See other 9/11 Articles
Title: DR. STEVEN JONES- PNAC-4/14/07- NEW 9/11 EVIDENCE
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0
Published: Apr 30, 2007
Author: Steven Jones
Post Date: 2007-04-30 23:57:52 by Critter
Ping List: *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Keywords: 9/11, Truth, Thermate
Views: 7082
Comments: 150
Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 142.
#1. To: Robin, Christine, Diana, Zipporah, Honway, kamala, Aristeides, Red Jones, Ferret Mike, skydrifter, Destro, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser, all (#0)
(Edited)
Good shit from the good doctor.
ROTFLOL! Jones is either a liar or a very sloppy researcher. For example, he claimed this: was a photo of slag from a pool of molten steel. It is not. It is a photo of a chunk of pancaked floors composed of sheet steel, reinforced concrete, rebar, wood and even paper debris with writing still legible on it. And there is photo after photo available proving this: And this is only one of many dishonesties that ex-professor Jones has promoted with respect to 9/11. Here are some more: He has claimed that "there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7". That is absolutely false. Neither he or any in the 911 CT community have named an eyewitness who actually said there were "pools" of molten metal. And the source that Jones cited to back up his claim when he said that didn't name a single eyewitness. In fact, the word "pool" wasn't even mentioned in the article he cited. With regards to the metal observed falling from the South Tower a short while before the collapse, Jones once claimed "the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." As has been proven with a video of that event several times here at 4um, that is patently false. The material falling in the video is at times quite silvery in appearance. He also said "this molten metal, after falling approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color". That too is false, as the video showed quite clearly. And to show how willing Jones is to alter his claimed evidence in order to prove his obsession, he recently switched to describing the falling material as follows: "yellow-white hot molten metal". He said "the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.)" Notice that it is no longer orange or reddish-orange as he initially claimed. Now it's yellow or yellow-white. He changed the color because he learned that molten steel would have to be that color. Perhaps he learned this from Thomas Eager of MIT who has been quoted (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-to-appear-on-view.html ) saying "I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven Jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him." I think Mr Eager is correct. Steven Jones is a DISHONEST sub-atomic particle physicist who wants the lime light. He didn't get it with another research topic he was involved in at BYU ... another scam ... cold fusion. As to his claims about the composition of the dust (the 1.5 mm spheres) and that they prove thermite was used at the WTC site, I have the following comments. First, Jones has clearly lied before about 9/11 evidence so I don't think he is above fabricating data to "prove" his allegation about 9/11. He is that obsessed with proving this since he's staked his career and credibility on the allegation. Second ... there is NO chain of custody in that sample of dust he claims came from the WTC site. According to Jones, it came from Janette MacKinlay, a visual *artist*, who it turns out is also highly obsessed (http://www.communitycurrency.org/blog.html ) with this topic (and making money from it). MacKinlay is the *colorful* lady with the scarf to the right of Jones in the photo below at one of their recent conferences. Curiously enough, Jones also says she took and supplied the photo that Jones claimed showed slag from a pool of molten steel. So she must have known that wasn't true since she must have seen the item up close when she took the picture. Yet she has let Jones misrepresent what the object was in public forums and papers. So she too seems somewhat dishonest and not above fabricating evidence. Which seems to be typical of those running the *truth* movement. Third ... http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/and-now-for-some-science.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/steven-jones-is-experimenting.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-is-steven-jones-on-skids.html
This one must really scare you. You broke out the monster spam post for this, eh? I do believe that the people holding that chunk of whatever it is are the ones that said it was the result of a molten mass. You might wish to check on that.
They are not holding it anywhere? It has been tossed out in the trash? WTF is wrong with you? Are you that retarded? Really? I really can't wait til Christine has had enough of your bullshit. You are the biggest asshole I have ever had the displeasure of meeting on a forum.
Actually, it was in a museum. Or didn't you know that either? I certainly hope that christine has a sense of humor.
OK, I let your dimness get under my skin tonight, and almost went to find a new home. But, I would miss beating the crap out of you on these threads too much, so... here's some more beating. hehehe The USGS has a Particle Atlas of world Trade Center dust: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html It is basically a breakdown of the contents of dust samples. From the USGS spectra analysis of a couple of iron spheres found in the wtc dust samples: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-03.jpg http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-04.jpg You will notice (if you're not a US government black op shill of course) that they very closely match what Dr. Jones spectra analysis produced, if you watched the video. Spheres, that the USGS found in the dust. Spheres. How do you make an iron rich sphere Mr. genius? You must melt the iron and propel it through the air. Since NIST confirms that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition? Come on genius. Tell me.
Wow! The government sure went to a lot of effort to cover up this smoking gun, critter. ROTFLOL! But why do you assume the spheres were produced before/during the collapse rather than after ... when no one argues that molten steel wasn't present? Here's what a chemist/metallurgist (rather than a sub-atomic particle physicist ... he he he) has to say about the production of metal spheres: ************ http://www.mujca.com/procrustes.htm The Collapse of WTC 1 and 2: A New Theory F. R. Greening ... snip ... Remarkably, however, there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2 that has apparently been completely ignored by 9/11 researchers. I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed. Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.” 1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005) 2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006) 3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003. 4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004). The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 mm to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses. In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). We first note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period. Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 mm of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, we may use our previous estimate of 16 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor to conclude that there was about 1.6 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2. We have shown in the first part of this article that if some of the thermal insulation that was applied to floor assemblies in the Twin Towers was spiked with 25 % by weight of ammonium perchlorate and subsequently exposed to jet-fuel fires, it would have heated the steel decking to ~ 1390 °C. Now, since the boiling point of zinc is 908 °C, this degree of heating of a floor assembly would have been sufficient to vaporize the zinc in the galvanized steel! To conclude: we have shown that an AP collapse theory accounts for all four processes that collectively led to the observed level of destruction to WTC 1 & 2, namely: the buckling and fracture of floor elements; the collapse of entire floor sections; explosive spalling and “powderizing” of the concrete; melting of the floor pans. As an aside, we note that the addition of ammonium perchlorate to the thermal insulation on the upper floors of the Twin Towers comes very close to being the perfect crime. The deadly AP-spiked concoction would have been almost identical to the un-spiked coating; it could have been sprayed on selected surfaces with impunity; it required no elaborate detonator devices to be activated – moderate heating worked just fine. And finally, because AP decomposes to gaseous products, it leaves no telltale residues. Of course, I haven’t proved that AP was used in the Twin Towers, but to end with a famous quote: “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth……..” F.R. Greening, March 15th, 2007 ************** Or perhaps professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, writing in Controlled Environments Magazine in December 2003 has the answer (http://www.cemag.us/articles.asp?pid=399 ): "In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat .... Molten aluminum, iron and other molten metals expelled into the air by the force of the collapse formed into spherical balls as they cooled and fell back to the ground." *************** Also, the steel rebar in the concrete floors and steel members in the structure were scraped during the collapse producing tiny particles. The melting point of steel is lower in this form? Think along the lines of the glowing particles coming off a grinding wheel. Perhaps micron size particles formed their spherical shape at the elevated temperature in the falling debris itself just due to mechanical friction? ROTFLOL!
More BS I see. None of that explains the presence of sulfer, manganese etc, in the sphere. Occams razor. Remember that one? You use it all the time. The simplest explanation for the makeup up the spheres is the use of thermate. Too many coincidental anomolies have to take place to produce thermate signature spheres without using thermate. Go chase yoruself.
The idiot's only motive is his desire for war. He doesn't shill because the facts are on his side, he just sees the war and oppression the Bush Administration pushes in the wake of these false flag operations as the sort of reality that appeals to him. He knows he just has to blur the picture to dampen the increasing awareness of the American People to what has happened. He goes for making it seem like a reasonable debate is occurring to discourge people's interest in piercing the psychological thrushhold of not wanting to deal with the horror of having the worst sort of criminals possible in charge of government. He has failed to make his case, and doesn't have the tools to even try. I say react to an attack on getting the truth out that Goldi's biker bar banishment with a quid pro quo banning of Bealiar. It's possible his banning there was contrived in order to send him here to put a damper on the efforts of Truthers here. I would be curious to see if he was suddenly reinstated at LP if banned here; I say he will.
if the vile evil entity gets no replies, IT will self exile. i can't imagine IT wants to continue to talk only to ITself.
Some very good people take the time to post meaningful and important articles on freedom4um.com. Honest debate and serious discussion on these important matters should be welcome by all. BeAChooser has been exposed on every thread he has participated on. He is dishonest and has no interest in the truth, only his agenda. This cartoon phase appears to be a "suicide by cop" tactic. If BeAChooser is banned here, where does he go? No where. "BeAChooser" dies and he knows it. It is a tough call. I am glad I am not making it.
BTW,if I was making the decision, either the cartoon spams would stop or BeAChooser would get his wish.
Given the strident calls for my banning on this thread, I shall use my first post of the day to respond to that. Why are you folks so fearful of me? You say I'm disruptive of the forum? But I only get 15 posts a day and sometimes I don't even use all of them. If just those I've pinged post 3 times each day, my message will be overwhelmed. Most 4um members, your audience, are behind a bozo filter and can't see me anyway. And no one else listens to anything I write (or so it's claimed by some of you). So why are you worried about what I post in the first place? Now I think I've been a model of debating decorum while at 4um. I haven't called posters names despite considerable provocation on your part. I haven't used obscenities although many have been directed at me. I've tried to respond logically and factually to what I've been asked. Indeed, most of my posts have contained sourced facts and (IMO) sound logic. I have never asked that anyone be banned. I am not posting under any other names on this or any other forum. Hence I'm not talking about Freedom4um behind it's back. And what I've said about Freedom4um here has been decidedly mild. I've contributed by posting an article or two from time to time. I'm not here representing anyone but myself. And I'm certainly not being paid to post (despite what some insist). I have a sense of humor ... as those cartoons surely prove. Maybe it's my laughing that disturbs you? I even find fault with a great many things Bush and his administration have done. So what about the above is sooooooooo disturbing that banning is demanded? My motives are clear. I've said from the beginning that you won't find the truth about 9/11 if you link legitimate questions ... questions that do indeed deserve answers ... to easily discredited allegations ... such as bombs in the towers and no-Flight 77. I've said that you won't find the truth about 9/11 (or any other topic) if the spokesperson for your cause (be it Jones, Ryan, Griffin, Les Roberts, or whoever) makes easily discredited claims, misrepresents the facts, is illogical or outright lies. I've said you won't get a legitimate investigation of 9/11 if your calls for one are based on disinformation spouted by dishonest, self-serving leaders and posters. I've said that I'm here to set the record straight on certain issues and leaders through honest, civil debate. I don't think I've veered from that mission or means. Because I actually want to see the "truth" movement succeed. Truth is good (although secrecy is sometimes advised). But to succeed, the movement must be based on facts, not disinformation. For it to be otherwise will in the end only harm the truth and those who seek it. How can any of that be so disturbing that you must demand my banning? That call seems counter to the very principles which you folks claim to support. Think about that. I'm actually trying to help you focus on what's important. The Truth. And the means of finding it. Don't you think your movement should be based on verifiable truth and sound logic, rather than lie filled videos like ... say ... Loose Change 2? Don't you think your movement should be led by leaders who don't misrepresent facts, distort the facts or lie? Rather than folks like Jones, Avery, Griffin, Roberts? By leaders who have no hidden agenda of their own? Now, of course, christine can do whatever she pleases. She is the forum owner. It is well within her right and power to ban me just as it was within her right to limit my posting privileges. But I respectfully suggest that banning me, given the record for honest and civil debate that I've now established on this forum, would make Freedom4um look very bad. Look at the criticisms you folks have leveled against Goldi for relegating threads involving 9/11 theories to her biker bar. Just because she disagrees with them. Yet you apparently want to completely ban someone just because he disagrees with you. The plain and simple truth is that if your theories and claims can't stand up to the criticisms of a single poster (one who even has limited posting privileges), do you really think they are all that sound? Maybe they need some refining. Think of me as someone who is trying to help you do that and we will get along fine. I really mean that ...
What would you do if the truth came out, without a doubt, that 9/11 did not happen the way you claim it did, with full evidence, that indeed it was some plot not carried out by Osama from his cave but was in fact a sophisticated intelligence operation involving govt officials? What would you say if this was proven to be the case beyond the shadow of a doubt? Can you PLEASE answer that? I don't interact with you as much as some of the other posters do because I tend to not post on 9/11 threads as much. However I know you have the ability to be insulting without actually calling names, and you refuse to ever be wrong about anything, even when it's pointed out to you. No one can be right 100% of the time, not even you, yet you refuse to accept when you are wrong. I'm not calling for your banning as I believe you have the right to your opinions, but it would help greatly if you would not view everyone here as beneath you. Perhaps you can't help it, maybe it was the way you were brought up or just your inherent personality, in which case I feel sorry for you, but you have to try to get along better with the other posters. I don't like other posters calling you bad names and cussing at you, that accomplishes nothing and is rude, plus you aren't allowed to fight back. I admit there is a huge double-standard there, as they can call you all sorts of vile names but if you fight back you end up in hot water. To avoid all this, and calls for your being banned, it would really help if you would stop being so insulting to other posters and accept them as full-fledged human beings.
Diana, how many times do I have to say that there are good questions that can be asked about 9/11? I think there are some things the government hasn't told us. They may have good reasons. Or they may not. I do not rule out the possibility that someone(s) within the government might have taken advantage of the situation around that time to further their own foreign policy (or other objectives) or even allowed it to happen. That is a possibility. I certainly think that mistakes were made and that some people involved in making those mistakes should have been punished and were not. We do not have all the answers to what transpired before, during and after the event. But I will say that I have absolutely no doubt that impact and fire is what brought down the WTC structures and Flight 77 did the damage at the Pentagon. The fact that the CT community can not let go of the claim that bombs, energy beams or nukes brought down the towers and Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon is symptomatic of what's wrong with the community and why they may never find out the truth about anything else. Sad. Well what do you have to say about the fact that Loose Change and Griffin claim the hole in the Pentagon was no more than 20 feet wide and I've proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that's untrue? What do you have to say now that it has been proven that WTC7 did NOT collapse in 6.5 seconds like all those in the CT community have been claiming for so long? If you don't believe me, look at that video clip I linked a few posts back. It seems to me that if you folks can't honestly deal with those facts, you are in no position to challenge me about what I would say if it were proven that 9/11 was a sophisticated intelligence operation involving government officials. Which hasn't been proven, by the way. How? By posting sourced material that disproves the lies being spread by some? If that is insulting, so be it. I don't view folks that way. I've been nothing but civil since coming to 4um. If anyone views anyone as beneath them, it is those who are unwilling to discuss the facts but instead choose to label those they disagree with as evil, Bush bots, morons, or worse. You need not feel sorry for me. I'm quite happy and content. And how exactly am I supposed to do that. By agreeing with everything they claim? I appreciate that side of you. But I have been fighting back. Most effectively. Hence the calls to ban me. Again, how exactly am I to do that? By agreeing with them that bombs brought down the WTC towers, Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and that a philosopher and theologian is just as much an expert as anyone else when it comes to structures, materials, fire, demolition and macro-world physics? Really, Diana, I'd like to know.
This whole 9/11 argument has morphed, maybe purposely, into steel beams, thermite, rates of collapes, melting points, sizes of holes and other technical side issues when the real topic should be why/how/who/what was all involved in the planning and what the real purpose of it all was. However I see little now on this topic, all people seem to want to address is at what rate the buildings collapsed and so on, that's why I don't post much to those threads anymore, plus I don't have the technical background as I not a physicist or engineer like many of the other posters appear to be. But my main point is that people have slowly but surely been led away from the topic of trying to find out exactly who was responsible, instead focusing on nit-picky details which really don't give pertinent information. Planes hit buildings, the buildings fell down, and wars resulted. As far as "you folks" honestly dealing with facts, those posters who don't agree with you are being honest and sincere I might add. They are trying to dig for the truth to determine what happened, at least from a technical standpoint. So, I would still like to know what your reaction would be if it were found out that it did not occur like you claim it did.
There are good questions to ask about 9/11. But you won't get answers to those questions as long as your side insists on making issues of steel beams, thermite, rates of collapse, melting points and sizes of holes. You are the ones doing that. Not me. And doing that, when your side is obviously wrong about those things, only discredits the good questions that might be asked. It has to do with credibility. If your side is claiming evidence shows that someone(s) within the government allowed the hijackers to successfully attack the US and at the same time claiming things that are counter to verifible facts (such as collapse rates of structures which were filmed collapsing) and counter to what ALL the professional in a multitude of technical disciplines seem to think about the physics of those collapses, then I have good reason to doubt the credibility of your assertions about the government and hijackers. If someone your side calls an expert makes claims that turn out to be verifiably false and its something that person should have known as an expert, and when told this you ignore the criticism and continue to insist he's an expert and what he said is true, then I have reason to doubt not only your judgment but any other people you bring forth as experts on any subject. It has to do with credibility, Diana, and this insistence on promoting theories that run counter to a mountain of well established and verifiable facts, and the opinions of the entire technical community that might reasonably be considered experts in the areas under discussion, only hurts the willingness of people like me to listen to anything else you have to say. Especially when the response to my posting facts counter to their theories is to be subjected to a variety of nasty adhominim attacks on my honesty, my sincerity, my character, my motives, my sexuality, my intelligence, my education, my compassion ... not to mention calling for my banning in order to silence me. That doesn't do much to convince me that your theories about government involvement in 9/11 have any merit. But we wouldn't be discussing the notion of bombs in towers and no Flight 77 if YOUR side didn't keep raising it. And what is discrediting your side are those nit-picky details which prove the leaders of your *truth* movement are lying to you. Some of the worst mass murderers in history have been very sincere. And they "honestly" believed in what they said and were doing. Honesty and sincerity go a lot further when backed up by truth. It's the truth component I'm trying to add to the mix here at LP. But apparently few are interested. Then why won't they face the truth about collapse times, the size of the Pentagon hole, sagging floors, and that chunk of WTC debris? Just to start with ... Why should I answer your question when you won't answer mine? I've already proven that some of the claims made by leaders of this truth movement and some posters here at 4um are false. Yet that doesn't appear to have altered yours views or your behavior. Why is that, Diana? And the answer to your question is that I'd be just as persistent and vocal as I have been about other issues where I decided the government was acting improperly. The Ron Brown case is a good example. I did more than just speak out on internet forums. I wrote letters and spoke to various people in the news media including folks like Larry Elder. You are undoubtedly aware that even today I continue to remind folks of that topic and my insistence that the Bush administration is complicit in helping cover up what was likely a crime (as well as a number of other crimes committed during the Clinton years). Vocalizing that belief is what ultimately got me kicked off Free Republic. The irony, now, is that certain members of Freedom4um have tried to use my fact based beliefs about the Ron Brown case as a means of discrediting me here. They ridiculed the notion and even called me a kook for my assertions on the subject. A further irony is that only SKYDRIFTER stepped forward at 4um to support my views when that happened. And note that none of those doing the ridiculing actually wanted to debate the facts of the matter. They ran from that. In any case, I think I have a track record that shows what might happen were I to be convinced of government complicity in 9/11. But so far, you haven't demonstrated that nor have you demonstrated you can face the truth about the physics of what destroyed the towers and the Pentagon. Do the later, and you'll stand a better chance of the former. They aren't honestly dealing with the facts. They are trying to get me banned to avoid facing the facts that I've so carefully sourced. Do you notice that no one has tried to counter the video I posted yesterday that indicates the WTC 7 collapse took more than 13 seconds rather than the 6.5 seconds everyone has been claiming? Why do you think that is? I'm not saying you are unworthy of an answer. I'm asking for equal treatment. I want to be treated with civility rather than insulted in the manner I have been. I want to have MY questions answered rather than just ignored. Do you think that's possible around here?
But so far, you haven't demonstrated that nor have you demonstrated you can face the truth about the physics of what destroyed the towers and the Pentagon. Do the later, and you'll stand a better chance of the former. I don't feel I have a good enough background in physics to be able to make any real decisions on the rate of collapse, I don't think I've commented much if at all on that aspect. I have an open mind, a lot of the technical stuff goes over my head, yet it's my belief people are focusing too much on those details instead of looking into who was behind it all. We all know the basic facts, but there is no proof of how the whole thing was orchestrated and put together, or by whom. I would like to know very much who was really responsible, but at the present time I don't know. All I do know is that I highly doubt it was done the way the govt said it was because their story is just too fantastic and implausible with too many "facts" having come out almost immediately. I know the insults and attacks are bad, but posters tend to lose their tempers because of you, like SKYDRIFTER.
You have eyes, don't you? You have a watch? Then you can look at that WTC7 video and time it. It doesn't take a background in physics to see that the collapse started long before the point that the CT advocates have been showing as the beginning of the collapse in their videos. And if you have eyes you can also watch videos that show the WTC towers took 15 seconds to collapse rather than the 9 or 11 seconds that some here still insist. And if you eyes and have a just a little worldly experience, you can look at photos of Pentagon and easily see that the hole in the outer wall was much larger than the 16 to 20 feet claimed by certain truth movement leaders and some here at the 4um. And notice that Ferret Mike would rather focus on my inadvertently saying LP than addressing any of these facts. That should tell you something Diana even if you don't have a physics/engineering background. Now I don't intend to respond further on this subject today. My limited number of posts makes them too precious to waste going around in circles on this. I've said my piece and believe that any rational reader will see my point.
We have eyes and ears, which is why we know there is so much evidence torpedoing the official story of 9 11. I do not buy you version of the collapse times, and I do not find your strange version of the Pentagon explosion which relies on denial of the facts that the evidence of what happened there has largely been kept from us and that the pictures of the missile impact do not reflect what you claim that they do. As far as your "inadvertently saying LP," just respond saying that's what happened and that suffices. Why are you so defensive? Knowing you have been scanning old LP posts and knowing your propensity to cut and past, it is unreasonable not to be suspicious you cut and pasted old LP verbiage here to make new posts. However, if you say you didn't, I have to accept in good faith this assertation on face value. But this is not so concerning your selective shell game concerning evidence to prove something you obviously have a vested interest in proving. You do not respond to much of inquiry or comments to you and you are hard to talk to in general. You ignore the areas of withheld and destroyed evidence, and your Ron Brown conspiracy theory acceptance and 9 11 conspiracy evidence denial serve a consistent political agenda that creates natural suspision of your motives. I came into the topic a couple of years ago convinced 9 11 was not an inside job and studied the evidence to help argue the case the Truth Movement was wrong. However, even with a critical and suspicious eye and ear to it, I realized with a sinking heart that they were very much on the money. The existing evidence shows the official story is a lie. The destruction and withholding of evidence does too. The coverup and sweep things under the rug tone and nature of the official report of the 9-11 Commission makes their findings not credible. You are a biased and deceptive operator with a hidden agenda at work. You can rehash verbiage and pictures trying to re-invent what is there all you want, but your words do not match what you show and the words you write and cut and paste. You can be clever and coy, but people are smarter then you think. And until you converse with people instead of haughtily preaching at them in a manner indicative you look down on them, you will get nowhere in here.
#146. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#142)
My version? Just watch the video of the WTC7 collapse, Ferret. You will see that members of the CT community who have posted videos of the collapse forgot to mention that the penthouse began to collapse about 8 seconds before their videos even start. Yes, over at LP you started out by posting this: ************** 394. To: malador (#393) I believe the rivets heated up to the point of being white hot. I believe the structural stress was sufficient to remove rivet from hole in enough places to bring down these buildings. I read about the architecture of these buildings from the get go when I was a boy watching them rise into the sky in nearby New York. I have also read how when you remove the connectivity of steel between the inner and outer structures - which most of the structural strength of the building was - you had a domino effect as some floors pancaking on others created the force and weight needed to destroy not so heat effected parts of the building. There were many strange things about that day, but no, I do not for a minute believe the government deliberately destroyed the WTC. ferret posted on 2005-01-08 16:06:02 ET ************* Then you didn't post on any LP thread related to collapse of the towers or the damage of the pentagon until post this, likely a link (no longer working) to an article advocating it was a controlled demolition: ************* 4. To: honway (#0) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705controlleddemolition.htm ferret posted on 2005-07-06 12:20:32 ET Reply Trace ************* Your next post on the subject was this: *********** 16. To: honway (#0) Great video, thanks for the link to it. I believe Seven World Trade Center was pulled, and I believe Silverstein got caught telling the truth more literally then the official line had meant him to when he said they decided to pull this building. As for the twin towers, too many questions need to be answered before I'll buy the 'pancake theory' of the official story concerning the collapse. I was near Mount Saint Helens when it erupted planting trees. I saw the lightning in the air from the static electricity of the material in the pyroclastic flows and from the huge plume of material as the uncapped explosive power of this eruption occurred. We could feel the air temperature suddenly changing and the small clouds melt from Mt. Saint Helens. It takes an incredible amount of energy to create pyroclastic flows. The analogy between volcanic pyroclastic flows and those from these building connected the dots for me and I do believe that they must have been created by more then just the collapse of the buildings. ferret posted on 2006-04-12 22:38:27 ET ************** That's quite a transformation with nothing to connect the dots. So what changed your mind between those dates? It certainly wasn't participatory debate on the subject. Was it just your dislike of Bush and company? Was it just your dislike of the war? Or just your dislike of posters like me? Was it peer pressure to conform with the rest of the Kerry voting community? And is this the way you reach all your conclusions?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: Critter, ALL (#1)
This is incredible! I love this guy!
Good shit from the good doctor.
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" 
#11. To: BeAChooser (#10)
(Edited)
#13. To: Critter, ALL (#11)
I do believe that the people holding that chunk of whatever it is are the ones that said it was the result of a molten mass.
"People holding"? What in the world are you talking about, Critter? No one is holding that chunk of material that Steven Jones claimed in his viewgraph presentation was slag from a pool of molten steel. Are you experiencing the same eyesight problems that kept you from seeing that the hole in the Pentagon was more than 20 feet wide? ROTFLOL!
#14. To: BeAChooser (#13)
#19. To: Critter, ALL (#14)
They are not holding it anywhere? It has been tossed out in the trash?
I really can't wait til Christine has had enough of your bullshit.
#24. To: BeAChooser (#19)
#29. To: Critter, ALL (#24)
Spheres, that the USGS found in the dust. Spheres. How do you make an iron rich sphere Mr. genius? You must melt the iron and propel it through the air. Since NIST confirms that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition?
The Sign of Four by Arthur Conan Doyle
#30. To: BeAChooser (#29)
#31. To: Critter, christine, Minerva (#30)
(Edited)
#33. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
#95. To: christine (#33)
#96. To: , christine (#95)
It is a tough call. I am glad I am not making it.
#104. To: honway, RickyJ, Ferret Mike, IndieTX, SKYDRIFTER, Critter, Kamala, Esso, Diana, christine, ALL (#96)
#115. To: BeAChooser, Ferret Mike, christine, Ricky J, IndieTX, critter, tom007, honway, Red Jones, All (#104)
I've said that I'm here to set the record straight on certain issues and leaders through honest, civil debate. I don't think I've veered from that mission or means.
#126. To: Diana, ALL (#115)
What would you do if the truth came out, without a doubt, that 9/11 did not happen the way you claim it did, with full evidence, that indeed it was some plot not carried out by Osama from his cave but was in fact a sophisticated intelligence operation involving govt officials?
What would you say if this was proven to be the case beyond the shadow of a doubt? Can you PLEASE answer that?
However I know you have the ability to be insulting without actually calling names,
I'm not calling for your banning as I believe you have the right to your opinions, but it would help greatly if you would not view everyone here as beneath you.
in which case I feel sorry for you
but you have to try to get along better with the other posters
I don't like other posters calling you bad names and cussing at you
plus you aren't allowed to fight back.
it would really help if you would stop being so insulting to other posters and accept them as full-fledged human beings.
#129. To: BeAChooser (#126)
It seems to me that if you folks can't honestly deal with those facts, you are in no position to challenge me about what I would say if it were proven that 9/11 was a sophisticated intelligence operation involving government officials. Which hasn't been proven, by the way.
#137. To: Diana, Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, IndieTX, critter, christine, ALL (#129)
This whole 9/11 argument has morphed, maybe purposely, into steel beams, thermite, rates of collapes, melting points, sizes of holes and other technical side issues when the real topic should be why/how/who/what was all involved in the planning and what the real purpose of it all was.
However I see little now on this topic, all people seem to want to address is at what rate the buildings collapsed
But my main point is that people have slowly but surely been led away from the topic of trying to find out exactly who was responsible, instead focusing on nit-picky details which really don't give pertinent information.
As far as "you folks" honestly dealing with facts, those posters who don't agree with you are being honest and sincere I might add.
They are trying to dig for the truth to determine what happened, at least from a technical standpoint.
So, I would still like to know what your reaction would be if it were found out that it did not occur like you claim it did.
You are basically calling the posters on this forum liars, you are accusing them of not wanting to deal honestly with facts, when they have spent lots of time and effort researching facts.
You are in effect saying I'm not worthy of an answer from you, that's the whole basic problem with you. That is how you treat posters here, and people don't like to be insulted.
#140. To: BeAChooser (#137)
Especially when the response to my posting facts counter to their theories is to be subjected to a variety of nasty adhominim attacks on my honesty, my sincerity, my character, my motives, my sexuality, my intelligence, my education, my compassion ... not to mention calling for my banning in order to silence me. That doesn't do much to convince me that your theories about government involvement in 9/11 have any merit.
#141. To: Diana, Ferret Mike, all (#140)
I don't feel I have a good enough background in physics to be able to make any real decisions on the rate of collapse,
#142. To: BeAChooser (#141)
Replies to Comment # 142. I do not buy you version of the collapse times,
I came into the topic a couple of years ago convinced 9 11 was not an inside job and studied the evidence to help argue the case the Truth Movement was wrong.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 142.
