Questions and Issues about 911
- Thread starter JohnnySpot
- Start date
stormholloway
Legend
First, is calling someone a tin hatter not an emotional attack and a red herring?
Second, are you implying that the family members who have studied 9/11 and have concluded government involvement are disgracing their own dead loved ones? I wonder if you'd have the guts to tell them that to their faces.
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
*Sigh*
The loose change video only gives ONE side of the story. Obviously the leave stuff out that would make thier argument less valid. There are a plethora of great sites out there that debunk everything that happened in the Loose Change video.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Go there. Although you might find his tone of voice offensive, its true.
The loose change video only gives ONE side of the story. Obviously the leave stuff out that would make thier argument less valid. There are a plethora of great sites out there that debunk everything that happened in the Loose Change video.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Go there. Although you might find his tone of voice offensive, its true.
Phil
Hall of Fame
First, no...a tin hatter is commonly used terminology for a paranoid conspiracy theorist, which I think you are, so, it is entirely relevent to this discussion.
Secondly, I'm implying nothing of the sort. The family members and anyone else has a right to ask questions and demand all the information the government has on 9/11. I don't equate THAT with the fantasies that YOU'RE trying (with little success) to propogate. Planes landing in CLEVELAND? Drones...'trooper, that goes well beyond the legitimate efforts of the families of the 9/11 victims.
JohnnySpot
New User
First of all, I have watched your video Trainer.
Now, if I said that your debunking theories were "bullsh**" (as proclaimed many times in the video), Trainer, would you agree with that? I don't believe so. Simply stating that research done is “chit" in your own words, doesn't mean people will be convinced to your view.
My question to you is have you watched the video I provided a link for? I don't believe so. Please correct me if this is not so.
Secondly, since you are eager to steer me towards “what I have to say” I have taken the following directly from here -> http://wtc.nist.gov/
Each question is worth going over. I will start this particular reply with question #1. I will outline all the questions answered by the NIST. Below is quite a bit of information that I have taken the time to research, and I challenge you will do the same to support NIST’s hypothesis with your own research.
Fallacies: The NIST Computer Models of the possibility for collapse capability.
Pertinent issue: If NIST's computer models really do show collapse initiation, why don't they disclose those models to the public?
Based on the statement that “NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
I present this article, in which John Skilling, head structural engineer of the WTC states that “The building structure would still be there." Mr. Skilling emphasized that the supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. He noted, however, that there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
Seattle Times, Saturday, February 27, 1993
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227
Frank De Martini, an architect who works as the World Trade Center’s construction manager, is interviewed for a History Channel documentary about the WTC towers. He says, “I believe the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”
History Channel Interview: January 25, 2001
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/172833/history_channel_documentary_on_the_wtc/
Mr. Martini would later die when the tower collapses in his office on the 88th floor of the north tower when it is hit on 9/11 after helping more than 50 people escape.
Columbia Daily Tribute, August 29, 2003
http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2003/Aug/20030829News013.asp
The Richard Roth Telegram: According to the calculations of engineers, who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager: "meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns". The quote "massive damage caused by the large mass" of the plane is contrasted with the "light steel" of the building. In fact, the steel on a single floor of the tower was ten times the weight of a 767.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
According to Matthys Levy chairman of Weidlinger Assoc) who did independent computer structural analysis study for Larry Silverman (and also had a set of
the drawings); states:
(a) the failure of the trusses did not cause the tower collapse,
(b) the fires did not lead to floor collapses,
(c) fire temperatures were lower than typical office fires, and
(d) "to create the vertical collapses that we saw in the Twin Towers all of the 47 very large columns that comprised the core had to fail at the same instant
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting the Evidence/what_failed_and_how.htm#levy
I am fully prepared to go into more detail but I am tired now and will resume tommorrow.
Now, if I said that your debunking theories were "bullsh**" (as proclaimed many times in the video), Trainer, would you agree with that? I don't believe so. Simply stating that research done is “chit" in your own words, doesn't mean people will be convinced to your view.
My question to you is have you watched the video I provided a link for? I don't believe so. Please correct me if this is not so.
Secondly, since you are eager to steer me towards “what I have to say” I have taken the following directly from here -> http://wtc.nist.gov/
Each question is worth going over. I will start this particular reply with question #1. I will outline all the questions answered by the NIST. Below is quite a bit of information that I have taken the time to research, and I challenge you will do the same to support NIST’s hypothesis with your own research.
Fallacies: The NIST Computer Models of the possibility for collapse capability.
Pertinent issue: If NIST's computer models really do show collapse initiation, why don't they disclose those models to the public?
Based on the statement that “NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
I present this article, in which John Skilling, head structural engineer of the WTC states that “The building structure would still be there." Mr. Skilling emphasized that the supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. He noted, however, that there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
Seattle Times, Saturday, February 27, 1993
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227
Frank De Martini, an architect who works as the World Trade Center’s construction manager, is interviewed for a History Channel documentary about the WTC towers. He says, “I believe the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”
History Channel Interview: January 25, 2001
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/172833/history_channel_documentary_on_the_wtc/
Mr. Martini would later die when the tower collapses in his office on the 88th floor of the north tower when it is hit on 9/11 after helping more than 50 people escape.
Columbia Daily Tribute, August 29, 2003
http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2003/Aug/20030829News013.asp
The Richard Roth Telegram: According to the calculations of engineers, who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager: "meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns". The quote "massive damage caused by the large mass" of the plane is contrasted with the "light steel" of the building. In fact, the steel on a single floor of the tower was ten times the weight of a 767.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
According to Matthys Levy chairman of Weidlinger Assoc) who did independent computer structural analysis study for Larry Silverman (and also had a set of
the drawings); states:
(a) the failure of the trusses did not cause the tower collapse,
(b) the fires did not lead to floor collapses,
(c) fire temperatures were lower than typical office fires, and
(d) "to create the vertical collapses that we saw in the Twin Towers all of the 47 very large columns that comprised the core had to fail at the same instant
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting the Evidence/what_failed_and_how.htm#levy
I am fully prepared to go into more detail but I am tired now and will resume tommorrow.
Trainer
Rookie
I don't expect it to. When I'm brought to that, I'm simply insulting.
And until you describe what these "sides" are, and what they represent and what conclusion you are attempting to lead everyone to, I don't really feel interested in responding to these pedantic questions. If the punchline to your analysis here is that our government deliberately killed all of these people, I have no respect for you whatsoever.
Believe me, you'll have a hard time find anyone here more critical of our president and this war and the republican party than me. But this proposition is simply reprehensible.
However, if you are suggesting that our government is somehow incompetent, or have simply failed in their duty to protect us, or that due diligence on their part is wanting and they are being secretive to avoid the political implications of it, then I'd love to engage in this conversation with you. But like I said, if it's that they deliberately committed this act, then I can't respect anything you say. This isn't some emotional, fearful opinion, it's very well reasoned.
So please, what are your intentions with providing this information? What are these sides you are referring to? What side are you on? And where are you trying to lead everyone?
I haven't bothered trying to confirm or deny your claim that they were conducting an exercise of simulation of a plane crash.
What I will say is that if it is true, that could go either way. It is possible that Al Queda has infiltrated DoD and has spies on the inside. That could be why these chose 9/11 as the date to do it. I do know that thousands of hackers attempt to break into government networks every day and that thousands of spies are positioned in Washington DC each day just looking for ways to get information.
I know that they are all of these things because I have done work with the government and it is really difficult to get anything accomplished. There is too much paperwork, too much approval needed, and too many people that are too lazy to get on top of things. Thats what happens when you provide no incentive for people to work hard and no punishment for not doing your job. Aka. federal workers.
They should be held accountable if they were negligent and took no action despite having the intelligence reports in hand.
I just don't think it was intentional that they wanted to kill people and allow this attack to happen so they could justify starting a war in the middle east. That I don't buy.
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
I've noticed that no one has debunked this?
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
This link provides no false evidence, just some logic.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
This link provides no false evidence, just some logic.
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
Could you clarify what specific parts of that website are you talking about? There are several different parts,
1 - the cartoon,
2 - the section that just calls people morons, and
3 - the analyzation of the video done by that individual.
It can't be done. This guy has a head on his shoulders. All he had to do was demonstrate the absurdity of the whole thing and he doesn't even need to dispute the so-called facts.
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
You insult this guy even before he can answer you? Judging from Jonny's response, he seems to have taken the time to answer you completely, and is even willing to hear your own side!
You act just like Storm acted towards you, but this guy never even deserved to be insulted.
We get one of the first reasonable guy here, and you and some other posters just shoot this man down. Thats sad.
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
"it can't be done" ..."doesn't need to dispute the so-called facts"?
Even Penn and Teller make fun of the guy that says "nobody can convince me" and states: "A real skeptic demands to be convinced, with evidence"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+teller+911
come on now, raiden...
Trainer
Rookie
What's sad is an accusation that our government deliberately killed 3000+ citizens and caused countless billions of dollars of damage.
You seem to overlook the fact that this is what is underlying all of this, and quite frankly I don't think this is "reasonable".
Go ahead, ask yourself, why has he evaded stating this. He talks about these "sides" but refuses to define them.
Condoleezza
Banned
Basic common sense says that no government would risk a conspiracy that includes at least about 537 co-conspirators.
Basic common sense says that Bin Laden admitting the crime is a strong indication that Al Kaida committed the crime.
Basic common sense says that almost all serious experts supporting the 911 commissions findings and almost only certified nutters and non-experts supporting these outrageous conspiracy theories indicates that the government might be right.
I don't know a single conspiracy theory that hasn't been debunked thoroughly in the meantime.
Condi
Condoleezza
Banned
Condoleezza
Banned
You are a liar.
This Lear Jet (Golfer Payne Stewart's) was intercepted after 79 minutes, not 25 minutes.
And you forgot to tell us that this jet's transponder - of course - was not turned off. While the four terrorist crews who hijacked flights 93, 77, 175 and 11 did exactly that - turn off the transponders.
But what do we expect from people like you but lies ....
Condi
Condoleezza
Banned
I would not hesitate to say to their faces: "You are dumb nutters when you accuse the U.S. government of being involved. And you are disgracing your own dead."
Remember: Even the loved ones of murdered people can be despicable persons.
Condi
FitzRoy
Professional
All right Trainer, I think we understand. Or, at least, I do. I'm fortunately blessed in this respect. Allow me to summarize for those loyal readers - besides myself - who might maintain some degree of confusion at this point:
"Point 1: I want this poster to do and say what I want him to do and say, or else he deserves my insults. I've told him repeatedly that I want him to define this issue exactly as I define it, and he has not yet done so.
Point 2: I find it insulting to post questions regarding obviously questionable official facts relating to 9/11 ERRRRRR, I mean, I find it insulting to accuse the government of killing 3000 people, so I'm going to maintain an insulting tone toward him and justify it thusly.
Point 3: I'm going to insult him because of conclusions that I'm 100 percent positive he's endorsing based on his posts so far, because I find those conclusions that I myself have concluded to be insulting."
There, I think that about covers it. You're welcome. Anything anyone else needs, just let me know.
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
How about the whole thing? He's calling you morons for beliving in it. The cartoon is a humorous depiction of the White House had the 9/11 conspiracy actually been true.
That and he never really did analyze the video. Sure he watched it, but he just presented some good logic. No one on this forum so far has been able to present some good counter logic or whatever its called.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
And here's the link again.
And before you go off on a rant on how he is just some bitter lunatic, this bitter lunatic has written a book (The Alphabet of Manliness no less) and has a million unique hits a day. His new stuff may not be as good as his old articles, but they are funny nontheless and do present some truth.
Trainer
Rookie
Go right ahead....
No, he can say whatever he likes, I'm simply asking for a clarification of his position.
That's just nonsense. He's free to define it however he likes. I simply want him to define it. Capiche ?
I've already said, if that's the extent of it, I owe him an apology.
Damn right. And if that's what you're saying, you can f'off too. Got it?
No, that's why I've backed off and repeatedly asked him to clarify himself. Which, curiously, he's yet to do.
How about keeping your nose in your own business?
Even though there is plenty of evidence to debunk the flawed evidence presented by conspiracy theorists which I have seen and presented in past threads, they can't even cover the high level aspects of the conspiracy such as
1) So many people would have to be involved for this conspiracy to occur...literally hundreds of people from various government agencies, as well as private companies and in the airline industry. All these people don't mind killing innocent people? Also the airline industry doesn't mind sacrificing the billions of dollars lost as a result of complying with this conspiracy.
2) It makes no sense that Al Queda would allow themselves to be blamed if they didn't do it, considering the large influx of western troops on their land as a result of this event.
3) Why don't the democrats who hate Bush so much support this conspiracy theory? Perhaps even they don't believe it to be true? Perhaps they are in on it and willing to kill their fellow Americans to support Bush, whom they hate when it comes to every other issue?
4) If loose change was such an accurate depiction of what happened, why wouldn't the US government do something to prevent it from being released?
5) Why doesn't the anti-Bush media lean towards the side of 9/11 being a conspiracy?
And finally, the guy on this 9/11 morons site was able to convince me that the $20 bill is linked to 9/11. Do I really believe that? No, but his point was that its easy to find coincidences everywhere. Some people make it a hobby to turn every news story into a conspiracy theory and they obviously do a good job of fooling people.
Last edited:
FitzRoy
Professional
Go right ahead....
No, he can say whatever he likes, I'm simply asking for a clarification of his position.
Yes, quite "simply" indeed. You've asked for this clarification repeatedly in multiple posts. Apparently though he's not going to comply, probably for some diabolical reason. That's why I was trying to help you out with my summary - so that you don't need to continue wasting your time on this obvious troll.
Capiche. Salute. Vaffanculo. Obviously he needs to define the issue, your logic is again flawless. The way he's posed the topic so far - presenting the idea that certain accepted facts are, perhaps, worthy of question and further examination, and then attempting to discuss - is completely unacceptable and without merit. I'm telling you Trainer, I'm with you. You don't need to argue against me here.
Apology? Unthinkable. Forget that you ever had the notion.
You know, you're absolutely right. At this point I have now most certainly "got it".
Absolutely correct - his clarity level thus far has been way above - sorry, I mean, below - accepted Tennis Warehouse Talk Tennis Forum Standards. You should continue to curiously tell him how you want him to proceed - sorry, I mean, ask him to clarify himself.
Come on, Trainer. I was only trying to help you express yourself more clearly. Since joining the forums, you've engaged in these exchanges with individuals on all sides of the political spectrum - ad nauseum. Aren't you tired of the back-and-forth yet? I thought that you could use some assistance in the communication department; that's where I tried to come in. Because I "got it." But, evidently, you're good with standing on your own feet. I know where I'm not wanted, so I will comply with your justified request and promptly excuse myself from this thread.
Last edited:
SoBad
G.O.A.T.
Don't go Nick, somebody's gotta train the trainer.:smile:
JohnnySpot
New User
Basic common sense says research the evidence yourself before just believing what you have been told.
Let me ask you: If you were called for Jury duty, would you only consider one side of the story?
That said, please back up what you have stated with references, and your side of the story.
I am reporting this information directly from ABC World News Tonght aired on Oct. 25, 1999.
I suggest you call up ABC and tell them they are LIARS.
Are you trying to justify your conduct?
Last edited:
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
Good points. (oh, about the prevention of something being released thats the free speech thing)
But I was wondering...so lets say they are negligent, (like you said). Ok, holy crap, shouldn't someone get fired? I didn't see news articles or news video of people getting fired for doing such a terrible job. But then what if they were fired quietly? This situation is so big, shouldn't there be someone getting a public boot, geez - who's responsible for these things.
Thats like saying the FAA, NORAD, US Military and Control, all didn't do their duty. Now...that is a shame.
Free speech doesn't apply to my point about the video. Since the government is willing to kill 3000 innocent americans, I think they might kill some teenager filming a documentary that povides a smoking gun that would completely ruin many top government officials (including the president).
Remember these are separate agencies. Everybody knows that the different government agencies do a p1ss poor job of communicating with one another. All it takes is one disorganized agency and the whole system falls apart.
I'm not sure who was considered at blame, but there have been alot of resignations of high ranking officials since then that may have been related. I do know that it takes an act of God to fire a government employee who is not in a position of great power.
Lets also not forget that the US has never had to deal with an attack that originated on US soil. They weren't prepared regardless of the ample warning they had. Most training scenarios involve enemies coming from abroad. Plus the government is often slow to update their technologies and procedures because they are too beaucratic.
Condoleezza
Banned
What about
"Everybody who says that the Bush administration deliberately killed 3,000 Americans is a fu.cking as.shole."
you don't grasp?
Condi
Condoleezza
Banned
1) What about the neo-**** side of the story about Auschwitz? They claim to have "tons of evidence" that the Holocaust never happened. They same sort of evidence those 9/11-conspiracy morons present.
There.Simply.Is.No.Evidence.Whatsoever.Of.A.Conspiracy.
2) Everybody who WANTS to know knows that ABC embarrassed themselves when they forgot to mention that Payne Stewart's plane went missing at 9:33 eastern daylight time and was intercepted at 9:52 central daylight time. Which makes it exactly 79 minutes.
And you KNOW that.
And you know that intercepting a missing plane with it's transponder on is easy to spot. And you know that the four 9/11 planes had their transponders turned off.
You know it but you don't tell it.
Therefore I call you a low-life liar.
Case closed.
Condi
JohnnySpot
New User
I do grasp. You are simply resorting to name calling that should have been left behind in the 4th grade. Sorry, but you are not getting anywhere with me by just name calling. I am sure others that read your comments have to shake their head and ask "how old is this person?!"
Those people that can only result to name calling usually has no significant thing to say anyways.
The case for Auschwitz “didn’t happen” theories breaks down in a court of law with empirical evidence. But when the official 911 Commission report breaks down, even before congress with 115 unanswered questions - so that those in office that are interviewed can't even answer correctly - THEN there is a serious issue.
I can bet top dollar you never watched or reviewed the 911 commission.
It is FAA regulations - Mode 3/A Code 7500, an unexplained loss of beacon code, change in direction of flight or altitude, and/or a loss of communications, notify supervisory personnel immediately – military response is necessary
Meaning that they would be able to spot something amiss is the aircraft HAS had its transponders turned off.
Look at yourself.
The people on this forum are not fooled by your pettiness.
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
That is quite simply the most idiotic reply I have ever seen in my life. Seriously, how old are you?
I am starting to believe JohnnySpot more than you because you are really an immature little bit.ch
Trainer
Rookie
Johnny,
Have I been rude. Hasn't my demeanor with you grown nicer? I'm asking you over and over a simple question. Yet you ignore me now. Why is this so hard to answer, it seems like such a basic and simple question.
Which "sides" are you referring to? What do they represent? Can you explain them?
Have I been rude. Hasn't my demeanor with you grown nicer? I'm asking you over and over a simple question. Yet you ignore me now. Why is this so hard to answer, it seems like such a basic and simple question.
Which "sides" are you referring to? What do they represent? Can you explain them?
JohnnySpot
New User
My apologies for not answering immediately, Trainer. To answer your question if you have been rude, yes you have, but that is in the past now. My colleagues, wife, and I have always been on the side of Govt. error but we must stick to the scientific method of research.
A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. We will use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If our prediction turns out to be correct, the theory will survive. If not, then the theory will have to be adjusted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
There is a saying "innocent until proven guilty" and this is a prime example. We have all agreed on stating that the US just wasn't prepared and they are innocent in the events that occured on that day.
I have researched this quite a bit, but though I remain by my original standpoint that the Govt. is innocent, I have serious questions and concerns regarding the unanswered questions at the 911 commission hearings.
mhstennis100
Semi-Pro
Thank you. It would take years to plan this kind of attack. If the gov. was responsible, it would have been Clinton's administration or some government agency that had been planning it from before Bush came in. Also, this would require thousands of government people to accomplish this, and more to cover up. You know how fast info leaks out; this kind of thing couldn't stay hidden for long at all.
Edit: I took out the part about calling someone a fool. Anyways, why does Bush get the heat. He didn't orchestrate it even if the gov. somehow happened to. People get mad that he didn't do something right away. He stayed in the classroom for what, 7 minutes? What could he have done in those 7 minutes? What could he have done anyways? Got in airforce 1 and pulled the magic switch that would turn the fires off and bring everyone back to life?
Last edited:
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links:
National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fact Sheet
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Loose Change Guide
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
There you go. All the evidence you will EVER need Jonny, debunking the "facts" in that video.
National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fact Sheet
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Loose Change Guide
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
There you go. All the evidence you will EVER need Jonny, debunking the "facts" in that video.
Mahboob Khan
Hall of Fame
Sir, I am on these Boards for the last ten years .... Yes, TEN years. Some of these people never listen to logics. They are ready to pounce on you even before you present plausible information. Sir, their mind is made up, do not confuse them with facts! But there are people who understands, so keep it up. Strive, so that lies, disinformation and bias do not become norms! You may also like to read Stormholloway! This is one good thing about Americans .. that many still have conscience and are willing to stand up to lies and hidden agendas.
Mahboob Khan
Hall of Fame
I think you missed the point. The evidence that Storm provided that the firefighters found molten steel in the basement of the WTC and the jet fuel does not melt steel. If the jet fuel does not melt steel, then what did melt the steel? There must be something other than the "jet fuel". Do you get this? And building number 7 was not hit by any plane still it went down in 6 to 7 seconds?
stormholloway
Legend
Many of the family members believe that the government was involved in the attack.
See: the Stanley Hilton case against the Bush admin. on behalf of victims' family members.
Also, I never said the planes landed in Cleveland. That information was in Loose Change and I stated that it was a possibility after someone asked me where the original planes went. You seem to miss the difference between stating possibilities and stating facts.
stormholloway
Legend
The attack had probably been planned for years. The Bush admin. still would have had to ensure the execution of such a plan.
Allow me to let you in on a little secret: the NSA and the CIA remain intact regardless of who the president is.
Your conjecture does not override the evidence regarding secondary explosions, molten steel, and the impossible collapse of WTC7. I did a photo analysis of WTC7's collapse in another thread. I suggest you take a look.
Phil
Hall of Fame
You won't even acknowledge that ANY part of the tin hat stuff could be WRONG...it's all right, or...it's at least a "possibility"...the plane landing in CLEVELAND? Tell THAT to the families of the people who died on the plane that went down in PA.
As for the families, if some believe the government was directly involved, well, they're as off base as you are. Having a love one killed in the attack doesn't make one infallible.
JohnnySpot
New User
Thank you for the information, DashaandSafin, I have already reviewed your information extensively.
But before I respond to you, DashaandSafin, I would have to address StormHolloway. StormHolloway, your contributions are excellent, and I appreciate your help. However, I do feel it should be more important to focus on a response to the evidence presented by DashaandSafin. In this way, I believe, (albeit a few posters of this thread who do not wish to review any of the evidence) we can analyze information that is open to subjective study for the general public. I do not feel that presenting bits and pieces of a complex event will be useful, because one has to substantiate a single theory first before going on to the next. We should stick to the scientific process.
Now to get back to you, DashaandSafin, I would like to make a disclaimer. Though I have already studied college level physics, calculus, and chemistry; by no means does that make me an expert in the fields of civil engineering, physics, and chemical and metallurgical engineering. I assume that the majority of you are not experts in these fields either.
So what am I getting at? Let the experts decide! From that, we, as experienced *but not expert* scholars may be able to review the information and take it to our own bodies of expertise (your own universities, or field experts) and conduct a peer review. What is a peer review, you ask? It is the procedure by which academic journal articles are reviewed by other researchers before being accepted for publication. A peer review is usually done by experts in the same field as the academic journalist.
Don’t just close your eyes and say everyone is “wrong”.
So I ask you DashaandSafin, have you extensively reviewed the information that you have given me? Ok, I will say you have. And so have many professors too. These professors have reviewed your three sources quite extensively and they do not stem from one source; no, they come from different universities, as well as different countries.
Ok, I have talked enough. Here are the goodies.
In reply to your resource http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Is an academic journal that challenges the information presented by the NIST organization. This was written by Frank Legge (PhD) and available for download on
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
(direct link)
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_6_Pancake_theory_false_by_NIST_WorldTradeCenter.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------
In reply to your resource http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html
Is an independent research study conducted by Peter Meyer
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
But more importantly one must analyze the claims at a deeper level which you can view here (Research done by Eric Salter): http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
Which can be found on: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
-----------------------------------------------------
In reply to your resource http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
I reply with an academic journal written by Dr. Steven Jones, Ph.D.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/vo...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Which can be found on: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
--------------
Ok, so I have thrown a bunch of information at you. What to do? I challenge you to do the following:
The bottom line is this event should NOT be something which belief is based on speculation and biased theory. It should be studied thoroughly by expert individuals who apply the scientific method. If you fail to do this, I will not be convinced of any of your views at all, and neither will the other members of this board.
But before I respond to you, DashaandSafin, I would have to address StormHolloway. StormHolloway, your contributions are excellent, and I appreciate your help. However, I do feel it should be more important to focus on a response to the evidence presented by DashaandSafin. In this way, I believe, (albeit a few posters of this thread who do not wish to review any of the evidence) we can analyze information that is open to subjective study for the general public. I do not feel that presenting bits and pieces of a complex event will be useful, because one has to substantiate a single theory first before going on to the next. We should stick to the scientific process.
Now to get back to you, DashaandSafin, I would like to make a disclaimer. Though I have already studied college level physics, calculus, and chemistry; by no means does that make me an expert in the fields of civil engineering, physics, and chemical and metallurgical engineering. I assume that the majority of you are not experts in these fields either.
So what am I getting at? Let the experts decide! From that, we, as experienced *but not expert* scholars may be able to review the information and take it to our own bodies of expertise (your own universities, or field experts) and conduct a peer review. What is a peer review, you ask? It is the procedure by which academic journal articles are reviewed by other researchers before being accepted for publication. A peer review is usually done by experts in the same field as the academic journalist.
Don’t just close your eyes and say everyone is “wrong”.
So I ask you DashaandSafin, have you extensively reviewed the information that you have given me? Ok, I will say you have. And so have many professors too. These professors have reviewed your three sources quite extensively and they do not stem from one source; no, they come from different universities, as well as different countries.
Ok, I have talked enough. Here are the goodies.
In reply to your resource http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Is an academic journal that challenges the information presented by the NIST organization. This was written by Frank Legge (PhD) and available for download on
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
(direct link)
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_6_Pancake_theory_false_by_NIST_WorldTradeCenter.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------
In reply to your resource http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html
Is an independent research study conducted by Peter Meyer
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
But more importantly one must analyze the claims at a deeper level which you can view here (Research done by Eric Salter): http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
Which can be found on: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
-----------------------------------------------------
In reply to your resource http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
I reply with an academic journal written by Dr. Steven Jones, Ph.D.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/vo...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Which can be found on: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
--------------
Ok, so I have thrown a bunch of information at you. What to do? I challenge you to do the following:
- Read it, thoroughly. (Yes I have read your information thoroughly). Apply the scientific method.
- If you have issues regarding the information provided by these professors, and with the foreknowledge that you and I are not experts in these fields, I highly recommend you take these scholarly journals to be peer reviewed thoroughly by your own professors and field experts
- If there is error in these professors' work, it MUST be addressed. Your professors and field experts may send their response to this website. Now if the website will not allow to host your responses, then host it on your own site.
The bottom line is this event should NOT be something which belief is based on speculation and biased theory. It should be studied thoroughly by expert individuals who apply the scientific method. If you fail to do this, I will not be convinced of any of your views at all, and neither will the other members of this board.
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
Did you not read my statement?
For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C
Do you get this?
And sorry Johnny, I can't read EVERYTHING one by one because
A) Its Thanksgiving, people to see
B) Tomorrow is Black Friday, people to see
C) Im not THAT intrested in this. And I honestly wonder why you are...on a tennis board non the less
D) I have read the materials I presented to you, and I just don't have the time to read the others. I have a lot of work to attend to in college, plus Division I swim practice.
JohnnySpot
New User
I appreciate your honesty, but I question seriously about how you replied.
So you stand by your assertions, but you "don't have time" to review my material? That is very discouraging, and quite simply unacceptable.
The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote,1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
References
Cote, A. E., editor, Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition, Quincy, Maine: National Fire
Protection Association, 1992.
Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science,Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society,53/12:8-11 (2001).
Public Journal: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Condoleezza
Banned
It was.
Definitely.
Bomb explosions aren't capable of melting steel, though.
And now f.uck off.
Condi
JohnnySpot
New User
No, but thermite combined with sulfer, to make thermate, will burn quite quickly through steel (thermate is used in standard demolition), which was found in the compounds of the building, and supported by FEMA, 2002 - Appendix C.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Thermate includes sulfer, iron oxide, and aluminum powder is not found in steel structures.
You are incapable of rational thinking and civil behavior. I have now put you on my ignore list.
Jesse K.
Rookie
Any casual observer to this discussion can see one thing. Johnny has been absolutely civil and nice to each responder and every person attacking what he has posted has attacked him with a vengance I have not seen in any other thread. What the heck is wrong with you people? The guy posts something you don't like so you start cursing at him and attacking his character? lol?
I would love to know the education/background of the people posting such rude 4th grade comments. Amazing. What amazes me is the lack of critical thinking and personal attacks to a man who is trying to present a point of view.
What is also interesting is the lack of investigation by these same people into the supplied evidence.
Johnny if I may give some advice do not get sidetracked with the above referenced comments. They will sidetrack you to a point where you will not accomplish what you set out to do. They accuse you of not answering them, ignoring them, blah blah blah...carrying on man.
I have a BSCIS, basically software engineering degree and like Johnny do not have the expertise in these particular fields to make an educated decision unless I rely on people with expertise in these fields. So I challenge all of you to do the same. Don't just "trust" your common sense, but investigate and be open minded. The worst thing that will happen is you will feel more prepared to "debunk" the conspiracy theories with an understanding of where they are coming from.
I would love to know the education/background of the people posting such rude 4th grade comments. Amazing. What amazes me is the lack of critical thinking and personal attacks to a man who is trying to present a point of view.
What is also interesting is the lack of investigation by these same people into the supplied evidence.
Johnny if I may give some advice do not get sidetracked with the above referenced comments. They will sidetrack you to a point where you will not accomplish what you set out to do. They accuse you of not answering them, ignoring them, blah blah blah...carrying on man.
I have a BSCIS, basically software engineering degree and like Johnny do not have the expertise in these particular fields to make an educated decision unless I rely on people with expertise in these fields. So I challenge all of you to do the same. Don't just "trust" your common sense, but investigate and be open minded. The worst thing that will happen is you will feel more prepared to "debunk" the conspiracy theories with an understanding of where they are coming from.
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
Unacceptable? Oh c'mon now. You are NOT my professor. You are NOT my teacher, parent, or whatever. Don't forget that you are just another poster on this board, creating a thread that instigates conversation.
Who are you to say that my reply was "unaccepatble". Replying in your manner, I find that rude. Its Thanksgiving day. I have family and friends I need to attend to and celebrate with. I do NOT have all day sitting in my chair reviewing hundreds of pages of material that you provided.
Now, by this time, I suppose you are to find me "rude" (I'm extremly sorry), but you will find out, that most people on this board don't have the time to review such material. This is not a class, I'm not getting tested, why must you put me through your material? I gave you the option of reading every word of "my" material. You can just skim it, like I have.
I, sir, am in college. So no, I do not have the IQ of a 4th grader as Jesse K may imply.
Good day sir.
JohnnySpot
New User
And I, sir, am a married man who has completed college quite a while back. I also am celebrating Thanksgiving with my friends and family.
I trust you have studied and applied the scientic method in your educational history. You simply cannot make an assertion without considering and reviewing all the evidence. In fact, I have made it easier for you to directly view my research. You are arriving at a conclusion before you have reviewed all the material!
Thank you, Jesse K. I too am amazed that individuals have attacked me without even reviewing and responding to the posts that I have presented. The nice thing is in a forum you don't have to reply immediately if you haven't reviewed the material!
Last edited:
Very compelling.
Similar threads
