something to be summarily dismissed either.

In the complete absence of corroborating physical evidence I am afraid it can be dismissed.

Oh... well, SOMETHING happened to them... it wasn't ketchup under the one guys nose.

Do you not think that WTC 2 damm near cleaving the Marriot in two would, maybe just maybe, have caused a wee bit of noise and damage and injury ???

There are first responders on both sides of the fence. It's just on one side of the fence incessantly demonizes anyone who does so.

No, you don't B'man, what you have is sites like Patriots falsely "claiming" support ... but there is simply no group from the day that in anyway support or have membership of any truther type groups.

Don't mention Schroeder, he is obviously suffering and bitter, and don't dare mention Lawyer ... he is from Seattle and was never there ... but who else have you got ... seriously ???

Surely as a body of DIRECT witnesses, whom IF they knew there were explosives and had real suspicion you WOULD have their unequivocable full support already ... the fact that you don't SHOULD tell you something !!!

There is no demonizing going on, truthers simply do not have support from them !!!

But if you got a bunch of people telling you that you look out of shape you don't ignore having the blood pressure taken, even if it's a 'hassle'.

B'man, you cannot compare the physical fitness of a human being to the kind of evidence left after a bomb blast ... doesn't wash !!!

The term explosion refers FIRST to the expansion of gases.

Wrong ... it is the WHOLE !!!

If the efficiency of the reaction is increased sufficiently it would generate that expansion of gasses, and given the temperature would be different then the effect of the incendiary simply sticking to the side and the slag running
down.

A chemical reaction from thermite (of whatever flavour) does NOT, would NOT, and NEVER will cause such a rapid expansion of gases to occur ... EVER !!!

This is made up nonsense.

It's more subtle then that. If he wanted to make the claim that it wouldn't work he would have applied it more thoroughly. OR used a piece of steel that was adequately scaled... The point is BOTH are lying to push their own agendas, and the fact is that his tv show is going to be biased... I mean, at least it's not as flawed as that attempt at demonization...

No, it is not, it is just more of your convoluted twisting to suit and YOUR untutored interpretation of what was done.

No B'man, Van Romero was tasked with coating a piece of steel with two types of thermite ... he clearly did that.

That the outcome did not prove Venturas claims is not his fault, so why are you trying to twist it into something other than the simple fact that it was a simple test to show a point ???

That's not quite the relation I meant... more like SEALS performed their mission and he tagged along with them to provide for their expertise... but I can't speak much to that... I hope he gets called out on that publicly so he can defend himself.

Firstly, UDT's were the first branch of this underwater service which the SEAL's evolved from, the Navy SEAL first came into being in March 1961 ... they never co-existed, so for Ventura to tag along is a little problematic.

Secondly, Ventura NEVER saw active combat, yet claims he did.

So why are you trying to defend the indefensible ... Ventura DELIBERATELY lies about an expertise and experience he DOES NOT HAVE !!!

He is deliberately and maliciously claiming an authority he does not possess, Ventura is DELIBERATELY trying to use that term "SEAL" to make himself more than he is ... maybe it is the steroid abuse from his wrestling days that has affected his brain, I don't really know ... but by DELIBERATELY lying he not only shows DISHONOUR to those that genuinely served, but shows how deeply flawed the truth movement is ... that they have so many people whom lie in their ranks ... the big names too !!!

He LIES ... why is that defensible to you ???
 
Gage - That's fine to point out that he 'doesn't know what he's talking about', it's a whole other point to disseminate the information... which more often then not is never done, but used as a tactic to avoid disseminating his points.

He is not "disseminating" legitimate information, aside from his un-expert position, he is spreading misinformation dressed up in psuedo-science really.

Not once has Gage ever approached an actual demolition company and asked them to review or comment on his "interpretation".

Gages whole stance is it "looks" like a controlled demolition, ergo, it "is" one !!!

That is gross intellectual dishonesty, so yes, he deserves castigation for speaking outwith his field, but ALSO as his "dissemination" is clearly flawed and in places glaringly a lie !!!

"They hate our freedoms"

They do ... they also hate us being there ... there is no lie here, although it IS much more complex that that, but there is hate for the Western world, its people, its cultures, its values ... ergo no lie ... maybe an utter simplification ... but no lie !!!

"The fireproofing was removed by the planes collision"

And some undoubtably would have been ... do you think they meant the whole stuctures fire-proofing ???

Maybe it wasn't explained well enough, but do you seriously believe that at least "some" of it could not have been knocked off, or that spray-on foam is somehow indestructable ???

So again ... no lie !!!

"I watched the first plane hit the first tower"

Bush is a moron who couldn't chew gum and fart at the same time ... is it not possible he just made a gaff here ... wouldn't be the first time ???

"I left the room immediately and started giving orders." (Bush waited about 45 min before doing that... not quite what I'd call 'immediate')

See above ...

So, B'man you still cannot point out one single deliberate, blatent lie ... unlike Jesse whom does it so often he probably really does believe he was a SEAL !!!

Well, almost completely wrong, I was talking about taste, not caffeine... but instant coffee is dehydrated coffee. Otherwise, I was more right then I expected, I just said it wrong.

Which you did not make clear enough ... caffeine is the DRUG inside coffee, not my fault you didn't explain yourself well enough.

Nice try though !!!


Nope !!!

With 2 years after publishing to be able to take it beyond lab work ;)

You still do not understand science ... past lab work is NOT the same as in heavy commercial production.

But please do point out where any of these papers have progressed far beyond lab work ... this is now 2010, so please do show ???

It's not the scientists that will change the world.

Sorry, but every single advance in human understanding, technology, engineering, medicine, etc, etc, etc comes from some branch of science.

But none of your answers here responds to the simple fact that Jones FAILED to practise good science !!!

Which also does not MEAN that it was the sound of one floor crashing to the next floor.... I'm just saying.

Could also have been the sound of equipment getting crushed, could also have been the sound of electrical equipment getting crushed and blowing up, could also have been the sound of heavy equipment getting crushed, could also have been the sound of volatile chemicals getting mixed in crushing, could also have been the sounds of furniture getting crushed, could also have been the sound of computer equipment bursting apart .... and on ... and on ... and on ... and on ....and on ... and on ...

There are HUNDREDS, if not thousands of other explanations to be included beyond explosives and floor impacting ... just sayin' !!!
 
Right... Rather then LOSING BILLIONS of dollars to remove asbestos from the towers,

Where do you get this "billlions" from ... conspiracy sites ???

Do you still not get that they lie to you ???

Asbestos was not used above the 38th floor of ONE tower ... North, so this is another deliberate lie and making mountains out of molehills by conspiracy sites ...

"Several materials were considered for the sprayed thermal insulation. The exterior columns required insulation not only for fire protection but also to control column temperatures under service conditions. Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 12, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. [Details follow in the NIST NCSTAR 1-6A report.]
(NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, WTC Investigation, Passive Fire Protection Executive Summary)"

In 1991 the Port Authority calculated what was to be the cost of removing asbestos from ALL of its properties in New York and New Jersey ... which included the World Trade Centre ... Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK airports ... the harbour and all its rail, bridge, and tunnel facilities and headquarters on Randall's Island ... a cost calculated by the Port Authority for work at ALL of those properties was $600 million.

That, therefore is $600 million for ALL properties ... not "billions" for the WTC !!!

Now, don't forget that Silverstein was just the LEASEHOLDER ... not owner, the Port Authority owned them so asbestos abatement was theirs, and not Silverstens, responsibility anyway !!!

But let's take what you are implying here, that Silverstein had the buildings destroyed because he didn't want to pay the few million it would take to abate this now much smaller amount of asbestos.

First of all, he is still paying the Port Authority a yearly sum of $120 million for property that isn't generating one penny of income.

That's OVER $1000 million dollars to date !!!

Wow! he must be the worst businessman ever because his evil plan has cost him a thousand million, or a billion, so far !!!

So the removal would NOT have been "that" expensive ... rebuilding is more, a lot, lot more than that !!!

Silverstein as LEASEHOLDER has a LEGAL obligation to rebuild, not just the on the Towers site but also WTC4 and WTC5 ... as well as WTC 7.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/n...238574b8d880f3&ex=1172293200&pagewanted=print

Silverstein took the reigns and cashed in on double his insurance. That alone is justification for investigation.

Completely and utterly WRONG !!!

Silverstein had $3.5 billion coverage which was for all of the buildings under the July 2001 lease, a lease which makes him legally liable for rebuilding ... any monies paid out is earmarked for rebuilding and redevelopment ... NOT for his personal pocket !!!

This coverage was procured through 23/24 insurance companies ...

Two payed up ACE BERMUDA and XL INSURANCE in 2002 a total of $365 million.

Three of those companies ... HARTFORD, ROYAL INDEMNITY AND ST. PAULS FIRE brought motions against Silverstein that the attack was one event ... they WON those motions in 2003, limiting their liability to $112 million.

Running total now just $477 million paid ... yet he was still liable for ground rent of the previous years.

With the remaining insurers, lead by SWISS RE (whom provided the largest cover of $877 million) going for jury trials to prove their case of liability for just ONE occurence ... which ultimately they all won in 2006/7

http://www.businessinsurance.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=999920008601

Now during all this litigation Silverstein was earning NOTHING on these buildings, yet he was still (as leaseholder) liable for ground rent to the Port Authority ...

Silverstein if anything is out of pocket ... (cue the crocodile tears)

But do you really think INTERNATIONAL insurance companies would not have known that IF there was fraud going on here would have refused to stump up ???

They investigated the claims and after much deliberation and the odd court case payed up ... to the tune of around 4 and a half billion ... yet rebuilding is going to cost around NINE BILLION !!!

The new Freedom Tower alone is going to cost $3 billion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/nyregion/24insure.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

U.S. District Court • Southern District of New York

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/03cv0332_opinion_060806.pdf

Ground Zero Financing Spat May Cost $2.7 Billion (Update1) - Bloomberg

But you see B'man this is where I have problems with people whom, like you, keep believing and repeating the lies of the truther sites ... Silversteing NEVER received double payment, this is a FACT backed up by judgements in law published in the PUBLIC RECORD ... it is not a State Sekrit !!!

This information is and has been FREELY available for many years, it is not hard to find and yet we still have truther sites and groups that (and it MUST be by will) do not update or change this information ... that is LYING !!!

Deliberate and conscious ... intended falsehood !!!

And yet people, like you, endlessly repeat and regurgitate what these sites MUST know is wrong information ... for it fits their agenda and keeps the gullilble, quite literally most times, "buying" into them.

But my biggest issue is that no matter how often you seem shown how wrong and outright lying they are you still support them, you still cannot let go of this as a conspiracy by the gubmint.

Truth is truth B'man, and there is a surprizing (and predictable) LACK of real, factual, reliable, accurate,credible, truthful information touted by Da Twoof ... so why do you still fall for it ???

There is no way on this planet that those sites still touting this Silverstein insurance crud do not know by now he recieved just ONE payment which is to be used for rebuildign and NOT personal wealth ... so for them to keep up the lie he had two and trousered it IS deliberate lying and manipulation of real facts.

Why do you not question "them" and their manipulation of facts and ultimately you, then ???
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 505
No, I suspect that there's a reasonable chance that there was SOMETHING more then the flames going on in the towers... SOMETHING blew up the main floor lobby (not the elevators, because the elevators went down past the lobby). I KNOW that the 'soon to be' Bush administration are a few hairs shy from outright calling for 'a new pearl harbor' attack to accomplish the agenda.

"Something" does not mean bomb ???

There are plenty of other legitimate answers which are entirely innocent B'man, so why do you think it could only be a bomb-type event ???

But wrong B'man, the lobby was damaged not "blown up" ... please show how it was blown apart ... windows broken and marble facings detatched is NOT "blown up" !!!

And that kind of damage is explained by simple physics ... demonstrated by this simple toy ...



Some of the kinetic energy of the impact transferred down through the structure and caused this damage ... NOT explosives, and is perfectly in keeping with Newtons Third, now I know it seems counter-intuitive in that motion can be transmitted without movement, but the structure was a steel framework, and just as sound passes through quicker than air, so does other energies, of which impact is kinetically one.

Which ALSO helps explain the explosive noises heard at lower levels, it was the impact "sound" travelling through the structure faster than air ...

Speed of Sound in some common Solids

The Speed of Sound in Other Materials

Speed of Sound

I KNOW that there's NO WAY that they could have anything more then a 'feeling' that OBL would be responsible by the time he was being accused publicly... and even less so when they called for his extradition.

Oh! rubbish B'man, this is naive of you ... OBL was KNOWN to be involved in many terrorists attacks, years previously, he was KNOWN to have great animonsity towards the West, in particular the US, he was KNOWN to have issued a fatwa against the US ... they did not just pull his name out of a Lucky Bag !!!

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Who is Osama Bin Laden?

I would have to assume careful planning.

You can "assume" all you want B'man, that still does not answer the physics behind my question !!!

The answer to my question would not require strategy but science ... got any ???

Nope, just point out 'proof of concept'

You can quote "concept" all you want B'man, this still does not show this exists beyond a YooToob, a vague patent, and a crappy website.

On this one ya... BUT, that was a 'common' thermite...

See this is where you are still not getting it B'man ... even your mythical soooper, dooper, mega, ultra, ultra nano therm*te is no more than finer ground "common" ... it is NOT somehow a gizillion times as powerful.

A pound of thermite is a pound of thermite ... and even if you ground it into sub-atomic particle size it is STILL a pound of thermite !!!

Making it smaller or adding some stuff does not change the energy potential !!!

You are compltely misunderstanding this B'man ... it is not increased in POWER by making it nano-scale or adding stuff, it has the same POWER as before ... it just reacts faster ... why can you not get this ???

So, while I strongly suspect something not adding up scientifically.. politically and legally 'qui bono' DOES NOT IN ANY way shape or form help any 'al-quada', UNLESS then intention IS to radicalize the middle east.

Look B'man if you know anything about Eastern history of politics you can see they most certainly need no help to radicalize themselves ... they are rabid enough without any outside influence.

That's one thing I DO know about middle eastern cultures... they hold VERY strongly to honor codes.

So that's why they are barbaric enough to stone women to death, that's why girls get kidnapped and killed to satisfy male honour codes ...

Video of Stoning to Death - Islam in action
(Graphic nature warning ... sorry)

Robert Fisk: The crimewave that shames the world - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent

Honour ... right !!!

The ONLY people that benefited are those in control of the anglo-american empire.

Such is the reality of life ... as shown throught history, unfair ... yes, immoral ... yes .... but it is so ... sorry about that, but until the petty egos of humankind have evolved further, then it is how human nature is !!!
 
I didn't read through all the Counterpoints- however in regards to the Elevators. As best as can be determined the impact of both planes severed all cables going above the 44th floor Sky Lobby's. In the South Tower people heard screams of some inside the cars as they descended and impacted. This did occur. The Northwest Stairwell in the South Tower survived and a few made it down from above the impact area unlike the North Tower.

I know I'va asked various Truthers IF they've ever bennto the Ground Zero site and some have and some have not. I wonder how many were at all familiar with the magnitude of the entire complex prior to 9/11/01 (???) Not many I suspect.
 
But do you not think that maybe it is in fact you whom has the agenda.

I'm open about MY agenda... what is YOUR agenda???

This person was NOT parading their loss and personal memories but responding to you ... and I can fully understand their anger, for these people whom DIRECTLY witnessed or lost someone have much more stake in these discussions than you or I ... and if they see that people are wrong in interpretation and understanding they have the full right to be angry with you.

Listen, if a person comes up and says "I lost someone and when you're speculating about _____ I find it disrespectful, so could you tone it down in that light..." or something to that effect that demonstrated their pain I would understand, be able to apologize, and rephrase my statements accordingly... but that's not the statements that were made.

By what right do you claim to speak for them ... especially since you never asked them whether they needed your voice ???

Putting words into my mouth here... I never claimed to speak for EVERYONE... I was speaking for SOME and when I was speaking for anyone I was VERY specific. If someone is offended cause they can't / won't read... that's not my prerogative.

And the simple FACT that the Truth Movement does NOT have thier support says something ... not one single of the recognized and credible survivors or family groups support you ... the simple FACT that you do not have their backing should tell you something.

It's not a fact, actually, this is you either unaware, in denial, or lying. Not to mention this delusional belief that you can decide on reality and who is credible or not.

The account itself is correct ... when you look fully into what those Commission members were referring to it was the WAY the account was presented ... not the account itself.

Ya... just create the meaning of their statements... as though their statements don't speak for themselves. There was 1(Cleland) of the 6 that spoke out where you COULD be right, but not the other 5. No matter how you look at it, the results of their statements amount to a combination of bureaucrats covering their own asses or lying to the commission on account... I know you seem to think it's acceptable and doesn't affect the integrity of the document, BUT because of these facts and the lack of any subpoena powers the commissions report has 0 integrity because there's no way to verify what is accurate or not.

And this I do understand B'man ... but just because the government handled it badly does not mean they caused it.

Not on that aspect... BUT profiting from a crime is as criminal whether you commit the crime yourself or take advantage of someone else committing a crime.

Yes, Bush disgracefully took advantage afterwards, and yes, the 9/11 Commission was rushed and flawed, but that is just your bog-standard response of government covering their own incompetances and failings to see this coming.

So you approve of incompetence in government and cover-ups of criminality??? What does that say about you and your agenda concerning this subject??

As for the NIST and ASCE reports, they were proper considered engineering ones, which may not have been far enough looking ... but when you consider that once collapse started NOTHING could stop it ... it would have been an expensive white elephant to look further really.

Yet those two accounts have aspects that conflict with each other, as does Bazant's analysis, and the purdue university... the only people that got the story 'straight' is the media and the 'debunkers' who universally attack and belittle anyone who suggests the possibility that the analysis is innaccurate. You KNOW you're guilty of this too or delusively denying this fact.

Well, there was ample background intelligence to implicate, but it was never joined-up thinking or sharing by the various agencies involved ... as well as that bin Laden had issued a fatwa against the US, specifically mentioning that they intended to kill Americans.

Did you read the transcript ?? By the sound of things you read the media analysis.... not to mention that the CIA has since admitted to faking bin laden tapes, ALSO the whistleblower that broke a gag order to state that bin laden worked with the US UNTIL 9-11... FURTHER, one of the supposed masterminds al-alwaki (sp?) had dinner at the pentagon about a month after 9-11 (according to FOX news).

He does have a rather long history of being involved in terrorism and been very vocal as to it too.

And a long history of being a CIA asset.

So what would you advocate instead ... even a free society DOES need some societal controls, else you just have lawlessness and anarchy ???

There are good and legal investigative techniques that are tried and true... that's what I'm advocating... there's also the bill of rights for a reason. It's so you can define the difference between living in a free society and a tyrannical system.

Also, Causation is just the deepest level the conspiracy could be... 'allowing' the attacks to occur is bad but not quite as bad, and the lesser of the evils is profiting politically from the attacks after the fact. The latter of these is not up for debate... sure you'll still be capable of delusional denial of the situation but you can't debate.

And yes, I do think they vastly "overstated" the dangers of WND's and Saddams abilities to use them against the West ... but there were some there and they were used by Saddam against others ... he was a despot and dictator !!!

Read the downing street memo... "the intelligence is being FIXED around this issue." (my emphasis). It was a bald-faced lie... no debate just denials otherwise.


So, are you actually arguing that 9-11 was a good thing because it provided the atmosphere allowing the justification of Saddam's removal for crimes of 20 years before??

A dosage which is not dangerous unless you sunbathe in them ...

The dosage is 20 TIMES higher then was initially reported... and yes, it MIGHT be an overstatement to call it dangerous (except for frequent flyers and the TSA workers)... but it's also delusional to call doses of radiation 'safe'. The comparison is with X-rays, not microwaves.

Yet, most of those videos were already out there, very, very, very few of them are "new" ... what NIST had was the original copies, which hadn't been through the endless editing and re-hashing of YooToob.

Then why do you suppose that NIST went to such lengths to prevent the release of such videos?? Some of them show the clear editing out of sounds that could be interpreted as explosions? When I say 'clear', I mean amateur level editing where it's undeniable.

Regardless not one single on of those videos has shown what truthers loudly proclaimed they would !!!

I never claimed nothing of the sort, I was looking forward to seeing some of these clips to see what was being kept from us for so long... and so far what's being kept is everything that might suggest that NIST did a bad thing slacking off on the tests for explosives.

Because you need MORE than traumatized eyewitness testimony ... eyewitnesses are known as being notoriously unreliable, not deliberately, but we do use hyperbole and rely on metaphorical language to describe events we are going through at that time, full of anxiety, fear and adrenaline.
Did you ever notice how you'll ONLY dismiss the eyewitnesses that described and / or were injured in explosions??

It has to do with preponderance of evidence, and the wholesale lack of physical evidence as opposed to some traumatized testimony outweighs it completely !!!
In the complete absence of corroborating physical evidence I am afraid it can be dismissed.

Of course when you don't test for explosives it's alot easier to make such a claim ;)

Do you not think that WTC 2 damm near cleaving the Marriot in two would, maybe just maybe, have caused a wee bit of noise and damage and injury ???
The timing is wrong for your statment to have any merit.

A chemical reaction from thermite (of whatever flavour) does NOT, would NOT, and NEVER will cause such a rapid expansion of gases to occur ... EVER !!!

"This is made up nonsense." Go read the papers on the subject... I've read over a dozen of them written over about a 15 year period with practical studies being performed in 1999.

No B'man, Van Romero was tasked with coating a piece of steel with two types of thermite ... he clearly did that.

Yes he did... and that's not what he's lying about... THEY WERE BOTH BEING DECEPTIVE. End of story.
He LIES ... why is that defensible to you ???
I wasn't DEFENDING him... I was asking questions of clarification... how do you legitimize attacking a person for asking questions after claiming ignorance on a topic?

He is not "disseminating" legitimate information, aside from his un-expert position, he is spreading misinformation dressed up in psuedo-science really.

Again, when you attacked his points you had about 2 legitimate points and a whole pile of nonsense.

Not once has Gage ever approached an actual demolition company and asked them to review or comment on his "interpretation".

NIST never got a peer-review either...
 
Back
Top Bottom