dongbeiren:

The Zionist neoconservatives taking advantage of it is fact... The other theories are speculation.

icnif77:

OBL was 'established' by US NGO's to fight against 'Vlads' in Afghanistan, and later changed his 'opinion', because of US troops stationed in Holly SA.

xinyuren:

This doesnt answer my question. At the time of the attacks, Al Quieda was an enemy. Why would they cooperate in a conspiracy?

icnif77:

'It became an enemy', i.e. 'manipulated'. Deal could be made similar as movies are made in Hollywood. At least, that's the way how Secret Service operate. See 'Gideon's Spies' book about Mossad by G. Thomas, free download over FrostWire.

xinyuren:

This doesnt answer the question either. Just say you dont know.

icnif77:

Of course, I don't know. These are possibilities that come to mind.

....and you sure are supporting fact, that US Police is semi-retarded org., because they weren't able to protect homeland, despite 'Up-yours' revelations showed what kind of Broadband sweep was going on at the time of attacks??

mattsm84:

Both the CIA and AQ deny that any sort of relationship existed between the two. But hey, maybe you know better icnf77.

xinyuren:

conspiracy theorists always know better, even though they are usually as far away from the evidence as can be (such as their parent's basement, in the woods, or living in China).

icnif77:

'Conspiracy theorist' always gives some 'nutter' predisposition.

It's just a research every trader must do, before committing her/his money on the market. We called 'DD' or 'due diligence'.

And whoever doesn't go through 'dd' is called 'sheeple'. You both fit into the former.

- NORAD stands down as soon as planes came close to the NY and US Capital (WH);

- no actual evidence was ever found on plotters (bodies, DNA);

- building 7 collapsed into footprint in several seconds, what is signature of controlled demolition;

- it wasn't possible to do any research on building's material (steel beams), after the accident, because everything was recycled in a hurry;

- there was tone of money made by correct betting on Futures market, what warrants advanced knowledge off the accident;

- buildings were 'bullet proof' insured against such an accident just few days (or weeks) before happening. 'Follow the Money' thread on IHUB is very interesting, because whole thing and later developments produced a lot of money;

- vault on the bottom of one of the building was full of bullion, which was never recovered;

I really forgot many things I read about it, and I might be 'conspiracy theorist'. The most important fact I stand by is US Police/Gov. They can't be that stupid and don't have knowledge about 19 strangers entered the country.

Shining_brow:

Due Diligence... good phrase!

These 'nutters' that is so easy to label - and therefore, ignore - look at all available evidence (ie, not just the stuff you're told to look at).

icnif77:

I'm not told anything! I'm in China last 6y, nobody's telling me anything.

I love it! I can turn-on the teli and watch or listen the news, and I don't have a slight clue what is going on...LOL

xinyuren:

Some people just need to believe that the government is evil. There is no evidence in the world that will convince them otherwise. The truth is people are lousy at keeping secrets. Especially if the secrets reveal actions that caused harm to others. I'm sure there is a term for people who are compelled to believe in conspiracies and maybe one day I will study this.

mattsm84:

http://answers.echinacities.com/question/will-china%E2%80%A6-un?&showid=238682#answer238682

dongbeiren:

I don't deny it but the official account is fishy that's all... There are some details that don't add up. A full blown conspiracy is unlikely but that doesn't make the official account completely believable either.

mattsm84:

You know who doesn't find it fishy? Civil engineers. There  is a near total consensus among that portion of the academic community. The findings of the NIST were peer reviewed, as were the findings of the Popular Machanic article which recreated them, and both were approved of near universally. In fact, many peer reviewed academic papers to this day are still published that site the finding of both of those reports. Would you like me to post the list that I compiled of the ones that deal with just tower 7?

dongbeiren:

I'd love to see those reports... Open minded here

mattsm84:

Here is a list of them from WTC 7 alone:

The Articles Publish in by American Society of CIvil Engineers:

(mostly abstracts, but they come out with there findings)

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IS.1943-555X.0000028
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29215
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%2937
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28418%29
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-0680%282008%2913%3A2%2893%29
• http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-art
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753%28171%29136
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%2969
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29144
• http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29208
• http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944
• http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xml
• http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282004%2918%3A2%2879%29
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28336%29
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%282008%29134%3A11%281717%29
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29248
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29247
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000172
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28309%29
• http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29142
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29124
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29322
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282005%29131%3A6%28557%29
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29234
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29310
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29181
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29138
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000279
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29143
• http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10694-012-0286-5
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29224
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142%28396%2953
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000248
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%29254
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000256
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000446
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000443
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28307%29
• http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29203

The American Institute of Architects:http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory_1.aspx

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats 

http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/TechnicalGuides/CommentsonNISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-US/Default.aspx

The international code council:

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/NIST-WorldTradeCenterRecommendations.aspx

The engineering department at Stanford::

https://blume.stanford.edu/content/collapse-performance-assessment-steel-framed-buildings-under-fires

https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-engineers-study-911-lessons-how-help-buildings-withstand-threats

But not only that. There is enough information available for others to recreate that model based on the information given and replicate the results.

Edinburgh University model:http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/doc/11-4403_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/hilite/

xinyuren:

all those engineers are part of the conspiracy. They were paid to keep quiet about the truth. Just like the climate change scientists. Wow. America has a ton of money.

Shining_brow:

So we have the situation where your experts disagree with our experts - who also publish in peer-reviewed journals.

(and, for the record, just being peer-reviewed does NOT make it right. There has been AMPLE occasions when those things that appear in such journals are 100% incorrect, but have been approved for publication. Also, MANY instances where such publishings were for less than egalitarian reasons. Please, do look at the 'evidence' published that smoking causes NO harmful effects!)

Also, "peer-reviewed" also means "peer-acceptable". Such papers NEED to be ok'ed by someone on the publication board. Which sometimes means that the paper needs to agree with their stance.

I still have access to my universities database (library) - I can find these journals!

OMG - I must be CRAZY!!! Here, Matts has provided a LONG list of peer-reviewed articles that PROVE that the official version MUST be true! (well, as far as the buildings coming down...).. how irrational - nutter!

So - YOUR peer-reviewed articles are somehow better than MY peer-reviewed articles. YOUR experts are somehow better than MY experts.... do you see the problem here?

xinyuren:

@shining- except for the fact that you have failed to identify your "experts" nor cite their peer reviewed findings. typical of the conspiracy nuts. Their usual citations come from the iffy media sources or something their friend's cousin said.

mattsm84:

Ok, here's the thing, my experts are experts in the relevant field, while I'm willing to bet that yours are not. I mean, by all means post them. But the real damning thing as far as the truther movement is concerned is the fact that a list like this indicates a consensus in the field of civil engineering. If there were a wiff of controversy around the NIST report, or the reports that replicated its findings, then why would somebody writing reports on predicting the standard behavior of composite steal beamsRole of Insulation Effectiveness on Fire Resistance of Steel Structures under Extreme Loading Events site it? It would needlessly undermined the trust worthiness of their study. So no. There is no my experts versus your experts going on here. There is what civil engineers have essentially agreed upon, and whatever you're about to pass off as being roughly equivalent. 

Shining_brow:

I'm curious Xin... if I post a nice list of these articles - what will you do?

NO, be 100% honest with yourself...what will you do?

Will you:

a) go and read them all with an open mind, and try to understand the science behind it?

b) trash it... not bother to read, just tell us all why it's conspiracy nutters crap and not worth looking at because it's all rubbish.

I KNOW what you'll actually do! And it's not a)

(and, FTR, I was trying to find the NON-AMERICAN peer-reviewed articles which have been written in. You do know that when 9/11 happened, the German Chancellor basically said it was an inside job... no??)

If you PROMISE to actually read them with an open mind, I'll link... but I'm guessing that will never happen! (remember, I said "open mind" - not "I already know, so I'm going to pick holes in it without actually knowing anything about such things because it's not my field of expertise, but I already believe the other articles written which help to support my beliefs")

mattsm84:

I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to read them and tell you they're shit. Because they probably are shit.

xinyuren:

are they from iffy media sources? If so, I wont waste my time. I only read information from sources of confirmed and respected value.

Shining_brow:

Matts - about your "near total consensus"....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

2300 engineers and architects... hmmmmm (please read this with my post regarding what the actual commissioners of the 9/11 investigation said below).

Re: Your "it's shit" comment - weren't you the one who brought up the bias thing on the other thread???

(I just found this - and need to C&P from Wiki:

Dr Michael Wood and Dr Karen Douglas University of Kent psychologists who specialize in conspiracy theories^[225] examined the comments sections of over 2000 news articles relating to the collapse of World Trade Center 7. They found that proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories were more likely to try and debunk the mainstream account than promote their own theories and also were more likely to believe in other conspiracy theories. Proponents of the mainstream account tended to argue for that account and showed a greater hostility toward conspiracy theory proponents.^{[226]" (my emphasis)}

mattsm84:

2300 members of vague backgrounds, who may not even be architects or engineers, out of a field of hundreds of thousands. Are we even taking about a full percentage point of the total profession here? 

Even if we are being charitable and saying that these people are all architects or engineers in related fields then the question still remains as to why they aren't publishing and making an argument known. My suspicion is that this organization isn't to picky about who joins and those that do aren't really in the position to present themselves as any kind of experts.

Man, you are really, really grasping at straws here. 

mattsm84:

About the bias, what I said about it earlier is still applicable to you now. The opinion you hold about 9/11 has more to do with your distrust of the US government than it does with in strength of the argument that it was an inside job. You're not being skeptical. Compare the long, long list of peer reviewed studies, or statements issued by professional organizations and university faculties, or  testimony by professionals in court cases, which I posted to the sketchy pro-truther blogs that supporters of your theory have used in support. You know that these two things aren't of equal quality. And you know that the latter is absolute shit. Or take the statements by OBL where in he takes full responsibility for 9/11 and compare them to some comment made by some government official about maybe, possibly not being 100% certain. Again, you know which one of these is shit. The selective doubt on display here is staggering. How do you not see it?

Shining_brow:

Do you not see (even admit or acknowledge) your own bias? Sincerely. You seem to be capable of it... but do you actually acknowledge it?

You are not suggesting - you are outrightly CLAIMING that ALL of those other civil engineers and architects who haven't signed the petition I linked to all agree with the official version - seriously? You want to make that claim?? Because that's what you're doing....

Not only that, but you've automatically questioned their skills, knowledge, experience, credential, etc, without even checking!

I put up a link to refute your claim.. please show me where you're getting your numbers. (yeah, I'm being a hypocrit for not linking in my evidence... you've already shown you're bias against it (re-read my first paragraph)).

mattsm84:

Yes, I am saying of that 2300 that a bunch of them are not civil engineers. I'm saying that those that are civil engineers aren't publishing findings. I'm saying that those that are publishing all seem to publish things that support outright or tacitly the NIST report. I am saying that that is a consensus. That is an obvious position to take.

Shining_brow:

Oh, I need to add - given your love of NIST:

"James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.” " (my emphasis)

Just to clarify - a former head of a NIST department said the NIST report needs to be re-done...(the dates of this might be relevant...apologies as this seems to be old)

mattsm84:

What if I told you that it was audited and the results were replicated, both in academia and by popular machanic? What then?

Shining_brow:

(NB - this is a C&P from my comment on Coin's post below, with minor edit)

Actually, there has been such 'peer-reviewed' articles. It is exceptionally difficult to get something published when publishers (peers and other... 'interested parties') don't want things to get published!

There have been a number of independent peer-reviewed articles - but I'm choosing not to link them, as I know what you're going to write about that... so I won't even bother (as I indicated previously).

Sod it - my net is going slow.. I'll just link this for you to look through! http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/

Journals include: Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Environmentalist, Journal of Structural Engineering, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, Bentham Open Physics and Chemistry Journal.

What does this prove?

Absolutely nothing - except that your 'consensus' is not entire! There are people - 'experts in the field' who disagree with other 'experts in the field'. And no, you're not going to be able to have a dick competition here - 'our' experts are just as qualified, just as experienced, have also gotten awards, and from the right universities and right institutions as well!

I mentioned previously - we have one HUGE problem... all the actual evidence that could actually prove (or disprove) what happened has GONE! and will not be coming back any time soon.... We do NOT know what happened inside those buildings! I'm sure, however, that some people do... and knwo what would happen if they talked about it!

What if I tell you that those replications and simulations RELY on data provided, as well as guesswork and hypotheticals? IF X happened, and IF Y was the case, and then Z should happen.

Consider this (if you can)... given the basic principles we're looking at, is it more likely that those buildings were brought down using explosives, or that all the physics data conclusively proves the pancake effect from fires, etc? Using Occam's Razor (something you brought up, and later didn't comment on when I countered it), and ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (in this case - the building is NOT the WTCs, and NOT part of such political sensitivities, and NOT subject to possible terrorist attacks, and NOT in the middle of a hugely populated city) - do the collapses conform to a more likely scenario of - controlled demolition, or the amazingly coincidental natural laws of physics?

(yes, the thermite/controlled demolition requires the additional 'who the hell placed it and when?' argument - but I'm only looking at the actual fall of the building - not the who or the how - because, for this argument, it's irrelevant! - horses and carts).

Could those buildings have gone down by controlled demolition?

Yes or no?

I mean, is there absolute positive proof that they weren't? (proof, evidence - not well-written papers that suggest alternative theories).

Is it possible that the physics just happen to mimic almost exactly the effects of a controlled demolition?

CLEARLY the suggestion of controlled demolition - for the physics involved - (not the politics) - is not stupid.  I mean, I think you're not saying "Don't be stupid, it's obvious that it couldn't have been explosives - buildings just don't fall like that!".. You're not saying that, are you??

Shining_brow:

I've also asked you to acknowledge your own bias in this debate... which you have yet to do. Or are you honestly of the belief that you are completely unbiased?

mattsm84:

"Actually, there has been such 'peer-reviewed' articles. It is exceptionallydifficult to get something published when publishers (peers and other... 'interested parties') don't want things to get published!"

mattsm84:

Actually, if you don't mind, I'd like to talk about Steven Jones, who's name appears repeatedly on the link you gave me, for a minute as he is a great example of a guy who is an expert, in his case particle physics, but who sometimes publishes outside of his field and why the results are often kind of silly. As a particle physicist, Jones is a genius who has contributed to, I believe cold fusion. However he strikes me as one of those people who thinks because he's an expert in one thing, he should be an expert in everything. Case in point, he's a paper he wrote when he decided that he was an archeologist, a theologist, and anthropologist all rolled into one.

 http://www.bastison.net/RESSOURCES/Farce/57_Jones_Jesus.pdf

The title of this paper is Behold My Hands, Evidence of Christ Visit to Ancient America.

Of course, as a piece of scholarship this is an absolute joke, I think we can agree that it also demonstrates the problem with what can happen when academics decide to publish outside their fields. Jones, and many of the other people included in the articles you linked to are doing the same thing here. Whether they are chemists, or geologist, or even, as Jones is, physicists. 

Shining_brow:

(oops - wrong Jones :p)

Shining_brow:

Specifically about the 'out of their field' argument......

Is a poor argument.

You're basically saying that the person is more relevant than the article that is written. I disagree. A person may qualify in one field, but that doesn't make them entirely ignorant in a different field. Again, it's basically an ad hominem - attack the person, not the argument. Is Steven Jones, reputable scientist in the field of physics a person who ought to have some input into this question - or, as you would have us, someone to completely ignore....?

You choose to completely ignore anything he writes.... without actually looking at what is written - and only because it's "not his field".

Does he deserve more attention or 'belief' than any other fully trained and qualified person in the relevant field? No, of course not! But to just diss his research because you have that bias isn't overly sensible.

Who is relevant in the field? Why not industrial chemists? Or demolitions experts? After all, ONE of the arguments being made is that thermite was used to bring the buildings down, We have chemists who are saying that residue from the site includes thermite. Please explain how your civil or structural engineers stack up against the chemists who say there IS evidence for a demolition based on that?

Your engineers are saying how it could have come down - these guys are countering the 'could' with "we have a certain amount of evidence suggesting how it DID come down". Basically, the basic premises are slightly different. IF there really are traces of thermite, which MAY indicate a controlled demolition, then it BETTER explains what happened - would you not agree?

Unfortunately, - the full amount of evidence is gone.

Q: Would your position alter (even to bring in an element of doubt) if it was conclusively proven that the 'nano-thermite' that has been 'found' was actually real? As I said, controlled demolition is a better explanation - other than the political and situation modifiers that you are suggesting has more weight. (ie, "no, they wouldn't do that - and they wouldn't be able to pull it off")

As I indicated elsewhere - much of your stance seems to only come from this one report, and other things that the government has said is true. It also implies a particular attitude towards the government - that they wouldn't do something like this. I start from the question of - would various people in such positions of power at least try to do something like this? If so, are they capable of making it happen? If this is also true, do they (would they) be in a position to control other information disseminating media?

The anwwer, for me, is clearly 'yes' on all counts. (including - what gets published, what information is made available, what evidence is allowed to be looked at).

You, I figure, do not think this (obviously) - the government is fairly benign, would not do this, and wouldn't be able to pull it off. Also, all information in academic journals is completely free and devoid of any sort of interference or manipulation. (THIS is your bias!)

Shining_brow:

Actually - another Q:

"Is it more likely, given everything we know about the situation, than the alternative? no."

Why?

(I don't understand your "everything we know about the situation".... so, obviously, this is quite a different direction to what you've previously discussed.....what is it that you think you know that I don't (or don't accept)?)

Shining_brow:

(apologies for multiple posts - I hate the edit function on this thing - it throws the formatting all over the place!)

You wrote: "The last two only wrote a paper about the way that steal behaves at high temps, and I think would be surprised to find themselves on this list as the paper itself has little to do with 9/11 (although you might argue that its findings do.) So five if we are charitable, three if we aren't."

WTF???? The behaviour of steel at high temperature is CENTRAL to BOTH arguments!

So many have tried to argue that the steel frames gave out due to the heat produced by the 'fires' of the paper and/or the jet fuel.

And even more central to WTC7 coming down...as has been said previously - it's the only building to collapse due to fire in recent history. (ie, steel supports/frames shouldn't be collapsing because of a lousy frikken fire!)

Btw - would you pls link the actual experiments that show how the NIST report is proven to be right? You know - the experiments where they flew a Boeing into a 415m tall building, and watched how it collapsed...

mattsm84:

"You're basically saying that the person is more relevant than the article that is written. I disagree. A person may qualify in one field, but that doesn't make them entirely ignorant in a different field." 

No, I'm saying that their expertise is one of the things that make their opinions worth listening too. For instance, an architect can tell you how much weight a building is built to carry. A Chemist can tell you what certain chemical reaction will do. A demolitions expert can tell you what a controlled collapse might look like. A particle physicist has nothing to add, and should be ignored completely as a novice. That's what these people are professionally equipped to do given their expertise.

In this instance only a structural engineer or a civil engineer can look at the whole picture meaning; how fast the plane was traveling when it struck the building; how much debris was likely to hit wtc 7; how much damage either of these things was likely to do; what damage the heat from the fire was likely to do to the remaining support structure; what would be needed to maintain what temps, and whether or not the building, given the likely damage, would be able to do that; how much weight would be placed on the remaining support structure both from the plane, or the debris, and the building itself; how much weight what remained could be counted upon to support given the damage; what would be needed to cause a complete collapse; at what speed this collapse would likely occurred. And any number of a hundred other variables. Only a structural or civil engineer could create a model to accommodate each of those variables. An architect cannot. A chemist cannot. A demolitions expert cannot. A partial physicists cannot.  

"You choose to completely ignore anything he writes.... without actually looking at what is written - and only because it's "not his field"."

Is he or isn't he a novice?

Please explain how your civil or structural engineers stack up against the chemists who say there IS evidence for a demolition based on that?...Your engineers are saying how it could have come down - these guys are countering the 'could' with "we have a certain amount of evidence suggesting how it DID come down". Basically, the basic premises are slightly different. IF there really are traces of thermite, which MAY indicate a controlled demolition, then it BETTER explains what happened - would you not agree?"

Ok, lets take it seriously. First, show me a peer reviewed paper where some chemists say this. Then show me where a bunch of chemists say it, in a way that indicates a consensus existing among chemical engineers. After all, this is what I've done for you. This is what you would need to do for this to be considered an equal, competing theory.

Second, as I understand it Jones's claim (again, Jones is not a chemist) Is that the ingredients for unreacted thermite (thermite is a chemical compound) were found. These ingredients are all commonly used in the construction of airplanes and buildings.

" As I indicated elsewhere - much of your stance seems to only come from this one report, and other things that the government has said is true. It also implies a particular attitude towards the government - that they wouldn't do something like this. I start from the question of - would various people in such positions of power at least try to do something like this? If so, are they capable of making it happen? If this is also true, do they (would they) be in a position to control otherinformation disseminating media?"

We talked about this sort of thing in the moon landing discussion a few days about. It isn't that I think that it wouldn't, or that it's benign or malicious, it's that it couldn't. It couldn't cover up the Gulf of Tonkin incident, it couldn't cover up Iran Contra, it couldn't cover up Nixon's involvement in the Watergate breaking in. Yet somehow, its been able to cover up something larger and that extends even further than all of those put together. Something that changed our very way of life. That their power extends far enough so that they can determined what does and doesn't get published internationally. So no, its not that I think of the government as being benign or even that you think of it as being especially malicious. Its that you think that it's a comic book super villain. Well, Dr. Doom doesn't exist, and the fact of the matter is that they are actually fairly incompetent.

Lets compare our biases for a moment in terms of what they require us to ignore and believe. All mine require is that I believe that Dr. Doom doesn't exist and that I discount the opinions of a minority of chemists(?) on a whether or not nanothermite could have been used to bring those buildings down. You, however must believe that the US government is an evil super genius, must ingnore that a consensus in the field of civil and structural engineering exists,  and must ignore that OBL and AQ have repeatedly claimed responsibility for the attacks. I'm not sure that we are both exercising the same kind of selective doubt here.

"Btw - would you pls link the actual experiments that show how the NIST report is proven to be right? You know - the experiments where they flew a Boeing into a 415m tall building, and watched how it collapsed..."

Shining_brow:

Firstly, I am really enjoying this debate, as much as sometimes you really frustrate me! :)

Secondly - what's going on with your C&P/quotes????

Thirdly....

Yes, your structural and civil engineers would be the best people to develop a plausible model for the 'natural' collapse of those buildings (still recalling, it's a model based on information provided from certain sources - NOT from actual physical evidence of the actual building debris itself - cos, you know, someone had all that stuff whisked away pretty damn quickly).

But - you're choosing to suggest that other experts in their field just stupidly decided to forget that thermite-residue is used/found in other building materials... you know, something that I'd suggest is something they should already take into account (particularly when they use terms like "more than should be expected' or similar paraphrases).

You're also choosing to ignore the demolitions experts professional experience that say "hey, that was a controlled demolition". Somehow, the model is a better explanation to dismiss the blatantly obvious (to them). You're also dismissing the knowledge that such people need to have... "How do you bring down a building?" "Umm - you just put some things that go bang in a few different places - I don't really know where, I just do what someone told me".

You also choose to ignore the experienced, professional airline pilots who say that being able to pull off the flights involved are "impossible" for those alleged terrorists.

AND the physicists who say that some of the apparent flight maneuvers that were apparently pulled off by these alleged' terrorists' defy the laws of physics.

AND ignoring the professional expertise of the flight trainer who says the alleged terrorists were incompetent at flying a small aircraft, and had no chance to be able to handle a much larger aircraft.

RE: Dr Stephen Jones... and 'his' paper. You seem to be of the opinion that just because it has his name on it, the others involved did very little, and their science and expertise is meaningless. Sort of like, Jones did ALL the work, and they just went along with it....

AS for the peer-reviewed articles and consensus by chemists - you know as well as I that that would take access to evidence (ie, NOT just making up a hypothetical model). That actual evidence needs to be GIVEN to them by someone. Someone HAS published a peer-reviewed paper , apparently based on evidence obtained. Right now, looking at it as a form of 'proof', THIS peer-reviewed paper actually stands up MUCH BETTER than a hypothetical MODEL of what MIGHT have happened - simply because it's based on actual physical evidence.

The 'consensus' to be obtained by the chemical engineers can ONLY be based upon the science of chemistry - not by their own actual analysis... so, any disagreement from them MUST include that physical evidence to analyse, or to take into account OTHER evidence from the site itself to make an analysis. Suggesting a lack of consensus within the chemical engineering world is telling is just silly!

I used an analogy below in Coin's post - if this happened out in a desert with no-one in it, but with exactly the same conditions (plane, air, steel, etc), then quite clearly logic points to - Occam's Razor - demolition. (no, I'm not a great fan of Occam's Razor - as things are rarely 'equal'. And, when one looks at the other side of an argument, it generally shows the opposite of what people want it to show - as in this case!).

As for your "Dr Doom" idea... well, we KNOW that certain members of the government and associates of the time HAD envisaged or been a part of a group that had realised, the taking of control of the US through such means. Papers were produced/published, they were looked at. Precedents were already around. And, scapegoats were abundant.

What they thought.. would take a telepath. But they were introduced to the ideas. Perhaps coincidentally, they also were later put into positions where such things could be made possible, and enacted policies which would make such things possible.

The ONLY difference in my scenario is - would they actually do this?

(I notice, throughout this page, you only focus on this one report (other than the Zionist comment) - you don't bother responding to certain FACTS regarding other 'coincidences'.. as well as blithely ignoring the fact that various officials LIED during the commission, and actively denied access to information and hampered the investigation.).

Interesting your 'analogies' - firstly, please look at the budgets that went into the official investigations of those incidents. Then compare them to the 9/11 budget. Secondly, look at the era they happened it, and the advancement in technologies, etc. Thirdly, consider the possibility that people actually learned from the mistakes that caused those things to become public.

You have stated that it couldn't - not that it's unlikely, improbable. But absolutely, 100% definite - that it could not be kept secret. That's a pretty huge call! I certainly wouldn't be making it!

Well.... various people from around teh world have stated that people knew the US government (well, connections to and within - I'm not going to say the Senate and Congress were all in on this - that would just be stupid!) had planned and carried out this event. (other just say they knew about it and allowed it. Others say they 'helped' it to happen). Who are these "others". People with access to intelligence (sorry, I find it funny to write that word like that :p) These people include intelligence operatives themselves, as well as the people they are supposed to report to..A number of people within the US intelligence community have also said they've been told to 'back off' on various investigations etc. Some have even been arrested, jailed, defamed etc for going public with their little bits of knowledge. (it's obviously quite possible that some have even been killed - we just wouldn't know that - yet!).

YOU say I'm just imagining a 'Dr Doom'... they are saying there IS a Dr Doom - and we have proof!

"I'm not sure that we are both exercising the same kind of selective doubt here"

Yes - I agree!

You suggest that your explanation is the more likely....actually, it's not.

ALL mine requires is that there are people who are part of, or connected to, the US government and in positions of power to decide upon a particular plot to make things happen, and then to cover it up using their positions of power (while making a nice little profit out of it - partly as one of the motives).

Yours requires that one accepts a model over actual physical evidence, total incompetence (to the point of criminal negligence) of the US intelligence authorities (remember, the actual operatives WERE passing on intelligence - the people at the top CHOSE not to act upon it - and even told operatives to let these terrorists through), to somehow accept that the laws of physics can be over-written (the suppsed flight paths), that AQ and OBL had fore-knowledge of the US military's plans for exercises such that virtually ALL of their planes were unavailable for such an opportunistic attack, That there's nothing wrong with removing all the evidence for the worst single-incident loss of life evidence to be removed ASAP so no investigation can actually be done, that there's nothing wrong in trying to deny such an investigation be allowed to happen in the first place (before being pressured to have it happen),that the commission to investigate this event have less funding than any other similar investigation of its kind (despite being the worst case of terrorism on US soil) is perfectly ok, , that it's perfectly ok to lie during testimony, that there is nothing wrong with withholding important evidence, that the Chair, and Co-Chairs don't know what they're talking about, that intelligence operatives and government officials around the rest of the world have been mis-informed... and of course, as mentioned above, that people who couldn't fly a Cesna were able to effectively fly a Boeing into a tower only a few meters wide... AND the co-incidence that for the first (and so far, only) time in history, the only time a fire (alone) has caused the destruction of a steel-frame building, and that 2 buildings hit by a plane will fall into its own footprint... only shortly after the lessor took out the largest insurance policy against terror attack in history (not to mention, the only time for those buildings), and the coincidence of the large sum of put-options traded on various businesses which operate in those buildings... And, of course, there is absolutely no need to have another investigation, and all attempts at having one is stifled - even though the original commissioners in the investigation have been calling for one after saying that their investigation was 'compromised', and various senators and congressmen have also requested this.

Now, which one of us is not using "selective doubt"?

My theory only requires 2 variables... how many does yours actually require (including but not limited to, the elements involved in the collapse of the buildings)?

mArtiAn:

Hi Matt, reading through this with interest and just wanted to point out one small thing. You say the results of these collapse theories (not sure if that should be singular or plural) are universally accepted and I'd be interested to know how many were actually involved in drawing them up and reviewing them as it seems a rather large assumption to say that the civil engineering field as a whole support their presented hypothesis. I wouldn't put too much stock in the word of Popular Mechanics either, it was them who originally spread the ridiculous pancake theory.The editor, Robert Chertoff, also shares the same name as the then newly appointed director of Homeland Security, Benjamin Chertoff, and was questioned on whether they were related. He denied knowledge of the man several times until his mother told reporters they were cousins. Hmm.

mattsm84:

"But - you're choosing to suggest that other experts in their field just stupidly decided to forget that thermite-residue is used/found in other building materials... you know, something that I'd suggest is something they should already take into account (particularly when they use terms like "more than should be expected' or similar paraphrases)."

Because frankly they do. The way that this point is typically rebutted is that while it was more than they might expect (and really how would they know how much to expect) it was also much, much less than it would require. We're talking tons of it.

"You're also choosing to ignore the demolitions experts professional experience that say "hey, that was a controlled demolition". Somehow, the model is a better explanation to dismiss the blatantly obvious (to them). You're also dismissing the knowledge that such people need to have..."

I agree that they could look at he footage of it and think that it could have been a controlled demolition. But, I don't find that to be especially convincing.

"You also choose to ignore the experienced, professional airline pilots who say that being able to pull off the flights involved are "impossible" for those alleged terrorists."

That it would be impossible for them to slam an airplane into building, or that it would be impossible for them to slam it into a building and cause that kind of damage. The first is hard to believe, the second isn't their area.

"AND the physicists who say that some of the apparent flight maneuvers that were apparently pulled off by these alleged' terrorists' defy the laws of physics."

Again, what is it about slamming into a building that is impossible? Conversely, what makes them experts in the damage it should cause.

"AND ignoring the professional expertise of the flight trainer who says the alleged terrorists were incompetent at flying a small aircraft, and had no chance to be able to handle a much larger aircraft."

Ah, so they were to inept to fly it into a building. How did you take any of that seriously again?

"RE: Dr Stephen Jones... and 'his' paper. You seem to be of the opinion that just because it has his name on it, the others involved did very little, and their science and expertise is meaningless. Sort of like, Jones did ALL the work, and they just went along with it...."

Ok, there were other people writing those papers, but as each author on each paper was attempting to review the work of a team of civil or structural engineers without being structural or civil engineers themselves. I just pick on Jones because he's the most visible example, but all of them are commenting on something far outside their disciples. 

"The 'consensus' to be obtained by the chemical engineers can ONLY be based upon the science of chemistry - not by their own actual analysis... so, any disagreement from them MUST include that physical evidence to analyse, or to take into account OTHER evidence from the site itself to make an analysis. "

So no consensus exists nor could it ever exist. So, point conceded, or is the prompt disposal of hazardous material (check into the number of first responders that have died) to be filed under more evidence for the existence of Dr. Doom?

RE Dr. Doom and the evil conspiracy:

Yea, this is the part where are nope out. When ever I read it it just looks like a bunch of winks, nudges, innuendos, and "that can be taken to implies..." that together don't really amount to anything compelling. It just strikes me as a big pile of implausible crazy and I lose interest because I can't take it seriously.

Like the point Martian makes below about Ben and (he means) Micheal Chertov being related because they have the same last name and one of their mothers said they might be distantly related. That's the kind of thing that is only going to illicit a big unconvinced "meh" from me. 

That's why I've been talking to you about this around the NIST report, the academic papers who's volume and ubiquity in the field are enough to suggest the existence of a clear consensus among civil and structural engineers, and the popular mechanic article against whatever it is that the truthers are trying to put out there. At least these things are concrete. 

You want to convince me that Dr. Doom exists? Show me something from the wiki-leaks dump. Or from what Snowden leaked. A memo. A confession. Something concrete. This "and all that these coincidences together imply" stuff just doesn't do it for me.

The exception being the Zionist-Banking conspiracy stuff, which as a Jew I find absolutely loathsome. People have been saying this about us for hundreds of years and its always only ever bullshit. 

mArtiAn:

Not distant relatives, cousins. And it's not the relationship so much as the denial I find noteworthy, but benefit of the doubt and all that. Still think Popular Mechanics is either corrupt or a joke considering the gigantic, enormous, stupendous 'mistake' they made in spreading the pancake collapse hypothesis, which ignored the steel core that made such a collapse absolutely and obviously impossible. But the NIST report, being huge and ubiquitous as you put it, 'suggests' a consensus amongst the civil engineering community. So that puts that argument to rest. It's accepted and that's that. As for a 'Doctor Doom' figure, I think the name you're looking for is Cheney. He had put himself simultaneously in charge of counter terrorism and war games earlier that year, so the exercises that caused such confusion amongst the air traffic controllers and provided a convenient smoke screen to enable the attack were his responsibility, as was the decision to stand down that was clearly made on the day. I'm sure I don't need to remind you about the testimony of Norman Minetta either. But what does it matter? You seem incapable of recognizing even the validity of the 'truther' argument. Don't you ever step back and say, 'maybe I'm wrong'? Serious question. Care to answer it?

mattsm84:

Yea, everything I've read on this, including from the mother says "might be distance cousins if you go back and check a census from the Russian Empire. 

Also, you've miss understood, its that the model suggested in the NIST report is so often replicated in studies, and that those studies are also sited in further studies that are made to advance the civil engineering field. That's what suggests the concensus.

Also, Cheney isn't Dr. Doom. He's a foreign policy hawk, but not a very smart one. 

Finally, to answer your question. No. Nothing you or Bow have given me is dissuasive enough to prompt that. 

mArtiAn:

Not even the fact of the WTC7 collapse itself? You do the Pepsi challenge on that against film of known controlled demolition and you can't tell them apart. Doesn't give you even a moment's pause for alternative speculation?

mattsm84:

ok. Watched both. They're similar. But it didn't make me step back and think that I might be wrong. That laundry list of papers and the information written there in that I posted specificity about tower 7 is still way way more persuasive than "hey, here are two things that look kinda similar."

mArtiAn:

So if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, get some folks in lab coats to call it a chicken and tell you you're nuts to question them, and hey presto, you got you a chicken.

mattsm84:

More like if you get a head ache so you go to the doctor and the doctor runs some tests and tells you you have lime disease. Do you believe the doctor is lying to you because you've had a headache before and this is what a headache feels like?

mattsm84:

Not only that, you have a type of lime disease that is so rare that your doctor writes a paper on it. Then other doctors write papers that replicate the first doctors results. And still other doctors write papers that use those results as the basis for their own papers. Pretty much every doctor that works in this area of medicine agrees that you have this type of disease. At what point do you seem silly for saying "well, it's just a headache and I've had headaches before."

mArtiAn:

You're a spin doctor for your own state of denial. Those results were incomplete. Only explained the collapse up to the point where one and two were 'poised to collapse'. The WTC7 collapse explanation is not available in full for reasons of 'public safety,' so again, there 'is' no full explanation officially.

mattsm84:

No, the final report is pretty complete. Here is a summery

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

•  

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."

mArtiAn:

Your gonna have to bare with me Matt, I have both bits of relevant information for these claims, I just haven't read my 'Samsung for Dummies' book yet, so I don't know how to link them. One is a letter from NIST responding to an enquiry regarding said info about the collapse of 7 and the other is from a peer review about the collapse of 1 and 2. To be continued.

mArtiAn:

Ok, I'm stuck with creating links, but screw it, here's simple instructions instead. First, for the letter on 7 go to 'NIST denies access to WTC7 data / 911blogger.com' and you will find the pdf on opening the page. It's a very short letter. Then search 'Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction' and read point 13.

mattsm84:

So what? I can believe that the NIST would want to keep the specifics of their model confidential to keep it from being used as a measure in future attacks. That being said, other organizations independent of the NIST have been able to recreate the NIST's version of events, and logically we must assume something close to the model itself. Here is one done at the University of Edinbrough

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.490.2176&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This is of course the advantage to the scientific method being applied through peer review. The results are replicable. Now, compare that to what happens when Jones's Thermite hypothisis is subjected to the same metric. 

http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physicist_critiques_jones.html

mArtiAn:

We don't have to assume anything, what that university in Edinburgh did was independent of the findings of NIST because those findings were not shared with the university of Edinburgh or anyone else. And it is 7 we are talking about here remember, 1 and 2 were not explained beyond the point of initial collapse, which was about the top ten floors. And this is acceptable to you. Also that piece by Dr Judy Wood would not load, but I'll keep trying. I recognized her name though, she was in communication with NIST in suggestion of the idea that the World Trade Centre was bought down by directed energy weaponry. So, like, laser beams and shit. It's fascinating, you should read it. It does of course suggest that she's nuts though.

mattsm84:

I'm not saying that they shared anything. I'm saying that enough information was left available to allow Edinburgh to recreate the results which suggest a progressive collapse. You wanted in independent analysis. Well, now you have one.

The second paper, which I am sorry doesn't load, is something that I though you would find interesting. It's by a physicist named Stephen Phillips who is very much a truther, but who does not think Jones's theory holds up, and set out to prove it. I mean, after talking with you about this on and off for years now, and I keep trying to use rational, reasonable science with replicated results. Maybe the only way to fight this is with more crazy.

Here are some of the high (low) lights...

mattsm84:

It is when Jones moves away from the well-trodden territory of criticisms of the NIST investigation and the 9/11 Commission Report and returns to his beloved thermate that he starts to display the weaknesses of his own work. Speaking about the molten metal that poured out of the South Tower shortly before it collapsed, Jones says: "The reason why hot flowing aluminum appears silvery is very understandable. Simple metals incandesce when you heat them up, and orange hot represents a temperature of about 1000 °C. Aluminum alloy melts at roughly 600 °C. We heated the steel pan and saw the pan glow yellow-orange. However, the melted aluminum contains many free electrons and will therefore reflect more light. Aluminum also has a low emissivity, meaning that the aluminum is glowing/incandescing but only very faintly. In daylight conditions, the liquid appears silvery due to the high reflectivity particularly when poured out. The glowing liquid flowing from the South Tower could not be aluminum because it does not appear silvery — rather, it has an "orange glow" (in NIST’s words and by observation also)" (p. 71). However, Dr Judy Wood claims at

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html

that her laboratory work, backed by photos, has proved Jones wrong. According to Wood, aluminium can glow with the same colour as iron at high enough temperatures. Jones does not even mention this contrary observation (supported by photos) by a former assistant professor of mechanical engineering, much less refute it! He points out that aluminium has low emissivity but fails to mention (because it hurts his case) that its emissivity increases with temperature, becoming comparable to that of iron at high temperatures. Not discussing differences of view about such a crucial issue as the identification of the molten metal flowing out of the South Tower was not a good idea. Rightly or wrongly, it suggests to anyone who has followed the arguments between Jones and Wood that he knows he is wrong but does not want to admit it because it weakens his case for the use of thermate at WTC, so he has to ignore Wood’s correction in the hope that no one will notice that he has not addressed this pertinent question! Jones had this opportunity to prove her wrong. But he failed to use it. Indeed, amazingly, he does not refer to any of the scathing criticisms of his work by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds athttp://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=helping_jones
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/why/why_indeed.html

mattsm84:

Jones claims (although no other scientist has verified this with their own analysis) that he has found evidence for thermate in iron-rich particles extracted from a sample of dust taken from an apartment about 100 metres from the South Tower. He argues (note: not proves) that it could not have been contaminated by thermate possibly used by workers during clean up of Ground Zero for the following reasons:

1. the dust was collected a week later, before much clean up began. However, even though it was in its very early stages, Jones cannot deny that this work was going on before this dust was collected, so what makes him think that workers could not have used thermate torches at Ground Zero before even a week after 9/11, if only for removal of large pieces of debris to facilitate the search for bodies? How can he be sure that iron-rich particles produced by thermate torches cutting through steel, demonstrated at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

and carried on the wind could not have passed through the two broken windows of a room only 100 metres away and settled in dust originating from the two towers? The simple truth is that he cannot admit this possibility as credible because it would undermine his claim.

2. Jones says that there is no documentation that thermate was used by the workers and tells those who argue for its use to provide it. Well, That is only as far as he knows! They can offer (and Wood has offered — but Jones ignores it in his paper) something that is possible evidence. The photos at

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/44_thermite1_0033.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/45_thermite2_2960.jpg
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physpics/44_thermite1_0033.jpg
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physpics/45_thermite2_2960.jpg

prove that either thermate or oxygen cutters were being used to cut up steel at Ground Zero. Those sparks are not coming from an oxyacetylene cutter! There is no operator in the vicinity. The possible evidence for clean-up workers using thermate is therefore better than Jones thinks — or perhaps better than he wants to admit, for, presumably, he has seen these photos appearing in papers written by Wood and Reynolds. Why did he not dismiss them in his new paper if he was certain that they do not indicate thermate cutters at work? Because no doubt he was as unsure as many others are. He realises that these and other photos taken at Ground Zero of incandescent fires emitting sparks could weaken his claim that the thermate he thinks he found came only from the towers. Ignoring data or possible evidence that undermines your hypothesis is, of course, bad scientific practice. It is certainly not "applying the scientific method" — part of the very title of Jones’ paper!

mattsm84:

3. Jones says: "Furthermore, Janette MacKinlay collected the dust inside her apartment just a few days after the buildings collapsed, so there was very little time for any molten metal spheres created somehow by the clean-up itself to have made its way into her 4th-floor to be mingled in with the dust up there" (p. 78). Well, actually, the collection was not a few days later but a whole week later, which did give sufficient time. Dust carried in the air from the clean up at Ground Zero could easily have reached an apartment with broken windows merely 100 metres away and have settled inside it. After all, dust from the towers’ destruction did. Jones' arguments against contamination are weak. But he has to make them, otherwise, his strongest piece of evidence for thermate collapses. Speaking of collapse, Jones keeps using in his paper the word ‘collapse’ in describing what happened to WTC 1 and WTC 2. Yet the photo in his paper of the North Tower being turned, essentially, into a huge cloud of dust is completely incompatible with the notion of an intact building collapsing in the way WTC 7 did. What happened was pulverisation into fine dust and complete disintegration, floor by floor. Not ‘collapse.’ So why does Jones keep using this misleading word? Is it because he believes that floors did drop down and that their impact on one another alone can account for the high percentage conversion of concrete (as well as steel) into dust? If so, he is absurdly wrong. If not, I suggest it is because he knows (but will not admit) that even thermate and conventional explosives cannot account for that level of destruction of the towers. To admit that this word is inaccurate would be to admit that thermate was redundant as an agent of destruction, given such wholesale pulverisation for which it could not have been responsible. So perhaps Jones persists in using this inaccurate term in order to avoid having to account for a degree of destruction that is inexplicable to the thermate hypothesis and makes it completely redundant! After all, if something caused a lot of steel and concrete to turn to dust, who needs thermate except as a red herring that serves to hide the real cause of the destruction?

mattsm84:

4. Jones also claims: "In addition, the distance to the apartment from the clean-up operation is about 100 meters (about a football-field length), while in our experiments with thermite/thermate, the glowing sparks (metallic droplets) are seen to travel only a few meters or yards. The holes formed in the two broken windows of this apartment were about two feet by three feet, increasing the unlikelihood that any metallic spheres from the (improbable) use of thermate at GZ could have entered the apartment during the few days before the dust was collected" (p. 78). I am unconvinced by this argument. If the 2'x3' holes were large enough for the original dust to pass through them, they were also large enough for smoke and dust created by clean-up activity at Ground Zero to have passed through them. Moreover, the iron particles created by the far more violent explosions in the towers could have been much smaller than those Jones created in his simplistic laboratory experiment. This means that they could have traveled much further than a few metres. His experiment therefore does not rule out the possibility that thermate residues in smoke generated by thermate cutters used in the clean-up reached a house 100 metres away.

Jones concludes: "This is a compelling argument against "accidental" contamination of the dust she collected in her apartment even if thermate had been used during clean-up (which is highly unlikely due to safety/liability issues)" (p. 78).

Hardly compelling. In fact, Jones' refutation of the possibility of contamination is full of gaping holes. It is almost certain that Janette MacKinlay would have brought dust into her apartment on the soles of her shoes every time she entered it, after walking in the dust-filled vicinity of Ground Zero 100 metres away. Perhaps iron-rich particles in vapour from oxygen cutters had settled in this dust. Then the dust came off her shoes inside her apartment, got mixed with the rest of the dust from the destruction of the South Tower and became part of the sample. Perhaps other people brought dust into the house as well. Perhaps these particles mostly came through the windows. My point is this: the contamination problem in Jones’ sample is far more serious than he wants to admit. Indeed, the fact that he felt he had to make so many hand-waving arguments against it shows that he considers it a serious issue. Unfortunately, he can belittle the possibility only with highly contestable opinions, not with scientific rigour. This leaves doubt that the elements he detected characteristic of thermate came only from the towers and not from the clean up at Ground Zero. He can hardly proclaim his finding as proving the use of thermate beyond reasonable doubt — the standard of proof needed to establish guilt in a law court. Greening’s paper at

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

has pointed out that fires in the WTC heating gypsum wallboard would generate sulphur dioxide, and he has cited evidence from the New York State Department of Health that, even after 50 days after 9/11, there were still high concentrations in the air around Ground Zero of sulphurous gases and sulphur-containing particulates. And Jones thinks his finding of a high percentage of sulphur in his iron spheres is evidence of thermate? Ridiculous! It was more likely contamination from the sulphur in the smoke that spread out from the WTC for miles.

mArtiAn:

Regarding the recreated results for the collapse of 7, you're relying too much on assumption. As laymen we know nothing of the credibility of the results achieved at Edinburgh or how closely they relate to the work of NIST. According to FEMA however, their best fire based scenario had only a low probability of occurrence as far as a resulting collapse is concerned. I don't know that any of these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, I'm just saying that when you apply such a hypothesis you reach the intended results exactly in each specific, and you do so with the least amount of assumption and supposition made along the way. As far as the scientific method is concerned, the controlled demolition hypothesis is the most peer tested and successful in its objective of all. Objectively it is the most logical choice when looking for a cause. [PARAGRAPH] I don't know why you choose to bring up Jones and his metal pouring out of the south tower all of a sudden, I agree, his observation there is not a good example of solid evidence. I'm also in complete agreement about his iron rich spheres and the dust from the apartment, etc; none of it would hold up in a court of law. It does potentially give compelling reason to reopen the case though, and test for the possible use of explosives. There is enough evidence of molten metal, excessive heat signatures and a high temperature corrosive attack on the WTC steel however, to completely ignore his observations and findings and still be left with a strong case for the use of thermite. So let's recap with that in mind: three buildings collapse at near free fall speeds, into their footprints, and credible witnesses report an abundance of molten metal, a high temp corrosive attack on the steel, and excessive heat signatures, all trademarks of controlled demolition. Meanwhile those paid to find a cause are unable or unwilling to do so outside of that parameter. And yet I'm crazy for considering the possibility of controlled demolition. That is unfair and illogical, Captain.

mArtiAn:

My phone doesn't seem to recognize the command to make paragraphs when writing here. Please to excuse.

mArtiAn:

I think I ought to clarify, when I say they are either unable or unwilling to provide an answer, I really mean the former. NIST admit they do not have an explanation for the total collapse of 1and 2, and I do not believe they have one for 7. Their saying they are holding back on the model for the collapse of 7 can be taken either way though of course.

Shining_brow:

Now that I've got a LOT more time on my hands and no deadlines with associated monetary penalties hanging over my head....

Matts - you're being deliberately ridiculous!

You're hanging your entire belief in this being an Al Qaeda job (ONLY - ie, not helped, aided, supported - or even allowed to happen) merely on one report!

Sure - put me into the pilot's seat after she's lined it up with something I'm supposed to hit, and all I have to do is hold the steering wheel, and no problem - we could all do that!

However, given the experts opinions saying they did NOT have the ability to navigate such a craft, as the speeds they are flying at, WITHOUT  aided navigation (can you input World Trade Centre Building 1 into a flight computer and get Siri to tell you "in 150 miles, turn left"??? I don't think so!

Now, I'll concede something to you - it's quite possible the NIST Report is spot on! That their model is indeed what happened.

This, alone, does NOT mean that there was at least a certain amount of - at least - foreknowledge of this terrorist attack. It only means - IFF a plane hits a building of similar design at the right place and at the right speed, that it may cause a complete, footprint destruction of a building. ALSO, that debris from said buildings can start a fire that is so bad, that it will cause a building to collapse (first ever buildling to collapse by fire alone in the history of the... oh, other than the other 2) and will also collapse into its own footprint (all while looking surprisingly similar to a demolition job).

Not only do such things not make you go 'huh' - but they're not even enough for you to suggest that another enquiry needs to be conducted.. (remember, more money was spent on Clinton's blowjob than on these attacks! That doesn't make you go WTF???).

mArtiAn:

That's just it though Brow, NIST don't have a model for the collapse of 1 and 2, they have admitted a few times that they only have an explanation for what happened up to the point where the buildings were poised to collapse. The mass of those collapses they have left unexplained. As for 7 they refuse to release their version of events for reasons of public safety. So nothing there either. They satisfied the masses of lay-people with a simplistic version of events, but there is no detailed analysis available of any of those collapses from those that were paid to give them. Maybe they couldn't afford a proper investigation, they blew the money on Clinton's blow-job.

xinyuren:

ah, youtube- the bastion of responsible journalism. That settles it then. This dog has been put to rest.

xinyuren:

Thousands of people enter the US. undetected each year. Your conspiracy is suspicious because 19 terrorists made it thru? Wow, your side doesnt have the sharpest pencils in the bunch.

icnif77:

I have problem with eChina. As soon as I write reply, and want to edit it, everything is gone. I just wrote you reply, but it disappeared. I need rest.

Yeah, USA has the most 'porous borders' and 'Mexicans enter free...', and what not. We all feel deep sorry for it.

20 of them entered through the land, they got one I think, while rest were standing in queue for plane tickets.

I might repeat, what I wrote already....

Shining_brow:

Xin - They weren't "undetected". This is what makes this SERIOUSLY suspicious - the FBI and CIA were TOLD about those 19 people by other intelligence agencies. Even the official version has acknowledged that! That is to say - the U&S intelligence (cough) agencies KNEW about those 19 people.... and did nothing. (actually, that's not exactly true... testimony has come out that people were actually told to BACK OFF those people! To leave them alone...)

dongbeiren:

The fact the Air Force was confused might have something to do with the fact that on 9/11 the government was running drills simulating hijacked planes in New York. That was confirmed by USA Today and other mainstream news sources.

icnif77:

'Consp. theorist' would reply 'you must have an excuse ready, after....', so drills on the same subject few days before a staged attack comes very handy.

Military personnel is trained to 'not be confused......', their commands are 'exact', example: time specification 'at 15 hundred....', for difference of 'at 3pm' as civilians boast, and similar.

Yeah, they might all went with LSD that day....

Shining_brow:

On the surface, this will be unrelated. But, during the London bombings, there was also an anti-disaster drill in place, so that people didn't know if it was real or just part of the drill.

Somewhat of a coincidence - no?

What these terrorists REALLY need to pull this off effectively (in fact, without this, it CANNOT work) is for the USAF to NOT follow normal protocols... and just somehow, they picked the right day for it! AWESOME! YEARS of planning this thing, and they JUST HAPPEN to pick the one day the USAF isn't going to interfere.... Allah be praised!

xinyuren:

So he London attack was an inside job too? This world is just full of conspiricies. Wait until I tell my friends who the real terrorists are. Not the Islamic extremists, but us! The extremists are just playing along.

icnif77:

@Shining: 'you'll be traced for that word! Edit & use 'Allan's' instead, i.e. 'Allan's Snack-bar''

Shining_brow:

Yes, Icnif, I got that... but if ppl are reading and tracing, then they already know your little game.

Xin, try, just try, to attack the argument with logic... not ridicule. In London, there are a couple of extremely interesting coincidences - 1. the attacks came during a drill, which confused people. 2 - the cameras were not functioning. 3 - the reason the cameras were not functioning is because someone made it that way. 4 - the company responsible for such things refuses to say who/why. 5 - the apparent times these bombers were on those trains didn't actually work (unless one of them teleported or is capable of temporal manipulation - that is, to go from A to B required 2 trains... the bomber was physically incapable of doing what was suggested - ie, couldn't catch the first train to meet with the second train to be on it when it blew up.

Your job - to actually make me sound like a nutter - is simple. Disprove what I wrote (or its equivalents - I haven't looked at this stuff in a while, so specific details could be wrong) and/or provide credible reasons.

You're right - moon landing on July 20 1969 is most likely real. 9/11 is most likely... well, suspicious, and the official version is obviously crap.

xinyuren:

I wont even waste my time trying to confirm or disprove information coming from dubious sources. There are unlimited numbers of nutcases in the world with their own facts and conspiracies. I dont have the time or the inclination to investigate yours. You dont present facts, you just made some statements. Show me a reputable source and I will have a look. The Nutbag Daily Review doesn't count.

icnif77:

People aren't reading it. It's software set-up/track to get onto certain words posted online, and follow IPs (identify poster-s).  whoow-ouuu 

You weren't paying attention at 'Up-yours' coaching on online tracking in 2013/14.

It's possible to outline/determine poster's personality that way. No need to meet and talk to person in real, like MDs (psychiatrists&psychologists) are doing it. Just follow poster's posted content (summarise it) and add 'clicks' on (which) websites. That's where need for 'bulk data' collection comes from.

You're already late, if you edit now. Track is on already.

You must do it before, by using coded/similar name or replacement. PGP encryption is very handy for that. It masks your IP address/location of the puter and scrambles text you're typing.

Shining_brow:

Thank you Xin for confirming what I just said - in your own words, so I don't even need to paraphrase.

Anything that isn't within your frame of reference, of what you're willing to accept, you will automatically.denounce. Not the information within, not the credentials of the people involved, not the science - just where it was published.

There are professionals with decades of experience that say X is not possible, but Y is most likely what happened - but because you don't get to hear or read about them in YOUR acceptable frames of reference (on YOUR pre-approved TV stations, or on YOUR pre-approved journals or magazines), then you get to diss them."

Here's one:

André Rousseau is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology.

Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.

Rousseau says that the seismic waves measured on September 11th proves that the 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition".

(I'm ending this here... cos I want to reply to Matts on something else..)

icnif77:

Just look at the pic (How can you tell it's photoshopped? They want to present it to the US Congress.) of one of the collapsing buildings hit by plane with tag 'PLANE FUEL'. Where that smoke around the building comes from? Offices building with tone of flammable paper or explosive? Certainly not from jet fuel. And if that's building's dust, how could building dissolved in dust, because of the plane's impact?

We'll trade water here. Even if proof of inside job exists, it won't be released. It's too early for that, and all countries (despite currently being enemies) comply with that. 

'Up-yours' had some knowledge about 'inside job', but was 'hush-hushed' by Vlad.

icnif77:

Lucky me, I'm not the only 'nutter'.  Up-vote here!

mattsm84:

You know who doesn't believe its a controlled demolition? The entirity of the civil engineering field. Would you like to see the peer reviewed articles, or are you going to stick with blogs and photoshopped jpegs?

Shining_brow:

No Matts, that is NOT true! There IS dissent in the civil engineering field. From respected experts (at least, they were respected - until they made their position public... and you know how going against the establishment is an awesome way to destroy one's reputation!)

So - please don't try to say that it's only uneducated morons who deny the official version.

mattsm84:

peer reviewed study or STFU

coineineagh:

Peer-reviewed research is difficult when even the commission report, which was supposed to investigate the facts, doesn't even *mention* the mysterious collapse of WTC7, which was not struck by an airplane at all, and collapsed (hours after the first two collapses) in 6 seconds. It's the ONLY steel-framed building in the history of mankind that allegedly collapsed as the result of a fire. High school students in Holland showed footage of the 9/11 building collapse to a demolition expert, who did not recognize it was of the WTC. He said OF COURSE that is controlled demolition, 100% certainty. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/23/dutch-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-dies-in-car-crash/ The designer of the WTC also protested that his buildings could not have collapsed from plane impacts, because they were designed with such eventuality in mind. But he quickly changed his position, and admitted to cutting corners. Peer review is fine when dealing with non-political issues. But with things like this, you need to use common sense to deduce what all the confusion and shuffling backstage is for. Follow the money, discern the motivations, and find out who benefits. No terrorists in caves achieved anything good from this for their cause, and if you swallow that tripe whole, you're not switching your brain on.

mattsm84:

So that;s a no on the peer review and a yes on the existence of some mysterious they then. 

coineineagh:

I'll let your disingenuous statements slide. You set the criteria, I can't meet them, so you end discussion with a petty victory. As long as you know you're not fooling me.

mattsm84:

You're joking, right. I set the criteria, then you came up with an excuse to step around it.

Shining_brow:

Actually, there has finally been such a 'peer-reviewed' article. Yes, only one. It is exceptionally difficult to get something published when publishers (peers and other... 'interested parties') don't want things to get published!

There have been a number of independent peer-reviewed articles - but I'm choosing not to link them, as I know what you're going to write about that... so I won't even bother (as I indicated previously).

Sod it - my net is going slow.. I'll just link this for you to look through! http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/

Journals include: Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Environmentalist, Journal of Structural Engineering, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, Bentham Open Physics and Chemistry Journal.

What does this prove?

Absolutely nothing - except that your 'consensus' is not entire! There are people - 'experts in the field' who disagree with other 'experts in the field'. And no, you're not going to be able to have a dick competition here - 'our' experts are just as qualified, just as experienced, have also gotten awards, and from the right universities and right institutions as well!

I mentioned previously - we have one HUGE problem... all the actual evidence that could actually prove (or disprove) what happened has GONE! and will not be coming back any time soon.... We do NOT know what happened inside those buildings! I'm sure, however, that some people do... and knwo what would happen if they talked about it!

coineineagh:

Yeah, that's also a thing. Right after the pools of molten steel had cooled down (steel needs 3000*C to melt BTW, and kerosene fires would have a tough time achieving this even under furnace conditions), the rubble was sent away. I heard the metal was sold off to China. But the speed at which the crime scene was stripped is astounding. It was like: "hey guys, could you just wait a few weeks so we can investigate? No? Days maybe, or perhaps hours?" The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't show much of an investigation of the site at all. It was just likee mattsm84's appeal to authority: We have the science guys behind us, so suck on our science-flavoured tripe. In fact, it is widely understood within the scientific community that it is dangerous to burn your fingers on this heavily political investigation. I went to university and studied Evolutionary Biology myself. I know exactly about how the scientific community is circumvented with disingenuous statements like "the science is not in yet; the community is divided." Ask yourself: where could scientists find the funding to start a 9/11 investigation? Even if some do a study in their free time with resources from funded projects, do you think they will not face consequences from 'interested parties'? Just because the scientific community is UNDER CONTROL, doesn't mean they lend the voice of scientific investigation to back the 9/11 official story. THAT is your disingenuous claim.

icnif77:

mArtiAn:

But which science magazine are people supposed to turn to to get a real understanding of what happened on 9/11? Popular Mechanics was the magazine that most turned to and the explanation they gave was nonsense. In fact I think most still believe the pancake theory they gave still stands. So who did provide an explanation? NIST? Their explanation of the collapse of the twin towers only goes as far as the point at which the buildings were poised to collapse. Their explanation for the collapse of WTC7 is not fully available to the public for reasons of 'national security'. In effect, their is no full, official explanation to date, not by those who were paid to give one. So weigh the mystery of this unprecedented event in which three steel framed buildings collapsed at such speed, each into its own footprint, against the fact that historically such collapses have happened on countless occasions, but only as a result of controlled demolition, and logic dictates that you have a new perspective to consider.

xinyuren:

Wait, are these your experts with their peer reviewed studies? Where is the data? Where are the facts? Is this the basis for your conspiracy? LOL. Listen, no government makes public all the facts, especially in matters of national security. But going from not knowing the whole story to the government imploded the buildings is a giant leap! In your case, a leap without any facts from a respected source. Like I said, this is typical of conspiracy nuts.

mattsm84:

If you were on the other side of this is this the sort of thing that you'd take seriously. Come on man. Disagree with us, but don't insult us.

xinyuren:

by the way, your dodgy websource begged me for money before I could enter their dodgy website. Democracy Now! Thats a proper name for a conspiracy nut website if I ever heard one. Why can't I ever read this sort of news in places like Forbes or Newsweek? Oh, I forgot. They are part of the conspiracy.

mattsm84:

No, don't you see. Blogs by basement dwelling weirdos are the only reliable places that are left man. 

Shining_brow:

MattsM - "Disagree with us, but don't insult us."

MattsM - "...idiocy on this board...9/11 denial is as stupid" (thin line between insulting the argument and insulting the person)

Xin - "The Nutbag Daily Review doesn't count."

MattsM - "Blogs by basement dwelling weirdos are the only reliable places that are left man."

I'm sorry - what were you saying about not insulting you???

And, no, quite obviously I'm NOT posting this bit about the commissioners as 'data' for what really happened - I'm saying - the people who were commissioned to investigate and write up the official report even say that it's not a good job, that they were lied to, they were hampered, they were actively STOPPED from doing the job there were supposed to be doing.

That is - they are saying that the "official version" that you're both so strongly defending is, by the authors themselves, untrustworthy! It CANNOT BE RELIED ON. The people who wrote it are telling you this!!!

And you're STILL arguing that it's right, and true and good...!

Now, please explain why I'm the idiot for not believing it.. and why you guys are so smart and intelligent and logical.

(PS, Matts -  even if the way the buildings came down is not via a controlled demolition, that does NOT prove inside involvement within the US government... the controlled demolition is only ONE theory)

xinyuren:

Like I said, this issue isn't important enough to waste my time with, but if it were, the last people I would listen to are those people who are least qualified to find the truth - the conspiracy nutters.

mattsm84:

It's just that the argument that you're forwarding just can't be taken seriously. The co-chairs saying that they aren't sure about everything isn't the same as saying it cannot be trusted. The blog posts you guys have given from an organization that may or may not be filed with people that are in professions that would lend them some expertise are not the same the laundry list of studies that support or site the findings of the NIST report which strongly indicates an academic consensus within the field. They are only roughly equal if there is some larger idea that you'd be willing to suspend disbelief in the service of. It can be the US government, but check out the post below this one where Dongbeiren puts the blame on a jewish-banking conspiracy straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which holy fucking shit how did I read that in 2015!?) And those to things are the same because they both necessitate the existence of some evil, conspiratorial they. 

Shining_brow:

You know what really pisses me off about that position, Xin - the "this argument isn't worth wasting my time on"...

The US invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11. Tens of thousands of people died. Hundreds of US soldiers have been killed. Australian troops, Kiwis, Brits, etc. Millions of lives have been destroyed.

TRILLIONS of dollars spent on these ventures. Trillions which could have been re-directed into other projects to actually help people.

Millions of people had their lives fucked up.

And to those like you, who don't really care about WHY this happened to them... finding out 'the truth' is meaningless.

The 9/11 official commission was allocated a budget of only a few million dollars. Clinton's trial and crap about Monica Lewinsky got more money than that!!!

The official report is KNOWN to be dubious at best (certainly incomplete and unreliable). YOUR GOVERNMENT officials LIED to you under oath... which resulted in the deaths of all of those people... and to you, it's a waste of time. The truth isn't even worth looking for.

This is the sort of person you are.

mattsm84:

The NIST report is supported by a consensus within the civil engineering field. Dubious indeed.

xinyuren:

You know whats so interesing about your stance, Shining? Most of you conspiracy theorists (there, I will use the proper word. I'm done making fun of you) are not bad people, just so very naive. YOU think it really matters. YOU think there is a democracy that must be answered to. That finding the truth will magically resolve things. You have no idea of the truth. YOU are wandering in a maze within a maze. (Look at me. I'm beginning to sound like a character from the Matrix). YOU dont realize how unimportant this crap really is. But as I said before, everyone needs a hobby. I am the sort of person who understands the real truth underlying all this stuff you are distracted with. And I dont like to waste my time.

Shining_brow:

So, Matts - the fact that the commissioners tell us that they know they were lied to by the government officials, they tell us that important evidence was withheld by important agencies, and the fact that they tell us they were actively hampered by the government, and want a new independent inquiry into this thing.... this in no way makes you think that something isn't quite right?

Your current, solitary argument appears to be that those few buildings weren't brought down by a controlled demolition... and that's your only reason for believing 9/11 wasn't an 'inside job'.... at the very least, it's incredibly illogical!

(and still the casting of aspersions towards unknowns continues... but I'm glad you're acknowledging that you've been exaggering the position a little)

RE: other conspiracy theories...I tend to agree! That's why, no-where in this entire thread - do I suggest or promote a theory other than 'things aren't right here" (although, yes, I do think there were elements within the US government which were ... 'involved' in the 9/11 attacks. I doubt the official version that Al-Q had much to do with it - perhaps some. (FTR, there is a video? (or audio??) allegedly from OBL within a day or 2 of the attacks saying he had nothing to do with it.  An official Arabic translator (in Europe) has said similar - that what was shown as incriminating transcripts of intercepted conversations do NOT say what the intelligence community says they do...So, we now have a professor of language etc, disputing the 'experts' in the CIA and provided as evidence.... )

xinyuren:

Ok. I can agree with you on the "things not right" front. Things arent right everywhere! Your looking at a single rivet on a ship named "Things Not Right". An unimportant rivet at that. I could show you rivets that are exponentially more important than this conspiracy.

Shining_brow:

@Matts - yeah, I know your focussed on the NIST report... I'm not. I'm talking about the official 9/11 report.

You appear to be saying - if NIST is true, then there is no problem! Like the other moon thread, you're doing what I was doing - focussing on one aspect of the overarching debate.

mattsm84:

No, I'm saying that if the NIST report is solid and OBL repeated took responsibility for 9/11 then there is no problem.

Shining_brow:

"If" is good.

Did you know that OBL actually denied - multiple times - being a part of the attacks.

Aslo, in 'videos' where he apparently does take responsibility for the attacks, various knowledgeable persons doubt the authenticity - they say it's not OBL himself.

Now, I'm sure the obvious argument against this will be "WTF? The CIA has confirmed the videos are real!"

ie, the people who are most often accused by the conspiracy theorists to be behind the attacks in the first place... who helped co-ordinate Al Talib in Afghanistan, who 'recruited' OBL.. etc etc etc... So, on one hand, the perfect people to know what's real and what's not... on the other hand, also the people most capable of making a fake video, and having the desire to send false information.

Lastly - the 'involvement' of AQ and OBL was firstly linked/proven through 'interrogation' of AQ "enemy combatants" in Gitmo... through methods that have been shown will repeatedly provide wrong information.

mattsm84:

No, it was proven first by a tape found in November of 2001 where he discusses it with his people. A Letter found in 2002 where he states the motive. And a tape he released in 2003 where he claimed responsibility. Between then and his death,  he and AQ claimed and maintained that they held total responsibility several other times.

xinyuren:

This whole thread makes me cum with delight. As a student of human nature, this is my jackpot. A thoroughly enjoyable source of educaion and entertainment.

coineineagh:

I like the term nutter. Who cares if a bunch of gangsta wannabe yanks use it to describe ejaculation. Watch less porn and travelmore, then you'll learn more about other countries instead of jacking off in your basement. You say tomayto, I say tomahto.You say potayto and I say potahto. You say banaynay and I say banana.

mattsm84:

No, its a feature of American English. "To nut" is commonly how to cum is expressed. A a nutter just comes across as one who cums to American ears.

Shining_brow:

I literally have NEVER heard that expression before to refer to ejaculation... and most of my current companions are Americans - teachers and students!

I have, however, often heard the expression - by many people - used to describe people who are considered 'nuts'.

(and, yes, I do know of 'nuts' to refer to testicles - but nothing beyond that)

mattsm84:

You will never hear an American use the term nutter to describe a crazy person. I assure you, to nut is an accepted American euphemism for the infinitive to cum. 

xinyuren:

um. matt.... I'm American. I was using the term to identify a form of craziness. but my comments make sense using your definition too.

coineineagh:

a lot of accepted american phrases come from gossip girls and ghetto slang. which makes you guys a bunch of wannabes. nutters!

mattsm84:

@Coin, this isn't one of them

@Xin, Really!? Is this common within your particular dialect? I'd always considered it a bizarre britishism that sounds hilarious in American standard English. Like how they use rubber for eraser when we use it for condom, or like how they use public school to mean a school you pay to attend.

mArtiAn:

I'm kind of disappointed at how many nutters are openly showing their nuts. I mean openly showing they're nuts. In the past I was the only one willing to stand up and let the hoard on the board watch the sunlight bounce off my tinfoil hat. Now half of you are wearing one. I am a trend setter and no mistake.

xinyuren:

There are two types of people who have time to do a real investigation into matters such as this. 1.) People whose job it is to investigate these cases and have the credentials to prove it. 2.) Basement dwelling conspiracy nutters (sorry matt), who obviously have time for everything that smells fishy and involves the government. Which one should I be inclined to believe? Actually this topic is boring and not worth the time, but the human factor is interesting and entertaining. I couldn't care less if Bush imploded the world trade center (or not). But watching how people form their opinions about it is highly interesting.

dongbeiren:

This topic is boring and not worth the time? You don't care if the Bush Administration attacked and massacred its own people? Who sounds like the nutcase now? There are all sorts of people who doubt what happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories Worldwide only 46% of people believe Bin Landan and Al Qaeda were behind the attacks. I don't think there enough basements to fit more than half of the world's population.

Shining_brow:

You should also STRESS that the US intelligence agencies had been provided information and advice from a number of other intelligence agencies that such an attack was possible, imminent, and involved hijacked aircraft hitting buildings... and yet, as you pointed out, a reduced (not increased) air defence, and a slower (not faster) response time.

dongbeiren:

@ Shining you are certainly correct. More plausible than a full scale government operation would be deliberately ignoring a threat in order to increase the popularity of Bush (who got off to a bad start in the opinion polls) and give his administration the needed catalyst to launch their foreign policy plans.

xinyuren:

@dongbeiren, its not a matter of caring. It really doesnt make a difference in my opinion of government. It doesn't tell me anything new. Whether or not our government was responsible, it does other things like this on a small scale weekly, possibly daily. Finding the truth wont change the nature of government nor will it stop them from doing it again. And if you think it will deliver justice, then you are just as naive as all the other nutbags.

dongbeiren:

@xin What's the point of having a democracy if you don't care? You freely admit that the government does all of this stuff but feel powerless to stop it? Why not just bring in a dictator to listen to all of our conversations and watch us pee in the shower? Yes, the 2 party system is largely a 2 headed monster but concerned citizens have the potential to make a difference by exposing corruption. I do agree that a lot of conpsiracy theorists are crazy (like Alex Jones) and it is more likely for "regular" people to just go on about their lives and focus on work, family and vacations rather than sit around wondering about 9/11, the CIA and such. It takes a bit of an oddball personality to think about those things so I don't totally disagree that a lot of the 9/11 truthers are well..... weirdos. But a lot of them are also very intelligent. Look, I don't claim to know what happened and I spend most of my time doing very normal things but when I think about 9/11 I do see a lot to be suspicious about. And I'm no basement dweller.

mattsm84:

INTERNATIONAL ZIONIST BANKING CONSPIRACY!? Hey man. Fuck you. Good people get gassed when shit lords start taking that shit seriously. Straight up, fuck you.

xinyuren:

Lol, dongbei you really dont read my comments much do you? LOL! I wont repeat here what I have written many times elsewhere. I'll just wish you happy conspiracy hunting. I guess everyone needs some type of diversion in their lives.

dongbeiren:

@ Xin I enjoyed the conversation. And I will continue to think about 9/11 with an open mind. @ matt I reported you for abusive language. Please address my points rather than curse at me. Your reference to the Holocaust is bizarre and unwarranted. I never used the word "Jew" once and used the word Zionist a few times because the Zionist lobby is extremely influential in the American government and that is not some wacky conspiracy theory. Zionism was and is a cornerstone of neoconservatism. Most Jews are not Zionists and mosts Zionists are not jews but conflating the two is a dangerous fallacy and if I read between your profanity that might be the point you're trying to make and it is a good one.

dongbeiren:

@ matt if you follow the money and the political power, who profited from 9/11? Was it not a boon for Israel? Did bankers not make trillions from a decade plus of near 0 interest rates and expansionist fiscal policies? Please adddress the points I made. Otherwise your ad hominem attacks are just an admission that you lost. Is the Israel lobby not a powerful force in Washington? http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby These are some of the most respected political scientists. Do Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and co. not bankroll BOTH US political parties?

mattsm84:

1.) No, 9/11 did not benefit Israel. 9/11 did not accomplish any of Israel's foreign policy goals. Unless Israel really wanted to fuck with Afghanistan, that is. 

2.) Between 9/11 the rate of inflation, which btw is set by the Federal Reserve and not some cabal of jewish bankers, fluctuated between 1%, which is pretty low, and 5%, which is pretty high. It wasn't until the housing bubble burst and the ensuing financial crisis that the Fed capped rates, and that was part of a Keynesian response to a recession. Given the growth rate now, I would argue that this was the right move.

3.) Banks do not benefit from a low rate of interest in the abstract. Remember, more lending institutions make their money by earning interest on the money they loan out. A low, or lowered rate of interest disincentivizes lending, and cuts into profit. 

4.) Yes, banks contribute to political campaigns. What is your point.

5.) I'm sorry you don't like being called a nazi when you postulate the existence of an of an international jewish banking conspiracy. But c'mon man, if it steps like a goose...

6.) yes, I realize that you're trying to make some differentiation between zionism and Judism. This rings incredibly hollow for me. Zionism is the belief that a Jewish state in Israel is necessary as the spiritual and cultural center of Jews as a people. You cannot say the term has nothing to do with the Jews. Especially when you couple it with the notion that we're using banks to conspiratorially forward the goals of our people as we live among the nations. This notion is deeply offensive to me. You deserved the abuse I hurled at you.

xinyuren:

And we are to believe this in a country where it is almost impossible to come to a consenses on anything, but somehow all involved , democrats and republicans, Muslim and Christian have agreed to keep hush-hush about the truth. Wow, what a world. Look what we can accomplish when we work together. This secret conspiracy fellowship should name themselves, "Terror without borders"

Shining_brow:

NZT, normally you writing intelligent things... but this is just crap, and you know it!

"Literally tens of thousands"... ummm - who? I literally have no idea who you're supposed to be referring to.

As for loading a plane with 'fake' Iraqi terrorists... ah, you forgot the fake passport that was found and claimed as proof...(

Also, btw, yeah, if the CIA or the FBI were involved, they've already signed their NDAs. Snowden did as well. He knew the risks of going public. He new his family would be pressured. I doubt he thought they would be killed (although he admitted he thought he might be). For something bigger, don't you think the consequences would also be bigger? (for all we know - which we don't - maybe someone did decide to go and blow the whistle -but was bumped off before they had the opportunity).No,

Now, if you want to enter this debate, please tr to write something sensible... you know, something that actually does something to add to the argument.

dongbeiren:

"mass murder of their countrymen for no apparent reason" - please see my above comments about the Project for a New American Century. It stipulated that a Pearl Harbor type event was needed to justify what these people wanted to do. I don't think they wanted to kill Americans but perhaps there was no other way for them to launch their radical imperialist agenda. It's not so far fetched that in their sick minds this justified mass murder. But the fact that no insiders have come forward is a good point - the more people involved in a conspiracy, the harder it is to perpetuate the lies. The jury is still out nzteacher but it sure is clear that some very powerful people in the government and intelligence community were jumping with joy on and after 9/11 whether or not they had something to do with it.

xinyuren:

@ dongbei, now you're beginning to use proper common sense. And your conclusions bring nothing new into the light. Same ole' same ole'. Boring.

mArtiAn:

The official 9/11 story asks us to believe that only a couple of dozen poorly trained Islamic radicals deftly maneuvered through the world’s most powerful intelligence gathering and military machine. How much easier might it have been for a similar number of people to do so, employing many unknowing others for secondary, compartmented tasks, if those handful with full knowledge of the plan also knew every aspect of the U.S. intelligence and military machine, and were in key positions governing its activities and responses?

Shining_brow:

Actually, if you look at any of the 9/11 or conspiracy theory websites, virtually NO-ONE believes this. And for the same reasons. Suggesting such, and then using that as a basis for the ridiculous idea that the government was involved would be a red herring.

Most seem to think Bush was just dragged along and told what to say and do. (or maybe had no idea at all...)

Cheney... now there's a character!

Lord_hanson:

@SB, so with all these wikileaks and Snowden files being released not one mention about US government involvement? Some people just watch/read too much fiction and it warps their view of the world.

icnif77:

'Up-yours' didn't release anything on 911. I doubt, any files on that were made, and if he got them, he wasn't allowed to release it, because as Vlad said in 2013 : 'you must stop releasing files which tarnish good name of USA, which is our buddy.....', (he said something similar to that!) as a condition of asylum in mama Russia.

Shining_brow:

To actually reply directly to the post... There are some that think 'the government' was involved.

Others think "elements within the government'.

Others, peoples within and without (rather coincidental that Silverstein was the first person in the WTC's history to be able to take out a private lease on the towers, AND to get them insured specifically against terrorist attack merely months before the actual attacks...).

CLEARLY some individuals were pulling a string or two, in ways that were consistent with involvement in such an act.

As for 'files'.... you presume they'd be stupid enough to actually put things in writing!!! (or allowed to have things remain in writing). What IS in writing is the change of protocol regarding possible hijackings.

And  - The papers of several finance researchers also suggest that some profited from foreknowledge of 9/11. In 2006, Allen Poteshman, a professor of Finance from the University of Illinois, published an analysis of the airline stock option trades preceding the attacks. This peer-reviewed study, published by the University of Chicago Press, came to the conclusion that an indicator of long put volume was "unusually high which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks".^[25] In January 2010, a team of Swiss financial experts published evidence for at least thirteen informed trades in which the investors had apparent foreknowledge of the attacks.^[26] Finally, in April 2010, an international team of experts showed that there was a significant abnormal increase in trading volume in the option market just before the 9/11 attacks in contrast to the absence of abnormal trading volume over periods long before the attacks, concluding that their findings were "consistent with insiders anticipating the 9-11 attacks"

The assertion that "people haven't been talking" simply isn't true. There IS publicly available material to say that certain bits of information WILL NOT BE RELEASED, and threats etc have been issued.. and people denounced, imprisoned, etc etc. It's just that most people don't go looking, and the mainstream media gives less than a cursory glance.

mArtiAn:

I don't think anyone is.

Lord_hanson:

Oh, heres a good one. The Zionists caused both world wars in order to gain their homeland back.

xinyuren:

The aliens are among us and the US. is covering it up (because aliens only land in America).

dongbeiren:

@ Lord Hanson obviously not but they sure did take advantage of World War 2 to persuade the international community to drive the Palestinians out of theirs. Before the war the Zionists were a radical terrorist group with little influence. After the war the UN backed them as a legitimate state and the world is paying for that mistake to this day.

Lord_hanson:

@dongbei, there was more than enough room for both in Israel but that's not how things work in a Muslim majority country Thankfully they avoided being wiped out by starting the 6 day war.

Shining_brow:

Actually, yes! The build-up to WW1 is, in some ways, similar..

WWII - let's face it - not even remotely surprising (now that we have 20/20 vision!) You kick a prideful people when they're down, you tell a very strong and powerful people what they can and cannot do, you profit and sit back and enjoy life while they're suffering - of course you're going to start something bloody!

Shining_brow:

@Lord_H - let's consider this... you have your country, you've lived in it for years, and then all of a sudden, some organisation that normally hasn't given 2 tosses about you says you MUST give up some of your land because they want some other people to live there, cos "It was written in their holy book"... and you somehow believe that most people will say "Yeah, sure, go for it!" - ESPECIALLY when that bit of land just happens to be rather useful (a nice strip of the Mediterranean Sea).

Ah, no.... I think "sure, you can live there - but you're not just going to make your own separate country, and stop us from going there" would be acceptable.

Getting supplied weapons etc from the west (which has repeatedly spurned you) - yeah, I can fully understand why a war would break out!

xinyuren:

He's still alive. Go to Shenzhen and ask Obama's brother.

Lord_hanson:

Maybe they keep him locked up in the White house basement and chuck studf at him when bored.

xinyuren:

no, they've smoked plenty. they need a shower and some sleep now.

Shining_brow:

So you're advocating the "knew, didn't stop it" theory?

thedude:

Yes I am...not the Prez (the Buffoon) but those who had the intel...those in the CIA...aligned with Cheney Vader.

mArtiAn:

Still doesn't explain the collapse of building 7. FEMA admitted however that their best case scenario explanation for the collapse of building 7 had only a low probability of occurrence. Now employ Occam's razor and cut away each explanation that has a low probability of occurrence and you find something interesting: the only explanation that does not require any degree of blind faith is that the building was brought down by controlled demolition. If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck we are likely mistaken for insisting it's a chicken. At the very least it validates the enquiry. Occam would have been a conspiracy theorist.

Shining_brow:

Interesting... link pls!! :)

ambivalentmace:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3869117/General-George-S.-Patton-was-assassinated-to-silence-his-criticism-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html

ambivalentmace:

http://rense.com/general63/patton.htm

icnif77:

Comments:

This sixth-grade-level demonstration that structural steel loses strength at 1,800°F does nothing to address the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero. If anything, he proves that the fires in the World Trade Center could not have generated the molten metal that witnesses saw. What did? The only plausible explanation is thermite, an incendiary that can be used to cut through structural steel.

Putting aside the molten metal, the demonstration is wholly irrelevant for the simple reason that the fires in the World Trade Center could not have heated the structure anywhere near as high as the 1,800°F to which he heated his piece of steel using a furnace.

Jet fuel fires reach temperatures of around 1,500°F only under optimal conditions.

In open air conditions like the WTC buildings, they burn at around 600°F.

Even according to the government agency that investigated the disaster, there is no evidence that any of the steel was heated to the point where it would lose its strength.

There have been literally hundreds of hotter, larger, longer-lasting fires in steel-frame high-rises over the last century, and never has one caused the total collapse of a building. Tye’s simplistic logic implies that many of these infernos should have led to a total collapse. Of course, none has — and that also goes for the three steel-frame high-rises that were destroyed on 9/11.

That this YouTube video has become an overnight sensation testifies to the alarming lack of journalistic rigor and scientific acumen with which the media and Dennigger has approached the debate surrounding the World Trade Center destruction on 9/11 — and to the rampant misinformation that has followed.

Anyone who thinks there might be some validity to this confused science experiment should visit AE911Truth.org and to read their most recent publication, Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7, for real expert analysis of the evidence.

rasklnik:

By the way, as a guy who had (due to stupidity) shop classes, you need to understand there is a difference between melting point and tensile strength of metals...as metals heat, at all, they become less and less able to resist flux. Since the airplanes on 9/11 first shook the building...and remember that a building is tall, so a a tremor at 200m is stronger higher and lower, means the steel rebar was twisted, or bends to begin with. Once rebar bends, it does lose a certain amount of strength, and heat would only increase the factor.

Also their are mulitple elevator shafts in the WTC. They would function as air vents, increasing oxygen to the fire...so, actually, yeah, there are tons of reasons the towers fell down...

...but most likely, a TERRORIST said he would KNOCK THEM DOWN and had been trying for like 10 YEARS!

icnif77:

I see, you don't believe that was prearranged (your last sentence), and used as 'fact' how attack was a terrorists plot in making.

If you are serious in your last statement, what should then happened to Police, who weren't able to prevent attack, despite they had knowledge about the threat since 10-years ago.????

I think, US Police shouldn't carry that name anymore after '911'. 'US Lice' would suit much better.

I also think, we should all be reimbursed for tax payed for normal Police functioning, before the event. 

I feel disturbed to think and talk about the event. Not even moving out of USA can cool down that feeling. I still feel shivers, when remembering...... 

Shining_brow:

Just curious Ras - if you truly believe this - then what should be the punishment for Condolizza Rice and George W. Bush and all the others who testified (under oath) in the official commission to investigate 9/11 - and who therefore LIED about never having considered such a possibility?

BTW - you are aware that just saying "I'm going to..." does not actually provide 'proof'. And, in ANY real court of law, this alone is not enough to convict (hence why the FBI did NOT have OBL in their top 20 - because they did NOT have the proof (or even, sufficient evidence).

(I will aslo point out, in a semblance of fairness :p - that Incif's post about the ex-Italian PM's opinion - unless he was informed directly by his intelligence agency - also does not provide proof).

Lord_hanson:

Tree fiddy? What the hell you want tree fiddy for?

Hulk:

TREE FIDDY

mArtiAn:

What are the chances they still haggle down to two?

Hulk:

mArtiAn, I'll take $1.25...

mArtiAn:

Done. You sir, have got yourself a deal. Would you like that gift-wrapped?

Hulk:

As long as the gift-wrapping is free.

icnif77:

''Jimmy Two Times', who got that nick-name, because he said everything two times, as 'I'm gonna get the papers, get the papers''.

How's life been treating you since ....? Many new things here at eChina-titties'.

Many educated people believe 'official story', because every other reason given is out of 'human reach' and if true, it's far away from any other similar event in history.

mArtiAn:

I've been good thanks, but busy. Not so familiar with the forum now, I seem to remember there being a 'reply' option, now it's just the option to add a comment.

icnif77:

I replied to your post or thread recently....'where is Martian?'

I tried to promote new website's name, but they didn't like it.

It will probably serve as a nick-name. I blamed it on my dyslectic cat.

mArtiAn:

I've not even stuck my head in the echina door for about a year, been too busy dadding. Nice to see my favourite subject, 9/11, on the board to greet me. Had to dust off my tinfoil hat for that one.

Shining_brow:

Naughty!!! You should never EVER take off your tin-foil hat!

Good to see you back!

OnT - I find the biggest problem with such debates is, as you indicated, that even questioning government (or others) motives is a HUGE issue for some. It's like I asked above in reply to Matts - without all the political involvement, and specifics of this issue, which is more likely - controlled demolition, or as the official report suggests? Clearly, if it was a building in the middle of a desert that no-one lived in and no-one cared about, the more logical explanation is that of a demolition - not the effects of the planes and subsequent fires.... the difference here is merely political.

As I also asked above - there are 2 questions that people need to ask before continuing on in this debate.- Would they do it? Could they do it? And start from there.

Anyone who answers 'no' to either is already biased against finding out the truth. (as it denies possibilities - which, rather coincidentally, is what the official report did... and has been acknowledged by the Chair and Co-Chair).

mArtiAn:

I think if the same thing happened here in China, those same people who are so quick to cry "conspiracy nut" would tell a very different story. It's just too close to home and difficult a thing to consider that some of those charged with our care may be the monsters themselves.