9/11 was an inside job, and you debunkers are a joke

[Jon Gold]

Speculation is pretty worthless and hardly "obvious". You'd do well to read the pre-existing threads here about 9/11. I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of the points present on your website have been discussed here.

You insist that we read everything you throw at us. You're welcome to do the same with everything that's available here.

Well... the fact that they appointed a member of their Administration to head the 9/11 Commission is another indication that they had something to hide regarding 9/11. The fact that the family members had to fight them to create a 9/11 Commission is another indication that they had something to hide regarding 9/11. I could go on and on...

[Wolverine]

I will restate this in no uncertain terms:

In order to have any chance at a reasonable discussion here, the forum rules must be followed.

Those who wish to argue in favor of any given conspiratorial scenario are welcome to do so. That carries the obligation to defend any arguments presented, to substantiate any claims submitted with evidence, and to answer direct questions about your ideas posed by other forum members.

Please bear in mind that this is not a place where claims - including those which contradict established scientific knowledge - will go unchallenged. That's the nature of our entire forum, not just the Conspiracy Theories section.

Presenting well-reasoned, cogent arguments requires both time and effort on the part of all participants. This is definitely not the place to engage in namecalling, personal attacks, or juvenile behavior.

We demand that everyone here participate politely even in disagreement, as noted in our Civility & Decorum section. Failure to observe those and all other guidelines would be most unwise.

Fair warning.

[Musashi]

Do the research. Don't listen to me.

So, you have no argument? Just innuendo as I suspected. Thanks.

[Jon Gold]

So, you have no argument? Just innuendo as I suspected. Thanks.

I have several, but obviously you won't listen to any of them. So, by telling you to do your own research into 9/11, and knowing after doing so you would come to the same conclusion as me, I told you to do your own research.

[Musashi]

I would rather hear your arguments first.

[Sky King]

Well, the fact that they refused to testify in public, under oath, not without each other, and no recordings allowed, means that they OBVIOUSLY have something to hide.

Those versed in fallacious reasoning and arguments will have a field day if they are interested.

[Jon Gold]

I would rather hear your arguments first.

My argument is that elements within our Government orchestrated 9/11. I have already posted a PLETHORA of information to substantiate that argument. If you choose not to read it, that you're prerogative.

[Musashi]

Actually you have not posted any argument at all. So far it is just a far-fetched claim. Would you like another chance to back it up? Why won't you answer my questions? What is it that you have to hide?

[Jon Gold]

Those versed in fallacious reasoning and arguments will have a field day if they are interested.

The fact that they asked Tom Daschle to "limit the scope" of the Congressional investigations into 9/11 indicates they have something to hide.

I could go on and on...

[Chainsaw1]

Sure!

In the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" Larry Silverstein admits they "pulled" WTC Building 7. As you may know, Building 7 was never hit by a plane, and was the 3rd modern steel-framed building in the history of the world to collapse to the ground via fire. It fell at near free-fall speed (as did the Twin Towers). Watch. Kooks like PM claim Silverstein meant to pull the firefighters, even though none were in the building. Later in "American Rebuilds" the demolition crew use the term "pull" again when they demolish Building 6. Watch. "Pull it" is clearly a demolition industry term for triggering carefully pre-planted explosives to bring down a building, like "cut" is movie slang for stopping the camera from rolling after a take.

Another shot of 7 being demolished via controlled demolition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A



No doubt the current building codes and structural engineering mathematics and formulas required to safely construct a steel skyscraper without worry of if falling from mere fire.



The Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain was subject to raging infernos for over 24 hours. The Twin Towers were subject to mediocre oxygen-starved fires (as evidenced by the thick black smoke plumes and reported in the NIST report) for less than 2 hours, reaching temperatures which would not significantly even weaken steel, much less melt it.
Underwriters Laboratories Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study
Debunking Popular Mechanics Lies

Also see new article: 118 Witnesses: The Firefighter's Testimony to Explosions in the Twin towers.



Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries

Molten Metal found at the WTC months after 9/11



Wrong. BYU's Professor Steven E. Jones is a physicist and archaeometrist.

Read his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

Journal of 9/11 Studies

Regarding PNAC:


The document is here. See section V (pg 51).
"....the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Google "pnac pearl harbor" for a wealth of information on the subject.

Anything else Cl1mh4224rd?

What is your opinion on this?

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...ble_with_jones
.
http://chainsawsanders.com/blackbody1.JPG
http://chainsawsanders.com/blackbody2.JPG
http://chainsawsanders.com/blackbody3.JPG

http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/~radok/physics/j5.htm

The combustion of iron and certain other (highly heated) metals in a pure oxygen flow is technically of great importance due to the accompanying huge quantities of heat - huge when compared with the unit volume of the metal, for iron, it is around 12900 cal/l compared with 2½ cal/l for hydrogen. A strongly condensed sharp oxygen jet, meeting a plate made out of malleable iron or steel at a location, which has been heated to about 1 350ºC, combusts the iron there into iron oxide and blows the oxide away. The heat tone of the combustion heats and combusts neighbouring sections; locations in the direction of the gas jet pass through the same process, and since this continues, you can make deep groves in plates and eventually cut them (autogenous). A metal can be cut autogeneously only when its temperature of brisk combustion and oxide melting point lie below its melting temperature. This is the reason, why cast iron, copper, aluminium, et al. cannot be cut, but only melted through. The combustion of aluminium into aluminium oxide (Al2O3) forms the foundation of alumino-thermics (H. Goldschmidt, 1899), which serves generation of high temperatures, especially for welding (rail links, large machine parts), but here the oxygen comes from the interaction of aluminium with iron-oxide. During the conversion of 1 kg thermite mixture, consisting of 3 parts Fe2O3 and one part of Al, there arise about 850 kcal. This enormous heat tone of the reaction is due to its rapid development during a few seconds; the estimated maximum temperature is 3 000ºC.


http://www.galleries.com/minerals/ox...e/chrysobe.htm

http://www.galleries.com/minerals/ox...m/corundum.htm

http://www.galleries.com/minerals/ge.../ruby/ruby.htm

http://www.llnl.gov/nif/library/aboutlasers/how.html

http://www.aps.anl.gov/Science/Highl...n_aluminum.htm

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/pdf/sciamer8980.pdf

Shall I continue, there are serious questions now, with DR. Jones's oridginal work.
Which no one has been able to answer.

[Sky King]

My argument is that elements within our Government orchestrated 9/11. I have already posted a PLETHORA of information to substantiate that argument. If you choose not to read it, that you're prerogative.

There is nothing that leads us to draw the conclusion that our government was behind 9/11, had anything to do with it, blew up the WTC towers, or crashed planes.

So, please substantiate your claims for us, Jon

[Wolverine]

I have several, but obviously you won't listen to any of them. So, by telling you to do your own research into 9/11, and knowing after doing so you would come to the same conclusion as me, I told you to do your own research.

As I've clearly stated, if you wish to submit claims here, it is your responsibility to substantiate them with evidence. If you have an argument to present, please present it. The onus rests squarely upon your shoulders to state your case, and back it up -- asking others to do their own research is not an acceptable substitute.

[R.A.F.]

WOW...I go away for (what seemed like) a few minutes, and this thread grows by 2 pages!!

...although after reading those pages, I see I didn't miss much...

[Architect]

Here's a question the "debunkers" can't answer.

Why are we not allowed to question our Government?

Jon,

Are you going to make any substantive points or arguments?

Architect


ps: it's not my government, or indeed that of many hundreds of thousands of architects, engineers, demolition specialists, or construction experts worldwide. So what was your point?

[AdamT]

What is your opinion on this?

If you choose to believe them, surely you can enlighten us as to why they claim no planes hit the towers, which is preposterous. Reynolds is a former Bush economist (not a physicist). What the hell does he know?

Perhaps you'd like to read Prof. Jones' response to the Reynolds/Wood hit piece.

Perhapd you'd like to address anything else in that post? Building 7?

[AdamT]

There is nothing that leads us to draw the conclusion that our government was behind 9/11, had anything to do with it, blew up the WTC towers, or crashed planes

I'm not entirely sure you've been paying attention.

[Architect]

Adam

Let me repeat the advice I gave to your compatriot (no pun intended) earlier:

This is a scientific board. Most of us are qualified in and/or work in fields relevant to the points you raise. All of us are willing to enter into discussion on the merits (or otherwise) of the points . Indeed many (all?) have already been covered comprehensively.

Now if you're really willing to consider the issues with an open mind, rather than have a slagging match then you're in the right place.

We will lay out the evidence and arguments in depth. But you will be expected to do likewise. You can't simply shout "Prison Planet" or "Jones" back at us; you'll have to be prepared to analyse and consider the points in depth.

Let me give a simple example. If you claim that steel doesn't fail under fire loadings, and you are shown examples of (say) Building Regulations the world over which actually recognise the problem then simply shouting "let's see pictures of some that fell down" just isn't on.

Or if you say "it was demolition" then be prepared for questioning not just on interpretations of video evidence but also physical remains of charges, how they were placed, comparison with eye witness accounts. and so on.

It might also be helpful if you tell us what your special area of interest is, and whether you have expertise in relevant fields. This isn't in order that we can go for ad hominen attacks (which are banned here) but rather to (say) stop Jay or myself explaining the ins and outs of plastic vs elastic structural modelling if you're already an engineer and know the details.

Let me add that neither can you simply post numerous links and think your work is done. Two can play at that game.



If that's all fine, then let's fire ahead.

If you don't like the broad thrust of it, then you're in the wrong place.

[R.A.F.]

I'm not entirely sure you've been paying attention.

I'm sure...

[Zlaya]

As I've clearly stated, if you wish to submit claims here, it is your responsibility to substantiate them with evidence. If you have an argument to present, please present it. The onus rests squarely upon your shoulders to state your case, and back it up -- asking others to do their own research is not an acceptable substitute.

Actually, you're wrong. Controlled demolition has been proven by very credible people, and their research is available online. As someone already mentioned, the Truth Movement consists of some of the greatest minds in the US, while the debunking movement consists of misinformed youth, CIA agents, and paid off editors.

Truth Movement is not about convincing people that 9/11 was an inside job. Oh no...

Its about not allowing the Fascist Government to get away with Lies and Murder. 9/11 was a pretext for the entire "war on terror" farce, there is way to much at stake here, and if there is just a slightest chance that the Official Report is not correct (which was even admitted by the members of the committee), then we really need to admit that we've been tricked, and we need to arrest Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neocon PNAC mafia for TREASON.

They are not American, they are Kissinger - Americans. They are Globalists, out for more power and wealth. They don't care about you. So why are you protecting their lies?

Truth Movement is about Patriotism, about keeping the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for our children. Its not about Conspiracy Theories. Its about asking the right questions, that no one can answer. How can a 'pancake effect' be the cause of the collapse, if the buildings fell at near free fall speeds? Its impossible. Never mind the cases of prior knowledge, warnings and missed opportunities to catch the bad guys. Never mind the traces of Thermite, or the fact that Mohamed Atta and Bin Laden were known CIA assets.

You debunkers are so selfish. How dare you sell out your grandchildren’s future? How dare you sell out my future with your inability to grasp the most basic concepts?

If you are going to burry your head in the sand and ignore the facts, that’s your problem. But don't take me down with you, you selfish [Expletive deleted].

And calling this forum "Scientific" is a joke. I can get more science at http://www.godlikeproductions.com forum...

Scientific means reading and analyzing the available data, not blindly following the FOX dogma.

This is a Scientific Forum? Then join the Truth Movement. Science is on our side. We have the scientific facts.

[Architect]

What is your opinion on this?

...
Shall I continue, there are serious questions now, with DR. Jones's oridginal work. Which no one has been able to answer.

Chainsaw, mate, I don't understand a word about what you're on about but 10/10 for effort and having the balls to get stuck into it.

[Metricyard]

My argument is that elements within our Government orchestrated 9/11. I have already posted a PLETHORA of information to substantiate that argument. If you choose not to read it, that you're prerogative.

The problem is we have read it. And re-read it. And re-read it again. As others have mentioned, a quick search on this board will show that these links have been brought up many times.

It's not that anyone is not interested in reading the information you posted, it's that everyone is tired and bored of the same links and arguments that has been going on at this site for a very long time.

To tell the truth, I'm surprised that 9-11 is still discussed on this board. Open up any of the other 9-11 conspiracy thread on this site. You can't tell the difference between any of them. It's just the same arguments over and over again.

[Dave J]

To Jon,
You have referenced a site that talks about the NORAD response. It is obviously written by author(s) with no direct experience in NORAD, Air Defense, or fighter aircraft performance.
What exactly should NORAD have done differently that day, given their resources and the information they were getting? Have you seen the Vanity Fair NEADS transcripts of that day? Are you conversant in F-15 and F16 performance/range?
I suspect too many CTs watch, and believe, way too many TV movies that grossly mischaracterize military systems and capabilities. They expect things which are simply beyond what the command and control systems can do.
Yes, I have been to many, many 9/11 truth-related sites. I have read the arguments, studied the evidence. It seems very early on, the arguments start centering around evidence that supports the conspiracy theory. Details such as how explosives were placed/fired are ignored while talk of "squibs" goes on with "enthusiasm". The mundane details are ignored.
Meanwhile, name one CD company or structural engineer that supports the CD theory. Do you know of any?

[R.A.F.]

...you selfish [Expletive deleted.]

So much for second chances...

[Architect]

Actually, you're wrong. Controlled demolition has been proven by very credible people, and their research is available online. As someone already mentioned, the Truth Movement consists of some of the greatest minds in the US, while the debunking movement consists of misinformed youth, CIA agents, and paid off editors.

1. It has not been proven by any credible experts. Sorry.

2. Frank Greening, Jay, and others have happily demolished said research. Sorry.

3. The "Truth Movement" does not involve those considered by their peers to be expert in relevent fields. Sorry.

4. The debunking movement seem to be rather well informed for "misinformed youth, CIA agents, and paid-off (note the grammar) editors. Sorry.

You're just here for a flame war. I can see a ban comming.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" Larry Silverstein admits they "pulled" WTC Building 7.

lol! Wait, wait, wait... How does this refute the picture showing, and firefighter statements confirming, severe structural damage to WTC7?

Does your misinterpretation of Silverstein's words magically make that damage not exist?

But, anyway... False. In demoltion, the term "pull" is used to refer to mechanically knocking the building down by either wrecking ball or, literally, pulling it down. An explosive demolition is refered to as a "shot".

Silverstein was talking to the fire commander about the efforts in and around WTC7. The "it" in "pull it" refers to those efforts. Really, it's just basic English grammar.

As you may know, Building 7 was never hit by a plane. . .

But it was hit by the falling debris of a collapsing tower.

Here's the original picture I posted, in case you, you know... failed to look at it: http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg

Here's another picture, partly shrouded in smoke. You can still make out some structural damage: http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/7wtc.jpg (edit: you'll have to copy/paste the URL)

Here's a news clip showing severe damage to the south face of WTC7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

. . .and was the 3rd modern steel-framed building in the history of the world to collapse to the ground via fire.

**. Regarding WTC1 and WTC2, the vast majority of conspiracy theorists absolutely ignore the structural damage caused by the planes. And you accuse us of ignoring facts? It's disgusting how much this "solely due to fire" crap gets regurgitated.

It fell at near free-fall speed (as did the Twin Towers).

Nope. You're conveniently ignoring the full 5 seconds before complete structural failure, where one of the mechanical penthouses collapses into the building.

Paraphrasing something someone here once said: If you ignore half the collapse, of course it'll look suspiciously "fast".

The free fall claim for WTC1 and WTC2 is also total bunk. If the towers fell at free fall speeds, the debris in this picture has to be falling faster than the acceleration of gravity would allow.

Kooks like PM claim Silverstein meant to pull the firefighters, even though none were in the building.

This is a blatant falsehood. Read the last quote in this earlier post of mine.

Later in "American Rebuilds" the demolition crew use the term "pull" again when they demolish Building 6. Watch. "Pull it" is clearly a demolition industry term for triggering carefully pre-planted explosives to bring down a building, like "cut" is movie slang for stopping the camera from rolling after a take.

Hah! I've seen this video and it's probably the worst thing you could have posted to support that claim.

1) There is nothing exploding anywhere during the demolition of the building.
2) I've seen a better quality version of that same clip, and you can actually see the cables they used to pull the structure down.

Another shot of 7 being demolished via controlled demolition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Conveniently for the CT crowd, this video doesn't show the whole collapse. However, this one does. Notice how the penhouse on the left collapses well before the rest of the building...

No doubt the current building codes and structural engineering mathematics and formulas required to safely construct a steel skyscraper without worry of if falling from mere fire.

Of course, but none of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were subjected to only fire.

The Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain was subject to raging infernos for over 24 hours.

As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, there are significant differences between the Madrid Windsor and the twin towers. The most glaring of which is that the Madrid Windsor is predominantly a concrete structure.

The Twin Towers were subject to mediorcre oxygen-starved fires (as evidenced by the thick black smoke plumes and reported in the NIST report)

Ever burn plastic? A tire? Black smoke isn't a product of oxygen-starved fires only.

Explosion and fire of Thai Airways International Boeing 737-400, while sitting at gate at Don Muang International Airport on March 3, 2001, Bangkok, Thailand. Black smoke. Certainly not oxygen-starved...

. . .reaching temperatures which not significantly weaken steel, much less melt it.

What makes you think the steel had to melt? If you believe the claims of molten steel, then what unnatural input could possibly keep it molten for weeks after the event? Keep in mind, thermite burns quickly.

Wrong. BYU's Professor Steven E. Jones is a physicist and archaeometrist.

OK, so... how is archaeometry relevent?

Read his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

No need. It's been read and debunked by people with real expertise in the field, unlike either me or Prof. Jones.

The document is here. See section V (pg 51).
"....the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

No, no, no... You completely failed to understand. I know the phrase you think "proves" a conspiracy. I asked you what the word "transformation" (I used the wrong word in my previous post) in that phrase is actually referring to in the context of the document, not what the CT crowd thinks it refers to. It's at the beginning of the chapter. Please reread it.

[Wolverine]

You debunkers are so selfish. How dare you sell out your grandchildren’s future? How dare you sell out my future with your inability to grasp the most basic concepts?

If you are going to burry your head in the sand and ignore the facts, that’s your problem. But don't take me down with you, you selfish [Expletive deleted].

And calling this forum "Scientific" is a joke. I can get more science at http://www.godlikeproductions.com forum...

Since it's clear you have no intent of following our forum's guidelines, despite having been given both the benefit of the doubt and a very clear explanation of the standards we expect from all users here, you're welcome to resume your participation on GLP. Your posting privileges here have now been permanently revoked.

[AdamT]

We will lay out the evidence and arguments in depth. But you will be expected to do likewise. You can't simply shout "Prison Planet" or "Jones" back at us; you'll have to be prepared to analyse and consider the points in depth.

Pointing people to articles critical of the government's fairy tale is not encouraged here? Yes, I have analyzed and considered the "points in depth", hence the reason I would choose to post a link to an article. The research has been done. All we need is for intelligent people to look at it!

Or if you say "it was demolition" then be prepared for questioning not just on interpretations of video evidence but also physical remains of charges, how they were placed, comparison with eye witness accounts. and so on.

Some of this stuff is so basic, my grandmother could understand. However, some of it requires learning history and years of study. Not easy to lay out in a message board post. Like the fact Dubya's grandfather Prescott Bush was directly involved in funding Hitler. 9/11 inside job evidence aside, we are dealing with sick and twisted criminals here and they are in control of our government. You like losing your rights and being treated like a slave because of a false flag event? By all means ignore what our government has done. Ignore the blatant propaganda.

If you want a future of useless and contrived wars and destruction, and your country's reputation tarnished throughout the world, please by all means, ignore the plethora of evidence pointing to an inside job.

9/11 Truth is the key to getting our country back. We have these guys caught on 100's of issues.

Again, I urge people (skeptics and agnostics alike) to view these videos for free.
Watch Loose Change 2nd Edition
Watch TerrorStorm

[Chainsaw1]

Chainsaw, mate, I don't understand a word about what you're on about but 10/10 for effort and having the balls to get stuck into it.

It is simple look at my pictures of molten aluminum, and then look at the pictures on Dr. Jone's page.
Dr. Jones is right Aluminum can not glow yellow or orange in air however aluminum Oxide can. and aluminum burning can make aluminum oxide do tricks with light if the coating is sufficiently thickened.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The research has been done. All we need is for intelligent people to look at it!

The wording of that is just too good.

Still... That doesn't seem to be what you really want. You don't believe there are intelligent people here?

[Sky King]

I'm not entirely sure you've been paying attention.

How so?