Some more 9/11 truth

[darkbeforedawn]

B-0-R-I-N-G <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

Yeah, real constructive. I love how you and greencrow won't answer. You notice how other people are actually trying to talk to each other and figure this shit out? That's the opposite of what you're doing. <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

I don't really think FB fits in that category. He seems sincerely interested, and there are a lot of questions about what exactly happened. The problem is trying to figure it out on the internet when you don't have access to the investigative materials and aren't an expert in the field. The other problem is there are probably many things actively concealed or never investigated and so you can easily spend a bunch of time chasing your tail. <br><br>So I think it's generally more profitable to focus elsewhere for the vast majority of us. I don't mean "profitable" in the sense of lowering CD's importance, but "profitable" more in the sense of comparative advantage. There are many other avenues to pursue that need to be looked at that don't have so many prerequisistes and obstacles. Remember JFK; they're still debating how many bullets and from what direction. This is much more complex. There are so many possibilities, and the planners of something like this would probably think of creative ways to hide evidence beforehand. So you face an uphill battle if you're looking for 100% proof of anything. <br><br>As for convictions and stuff, it'll never happen, but if you got it into court, you don't even need CD, or CD could be gravy. The jury would never understand all of it anyway. Once you show all the other stuff, you could get them to buy CD pretty easily. The real problem is what a jury would do is not the test for truth. And with the unlikelihood of having the complete picture of what happened ever known, you have to develop working assumptions and presumptions for political purposes. That's why 9-11 is really a political question. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

The metallurgical analysis of some of the molten materials at Ground Zero has been done and is continuing. And video/photo evidence of the Twin Towers is there as an added bonus.<br><br>The oral histories by the firefighters and medics was legally suppressed until a court order released them in August, 2005 and I put them in our very own RI datadump here-<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=74.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...D=74.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>There's already more than enough evidence to 'recall' the bogus War on Terra.<br><br>Lots of new physical evidence and it is peer-reviewed, too. <br><br>Just watch the recent video of Prof. Jones here and you'll never ask again "what evidence?" because it is overwhelming and irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence complete with elements only produced by thermate-<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904&q=label%3Aseptember+11th">video.google.com/videopla...ember+11th</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

That's right Hugh and it gets more damning every day. I just got tired of repeating it over and over to people who have access to the same websites I do and have been reading this stuff for months. What part of Ev-i-dunce don't they understand? <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

Simple, actually. No combination of materials native to the structures in contained on or in the aircraft could have produced sufficient heat to cause the structural steel in the towers to MELT!<br><br>I've seen speculation by some that the aluminum in the aircraft body or skin of the building might have been sufficient to cause a thermate/thermite reaction, but there's a well-documented sulphur signature (it's in one of the earlier NIST reports) that not even this can explain.<br><br>And, there's the compelling visual evidence of a cascading waterfall of metal right next to almost pristine aluminum on the building exterior. Then, there's the bubbled/melted vertical structural member behind a fireman in one famous photo.<br><br>NIST's modeling (which was essentially iterative to reach the conditions that conformed with their assumption of a non-facilitated collapse) could only reach a maximum isolated termperature of 600 degrees centigrade. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 8/29/06 10:30 pm<br></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

I don't follow the CD discussions so I don't know if this has been considered. But since a thermite reaction is an oxydization of aluminium and iron, aren't the ingredients already accounted for by the presence of two aluminium airliners and the towers?<br><br>on edit: looks like Isachar pre-empted my question. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 8/29/06 10:10 pm<br></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

If it were that easy to cause a reaction with aluminum and iron, why use the expensive and costly CD method for bring down steel framed buildings in their own footprints? I think a fellow named Greening started making these kind of noises and was soundly-and deservedly- ridiculed. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

"Arson investigation."<br>I like it, I like it a lot.<br><br>You have the flowing stream that looks like thermite.<br>You have the metal that looks like thermite cut it.<br>You have the molten metal with thermite type traces.<br><br>It's somewhere between -- as he says -- compelling and conclusive. And I wish him luck finding harder evidence.<br><br>However, still some questions...I'd like some conceivable answers. But I understand that this evidence Jones has might be enough to convince the American people. Which is really the "jury" that matters.<br><br>Where and how was the thermite planted? Not asking for opportunities here, I know about those. I want to know how much thermite would have conceivably been planted, where it could have been planted, and how it could have been planted (in bags?).<br><br>How was the thermite ignited? Was it planted in advance where the planes would crash so that the fire would later ignite it? Was it planted in the core columns and ignited via remote control?<br><br>Why was the thermite reaction only visible at that corner? Wouldn't it have taken a lot of thermite to bring down the towers? Wouldn't it have, say, poured like that one visible stream? Or at least been visible elsewhere?<br><br>Could the thermite reaction have taken place accidentally? He poured molten aluminum on rusty iron. I think it would take much more than that, including heavy violence to the iron while interacting with the aluminum. His rusty iron experiment was not convincing. That said, if there was really a boiling pool of molten metal at the bottom of the rubble, then that kind of rules out accidental thermite reactions, lol.<br><br>Could there have been bags of thermite somewhere in the building, for some wacko purpose? Like, an architect brought a bag of it to work for some insane reason...it's possible, right? Maybe even in an office somewhere near where the thermite reaction was filmed?<br><br>Realize that I am not trying to take the thermite theory down. I am not trying to discredit Jones. I am instead trying to help harden up any soft spots in the theory. Asking these kind of questions is part of something he respects called "peer review". In fact, I was asking about accidental thermite reactions long before I'd heard that he'd tested for it or been asked by a colleague about it.<br><br>I'd like to think of this message board as a place where something like "peer review" can take place. "Peer review" is just brainstorming and collective critical thinking, no?<br><br>Anyway, one last thing about Jones: Why didn't he name the Bay Area building engineer? It was chilling to hear him read the threats and bribes. You know you're onto something when people start threatening and/or bribing you. But I wanted him to name the guy. Publish the correspondence! What's the use of holding onto the guy's identity as insurance? How would that protect Jones? I don't get it. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 8/29/06 10:37 pm<br></i>

[isachar]

Fourth, all good questions which would require a true forensic investigation. Something that has not yet been accomplished - and I am confident will never be accomplished.<br><br>The NIST report is just a more elegant version of the official 911 whitewash commission. I read it thoroughly at the time, and realized precisely what they were up to. They merely adjusted their simulations to conform with their a priori assumption that the building collapsed in a non-facilitated manner and then concluded that this is what must have happened (speaking specifically as to the temperatures here).<br><br>Even after all that rigamarole, they concluded that maximum temps of 600 degree C temps were reached in only very isolated pockets of the structures. <p></p><i></i>

[greencrow0]

FB<br><br>Hope you've picked up on the nuance by now that you're the only one swearing and calling people names.....<br><br>Maybe you've taken some courses at one time or another or attended university as I have [two degrees] and know how to act when you come in late to a class or miss a couple of classes...you don't put your hand up and ask the prof to repeat everything he or she has said since day one.<br><br>You do your reading and catch up.<br><br>Yes, your questions are valid... but we've already been around that block many times. There is a time line here...in other words...in October or thereabouts, there may be a test. <br><br>We have done our homework and are ready to move on to the next chapter...or, shall I say, we've finished 9/11 101 and are ready to tackle 202 the indictments or even 303....the trial. <br><br>gc<br> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

• 9/11 was solved on TV within 60 seconds of the second tower hit by a Fox News anchor: the Official Government Conspiracy Theory (OGCT). <br>• There were no Arab names on any passenger manifest. <br>• There are no verified airport security video tapes of Arab hijackers boarding. <br>• American Airline flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled 9/11 in the official BTS data base. <br>• The two AA airliner tail numbers were not deregistered until January 14, 2002 despite FAA regulations requiring deregistration within 24 hours. <br>• The two alleged United Airlines tail numbers were not deregistered until September 28, 2005. <br>• There is no record of hull insurance being paid on any of the allegedly lost aircraft. <br>• “In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot,” said Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, on April 19, 2002. <br>• Regarding the alleged 19 hijackers, FBI Director Mueller said on September 20, 2001, “We have several others that are still in question. The investigation is ongoing, and I am not certain as to several of the others” [Newsday, 9/21/2001]. As major media began reporting as many as ten of the alleged hijackers alive, on September 27 FBI Director Mueller stated, “We are fairly certain of a number of them” [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/2001]. On November 2, 2001 Mueller stated, “We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible,” and claimed that the FBI was sticking with the names and photos released in late September. [Associated Press, 11/3/2002]. Given these marching orders, the media have not breathed a word of these facts since. <br>• OBL is not wanted for the crimes of 9/11 because FBI has “no hard evidence” he was involved. <br>• The government refuses to authenticate the December 13, 2001 bin Laden “confession” video <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

I have no doubts that the NIST report was a whitewash and no expectations that they or any other agency would ever launch a genuine investigation.<br><br>That's why I think that using "Al Qaeda might have done it" as a trojan horse is something to think about. Uncorrupted authorities might be more willing to file a lawsuit to obtain evidence and open a forensic investigation into alternative scenarios if they're publicly concerned that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Al Qaeda</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> might have planted thermite in the towers, or truck bombs in the basement, or steered the planes via remote control, etc. Use the boogeyman to beat the boogeyman. I'd still worry about that angle being co-opted by the perps, but it's gotta be useful somehow, IMO. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>FB<br><br>Hope you've picked up on the nuance by now that you're the only one swearing and calling people names.....<br><br>Maybe you've taken some courses at one time or another or attended university as I have [two degrees] and know how to act when you come in late to a class or miss a couple of classes...you don't put your hand up and ask the prof to repeat everything he or she has said since day one.<br><br>You do your reading and catch up.<br><br>Yes, your questions are valid... but we've already been around that block many times. There is a time line here...in other words...in October or thereabouts, there may be a test. <br><br>We have done our homework and are ready to move on to the next chapter...or, shall I say, we've finished 9/11 101 and are ready to tackle 202 the indictments or even 303....the trial.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>You couldn't bother responding <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>at all</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to my questions earlier, and you called me a dysinfo rightie...I'm sorry, but can still go fuck yourself.<br><br>What test? <p></p><i></i>

[smithtalk]

i just watched the steve jones thermite video,<br>absolutely brilliant and i couldnt give a shit what anyone else says now,<br>i have no doubts and the evidence is all there for those that want it,<br><br>let the debate continue if it must but for me, controlled demolition has already won <p></p><i></i>