Hypothetical: What is the minimum it would take for you to disbelieve the OV of 9/11?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Title says it all.

[Skibum]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is OV.

[realitybites]

Proof.

[KingMerv00]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is OV.

I'm ignorant too. Obvious version maybe?

[jhunter1163]

OV = Official Version.

For me it'd take an indisputably authentic Watergate-style tape with GWB saying something either ordering it or indicating that he had knowledge it was about to happen.

[Hellbound]

Hmmm

Hard to say. At this point, any evidence that would have convinced me should have been found.

1) Photo/video evidence of explosives being planted in any of the WTC towers. However, before I'd accept this, there'd ALSO have to be evidence of wire/detonators/etc being removed from the debris before anyone had a chance to see them, something that is highly unlikely.

2) Several of the passengers/highjackers from the crashed flights showing up alive, or remains being found somewhere not associated with the crash sites, and positively identified. If there was no logical explanation, that'd do it.

3) Clear video showing anything besides a plane impacting one of the crash sites, and evidence of planted aircraft parts. No single line of evidence on these, video can be faked.

4) Clear evidence of money and/or orders being sent from government to the highjackers.

5) Documented proof that government officials knew of the specific attack before it occurred.

THat'd be a start. There might be some more, but they'd be so unlikely as to be disregarded. OF course, even many of these are highly unlikely. #5 would be the only one that I might suspect would have any remote chance of being true...but I don't believe it.

[drkitten]

The minimum? A plausible counter-version.

Again, at a minimum, a plausible counter-version would need to be free of obvious factual errors (e.g., misstating the rate of fall of the towers, miscalculating the load strength of high-temperature steel girders, and so forth.) It would need pass Occam's razor, for example, by restricting the number of operatives to a number that could be reasonably expected to keep secret an operation of this magnitude. It would also need to have at least a minor amount of physical proof associated with it.

[Dog Town]

Fairies that wear boots and keep shouting "ya gotta believe me"!
Ozzy spoke to me in my slumber about this! Or while I was shroom'en. Either way, I'm with The Oz!

[Hellbound]

The minimum? A plausible counter-version.

Again, at a minimum, a plausible counter-version would need to be free of obvious factual errors (e.g., misstating the rate of fall of the towers, miscalculating the load strength of high-temperature steel girders, and so forth.) It would need pass Occam's razor, for example, by restricting the number of operatives to a number that could be reasonably expected to keep secret an operation of this magnitude. It would also need to have at least a minor amount of physical proof associated with it.

See, I'd need the physical proof before disbelieving, not just a counter-theory. I might doubt the OV more, but I'd still place more weight with it than any counter-theory, absent some sort of physical evidence or direct admission.

[Johnny Pixels]

If we're talking on the level of conspiracy to let something happen, or nudge it through, some kind of evidence of action taken to further the aims of the plot, which couldn't be shown to be acts of ignorance, short sightedness, mistakes etc. Or if we're talking the whole explosives etc story, then I'd want specific characteristic patterns that determine such things, ie explosive residue, bomb parts, timing/detonator mechanisms, blast patterns on concrete/steel, means to plant explosives, estimates of amounts required. I'd want to see wreckage from the pentagon and Shanksville not matching their respective planes, as well as the damage being atypical for the impacts claimed.

That'd do for a start, to get me thinking about it. It also makes me think as to why the whole CT has to be so complicated. If the government wanted to make 9/11, all they had to do was not interfere in the plans of Al Qaeda, or to nudge them in the direction of the attack. That cuts out so many variables, but then at the same time, they have to keep the secret from their own people, who would still be investigating Al Qaeda and trying to prevent attacks, and still needs a motive. That'd be the final thing I'd want, a reason.

[T.A.M.]

Minimum evidence it would take based on attack:

Pentagon:
Physical Proof of a missile, or multiple (more than 5 people) witnesses testifying that they were watching the pentagon at the time, and NO PLANE hit it.

WTC 1&2:
Physical evidence that the planes that hit the WTCs had no passengers or hijackers on them. Physical evidence that DEFINITIVELY proves Explosives were used to bring down the buildings.

Shanksville:
Evidence that the Plane was shot down (missile parts, a debris field scattered in a long, linear fashion over a great distance). Physical Evidence that the passengers on the planes are still alive.

[Kaarjuus]

For me it'd take an indisputably authentic Watergate-style tape with GWB saying something either ordering it or indicating that he had knowledge it was about to happen.

Hey, Rumsfield's talk about a missile hitting Pentagon was caught on tape!

[boooeee]

A plausible theory of how the light poles near the Pentagon got knocked down.

For starters.

[Brainster]

A slick documentary with MTV-style music, citing credible sources like American Free Press, Karl Schwarz and Jim Marrs, and created by a couple college-aged kids from Oneonta oughta do it. ;)

[Darth Rotor]

Hey, Rumsfield's talk about a missile hitting Pentagon was caught on tape!
The 757 that hit the Pentagon was a "missile" just as a rock that I throw at a stray dog is a "missile." ;) Rummy was sort of right in his imprecise comment, he was just making too broad a characterization of what hit the Pentagon.

*awaits assault from the grammar Nazis*
If the government wanted to make 9/11, all they had to do was not interfere in the plans of Al Qaeda, or to nudge them in the direction of the attack.
And if not the US government, the Israeli government, or both, since Israel benifitted from America taking a more active role in the Mid East, right? :eek: (I saw an article a couple of months ago where an Israeli official was caught saying that America in Iraq was starting to make Israel's position worse, not better. :cool: )

Of course, finding proof of the above via confession poses quite a challenge.

"A reason."
Pearl Harbor II, of course, haven't you read your PNAC Primer? :p

DR

[Loss Leader]

Here are the things that cause me to disbelieve the conspiracy theories:

1. A completely plausible theory of how the attacks were carried out, by whom, and for what purpose consistent with all known physical and pyschological evidence.

2. The lack of even one confession from a conspirator. All sorts of Watergate conspirators broke from Nixon and confessed to reporters, Congress and their own children.

3. The lack of any coherent theory of just what the heck the conspiracy was - who was involved, how they accomplished the attacks, and what their goals were.

Help me past those and we can talk.

[TxLady]

I would need indisputable proof and a reason, a plausible reason why our government (and all of the other people that would have to be involved) would commit such horrific crimes. The disrespect shown by CT'ist towards the victims, their families, and the rescue workers appalls me and it would be hard for me to believe anything coming from them.

[brodski]

Which parts of the official version? It would, for instance, take much less to convince me of LIHOP than MIHOP.
However it will still take a lot to convince me of LIHOP, probably an admission of guilt from one of the involved parties, or documented proof that the US had prior specific information about the attacks of 9/11.
It wouldn't take much at all to convince me that several parts of the OV are inaccurate, but this will have more to do with arse covering after the fact, to hide errors or to make various government and military bodies look better than they actually are. But then that tends to be SOP for most official reports and investigations.

[defaultdotxbe]

i would deem any of the above as grounds for a new investigation

[Pardalis]

Which parts of the official version? It would, for instance, take much less to convince me of LIHOP than MIHOP.
However it will still take a lot to convince me of LIHOP, probably an admission of guilt from one of the involved parties, or documented proof that the US had prior specific information about the attacks of 9/11.

I agree. And the "proof" of the LIHOP would have to come from an unbiased, non-partisan, non-woo source.

[brodski]

And the "proof" of the LIHOP would have to come from an unbiased, non-partisan, non-woo source.
Not neccerserlily, however the source of the "proof" will obviously influence the weight I would give to it. I wouldn't dismiss out of hand evidence supplied from a disgruntled Civil Servant to a democratic senator, for instance, although there is obviously a partisan element to it.

[Cuddles]

I will never disbelieve the official version, the government is paying me plenty to keep quiet.

[Skeptic Guy]

An official note from my Illuminati handler that it was all fake...

Oh, wait...there it is. It was covered up by the Big Foot photos. Never mind. :)

Given all the evidence that the OV is THE version, I really can't imagine anything that would make me think otherwise.

[rwguinn]

Complete refutation of the
1) laws of thermodynamics;
2) conservation of energy
3) calculus
4) materials science
5) any and all engineering principals you can think of.

[Blue Mountain]

DrKitten said it for me; a plausible counter theory that takes into account:
1. The fact four aircraft were hijacked on a single day
2. The fact all four aircraft and their passengers were lost that day
3. The fact there are videos of jet aircraft hitting the WTC
4. The fact the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on television in front of the whole world
5. The fact something hit the Pentagon, and there are many witnesses who say it was a jet
6. The fact a jet aircraft crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania

The OV covers all the above facts by explaining the hijackings were carried out by people of Middle Eastern origin with the intent of commiting acts of terrorism upon the United States. It gives us their names and details of their background and motivation.

So a counter theory would have to explain the above six facts with different and plausible explanations, or prove to me conclusively those facts above are wrong, or some comibination of the two. That's quite a challenge.

The OV fits Occam's Razor quite nicely, since it requires the fewest basic assumptions.

[gumboot]

This depends...

A single small piece of evidence might prove one small element of the OV to be incorrect, and as such I would nolonger believe the OV, but a new theory virtually the same, except for that detail.

If you mean one of the CT claims? Wow. Um. It depends on the theory. For starters a lot of them involve technologies that I don't believe exist. Proof of them would help.

Ultimately though, it's not just about the evidence, it's about balance of evidence. Bringing up one piece of evidence about a CT doesn't immediately demolish the enormous mountain of evidence supporting the OV.

Basically, I'd need proof that the US government was what they say it is. I'd need proof they wanted to set up a police state, and proof they wanted to take over the world.

They would also have to prove the government ALREADY had absolute control over the media and every government department, down to the local police/fire level.

Because, without proof of that, I don't see how they can explain away all the existing evidence. And if they can't explain away the existing evidence, all they can do is amend the OV. They can't overturn it.

-Andrew

[R.Mackey]

I'll tell you this much, I won't believe any alternate theory of Sept. 11th until somebody actually manages to produce one.

There's not one. All I see is "questions" and "doubts" and innuendo. No actual theories.

Of course, being an aerospace engineer helps me sort through the BS.

[CurtC]

Hey, Rumsfield's talk about a missile hitting Pentagon was caught on tape!
You mean when he said "...using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens as a missile to damage this building..."?

[brodski]

You mean when he said "...using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens as a missile to damage this building..."?
Yes, but the CTers usually report that as "...using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens [inaudible] a missile to damage this building..." With the impaction that he used the word "and" instead of "as". To be honest I'm surprised that they where even that accurate. When I first herd a CTer quote Rumsfield, I had to look for corroborating evidence that Rumsfield existed. ;)

[Obviousman]

You might consider the other side of the coin on an LC thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11161&st=30

Someone asked if people would accept an independent review if that determination went against the CTists.

At least one poster reckons that they'd support a review but only if it confirmed their beliefs! Otherwise it would be a "whitewash".

"The accused will be given a fair trial and then shot. March in the guilty bastard!"

[smother]

The one thing that would sway me:

Loose Change final version will support the OV all the way through.

When your side of the fence is occupied by loonies, you might wanna switch sides.

[The Painter]

What is the minimum it would take for you to disbelieve the OV of 9/11?


Tree Fitty ($350.00)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You might consider the other side of the coin on an LC thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11161&st=30

Someone asked if people would accept an independent review if that determination went against the CTists.

At least one poster reckons that they'd support a review but only if it confirmed their beliefs! Otherwise it would be a "whitewash".

"The accused will be given a fair trial and then shot. March in the guilty bastard!"

Unsuprisingly, it boils down to
* CTists - if it doesn't answer all of my questions (regardless of their validity) it's wrong
* non-CTists - Each aspect of the OV is open to retraction of provisional agreement if irrefutable evidence is show proving it to be wrong

[Mancman]

You might consider the other side of the coin on an LC thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11161&st=30

Someone asked if people would accept an independent review if that determination went against the CTists.

At least one poster reckons that they'd support a review but only if it confirmed their beliefs! Otherwise it would be a "whitewash".

"The accused will be given a fair trial and then shot. March in the guilty bastard!"

"There are six billion people out there. Why waste my time on a few stubborn ones when the whole world needs to hear what I've got to say?"

Ugh. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[LW]

Depends on what facet of the OV I should be disbelieving. For example, I would find it easier to believe that the hijackings were planned by some other party than Muslim extremists than that WTC was demolished with explosives.

And note that I say "easier", not "easy".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm just curious what the rough baseline is around here for purposes of demonstrating to CTists (1) our expectations of evidence, (2) that we are not close-minded and (3) that they also need to define what criteria would cause them to rethink their position. Do I think it will _really_ matter? Probably not, but I thuoght it a useful exercise none the less.

[brodski]

Probably not, but I thuoght it a useful exercise none the less.
I think that it is a vital exercise for all sceptical endeavours, if we cannon come up with a method by which out own theories can be falsified then we are not thinking critically.

[Brainache]

I have never accepted 9/11 as an excuse for the war in Iraq. I can't see any excuse for that.
To convince me that 9/11 was an "Inside Job" I would need at least a few whistle blowers, tapes of people, documents etc.
The Controlled Demolition idea seems to me to be totally inconsistant with all the footage I've seen and the opinions of the engineers I've read, so it would take a pretty huge new revelation to turn me around on that.
No Planes, Pods, Cloaked Fighter Spaceships, Covert Teams Of Crater Makers?
Well to believe that stuff I think I'd need a lobotomy.
I haven't read much about the alledged insider trading prior to 9/11, so I can't comment on that one way or the other.

[Loss Leader]

I think that it is a vital exercise for all sceptical endeavours, if we cannon come up with a method by which out own theories can be falsified then we are not thinking critically.


I cannot come up with a method to test whether my perceived reality is, in fact, all just a dream or that I am not in some Matrix-like virtual world. I don't think that my failure to be able to test certain assumptions means that I am not thinking critically. All I can do is state that everything about my perceived reality seems consistent and be on the lookout for any inconsistencies.

(I once woke myself up from a dream in which my waitress was Demi Moore by asking how Demi Moore could possibly be waitressing. I wish I hadn't noticed the unreality; I'd have enjoyed my night a lot more.)

[brodski]

I cannot come up with a method to test whether my perceived reality is, in fact, all just a dream or that I am not in some Matrix-like virtual world. I don't think that my failure to be able to test certain assumptions means that I am not thinking critically. All I can do is state that everything about my perceived reality seems consistent and be on the lookout for any inconsistencies.

(I once woke myself up from a dream in which my waitress was Demi Moore by asking how Demi Moore could possibly be waitressing. I wish I hadn't noticed the unreality; I'd have enjoyed my night a lot more.)
It’s very true that we cannot test whether our realty is “real” or not, however the world behaves as if it exists, no amount of dreaming ahs been shown to alter the world, no amount of wishful thinking, therefore a the only rational course of action I can see is to act as if the physical world is real, until evidence to eth contrary is presented.

[Loss Leader]

It’s very true that we cannot test whether our realty is “real” or not, however the world behaves as if it exists, no amount of dreaming has been shown to alter the world, no amount of wishful thinking, therefore a the only rational course of action I can see is to act as if the physical world is real, until evidence to the contrary is presented.

I agree with you, of course, but you appear to be contradicting your earlier statement, "if we cannon come up with a method by which out own theories can be falsified then we are not thinking critically." Waiting for an inconsistency is not quite the same as developing a test of our theories. However, with reality and with the idea that the towers were brought down by terrorists, I think waiting for an inconsistency is about the best we can do.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I agree with you, of course, but you appear to be contradicting your earlier statement, "if we cannon come up with a method by which out own theories can be falsified then we are not thinking critically." Waiting for an inconsistency is not quite the same as developing a test of our theories. However, with reality and with the idea that the towers were brought down by terrorists, I think waiting for an inconsistency is about the best we can do.

I would argue that observing reality is not the same as forming a hypothesis about what reality is, and therefore is not under the same constraints. Were you to form a hypothesis on what reality is, it would need to be testable. Then again, maybe I am just reading too much into the semantics.

[Pardalis]

I really am annoyed when people tell me that life is a dream. I think you really need to be a special breed of woo to believe that. Whenever someone's comes up to me and says such a thing, I just want to slap them in the face and say: "You see? Not a dream."

[brodski]

I agree with you, of course, but you appear to be contradicting your earlier statement, "if we cannon come up with a method by which out own theories can be falsified then we are not thinking critically." Waiting for an inconsistency is not quite the same as developing a test of our theories. However, with reality and with the idea that the towers were brought down by terrorists, I think waiting for an inconsistency is about the best we can do.
I take your point, however I would say that the difference between two unfalsifiable positions is actually no difference at all, therefore once you have established that something is unfalsifiable, there is no point in thinking critically about it.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sworn, signed and notarized affidavits from the j000000sss (all 500 million of 'em).

[Childlike Empress]

Hey Folks!

Three remarks:

1. The terms LIHOP and MIHOP were invented by Nico Haupt, today one of the leading "No Plane/Bluescreen"-Theorists. I don't believe in "Controlled Demolition" but i wouldn't call myself a LIHOPer - i don't really see the dividing line.

2. I'm sure you followed the "Reynolds/Wood vs. Jones"-Controversy going on ATM at the LC Forum. You perhaps think it's a controversy with three idiots involved. I say there is one idiot and two "con artists" involved.

3. Please listen to this (http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=1103) broadcast (rm-stream) by Dave Emory, recorded in July 2001 and aired on the 10th of September 2001, and try to see the bigger picture.

[Loss Leader]

I take your point, however I would say that the difference between two unfalsifiable positions is actually no difference at all, therefore once you have established that something is unfalsifiable, there is no point in thinking critically about it.


So long as you agree that "looking around for inconsistencies and not finding any" is a sufficient test of truth/falsity, I think we're on the same page.

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that I shouldn't have the burden of proving planes brought the towers down because I ***** SAW planes hit the towers. I'll let someone point out an inconsistency but I don;t want to be called "uncritical" because I don't go searching for more proof.

[Foolmewunz]

To return to the OP.
In the best of all worlds, had there been no LC or other CT ranters (be still, my heart), I might accept a "well researched hypothesis that takes the known evidence into account, free of emotional woo woo". But they've done us a service in their own misguided way, and made us look at the reams of evidence that's actually available (and not imagined), and thus our "belief" is far more than faith, it's been researched (even if only to the extent of learning to cross-check references for accuracy, which is a major leap for some). Ergo, today, it'd take oh, I'd say about 3 out of 5 of the items Huntsman mentioned... but PROVEN.

Alternately, something really shocking (and proven), i.e. that Gravy was really an eighty-eight year old investment banker from Biarritz, senior member of the Illuminati and the last person on earth who knows the secret handshake of the Elders of The Protocol of Zion. ;)

[Pardalis]

3. Please listen to this (http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=1103) broadcast (rm-stream) by Dave Emory, recorded in July 2001 and aired on the 10th of September 2001, and try to see the bigger picture.

Your "big picture" is so convoluted, it's giving me a headache.

[Childlike Empress]

I feel with you, Pardalis. Literally.

[brodski]

So long as you agree that "looking around for inconsistencies and not finding any" is a sufficient test of truth/falsity, I think we're on the same page.

yes, the stronger the evidence for an event, the stronger the evidence against it needs to be. Half the world watched 9/11 on TV, so any theory that says that what we all saw didn't happen, is going to need pretty strong evidence before it is given much consideration.

[brodski]

1. The terms LIHOP and MIHOP were invented by Nico Haupt, today one of the leading "No Plane/Bluescreen"-Theorists. I don't believe in "Controlled Demolition" but i wouldn't call myself a LIHOPer - i don't really see the dividing line.

Regardless of who coined the phrases, I think the terms "made it happen on purpose" and "let it happen on purpose" are useful distinctions when talking about 9/11. The distinction is between elements i the US government learning about 9/11 and doing nothing to prevent it, and elements in the US government actively helping 9/11 along, it takes a lot less for governments to do nothing than it takes for governments to plan operations.
It is possible to be a "MIHOPer" without believing in CD, if you believed for instance, that Bush ordered Bin Laden to plan and carry out 9/11, you would be advocating a "made it happen on purpose" theory, without subscribing to pods, ballistic missiles, nano termite or any of the really really bat-guano insane stuff. That doesnt make the theory plausible, it is just less implausible than some of the alternative CTs.

[Loss Leader]

Your "big picture" is so convoluted, it's giving me a headache.

I don't want to listen to that podcast unless I have to. Could you give me the Cliff's Notes?

Edit: Oh, I did two hundred seconds worth of research on Dave Emory. He reminds me a lot of Katherine Hepburn's famous quote, "The loons, Norman, the loons."

[Childlike Empress]

@Brodski: If one is in a position where his job is to protect the country and he knows of stuff threatening the country and keeps his mouth shut, he MAKES the threat more dangerous. When i look at how people in the truth movement (f.e. at the LC forum) use the term LIHOP (paraphrased "worse than the fence sitters") and at the origin of this term (a "********ter"), i come to the conclusion that it is one of many other dividing tactics.

@Loss Leader: That's a clear answer to the topic: Force! ;)

[brodski]

@Brodski: If one is in a position where his job is to protect the country and he knows of stuff threatening the country and keeps his mouth shut, he MAKES the threat more dangerous. When i look at how people in the truth movement (f.e. at the LC forum) use the term LIHOP (paraphrased "worse than the fence sitters") and at the origin of this term (a "********ter"), i come to the conclusion that it is one of many other dividing tactics.

However the evidence which would be left by a LIHOP CT would be different from the evidence left by a MIHOP plot. With LIHOP there is no need to look at the impact of the planes, or the collapse of the towers, because that is not where the CT would have happened. Even if you believe that there is no moral difference between the two, they are still distinct theories. To dismiss LIHOP just because it causes friction within the 9/11 truth movment, is to put group politics above the state goals of the movement. However, to date, no real evidence for any 9/11 CT has come to light LIHOP, MIHOP or even IHoP.

[Childlike Empress]

So you think i should first pick one theory and then investigate? I think that's a bad idea and that you miss the crux of the whole thing: A lot of the evidence is covered up. That's the reason why i refuse to present a theory: i simply can't know. A new, public investigation is needed and if it is successful, we eventually will know if they simply did nothing (and made it happen that way ;)) or took a really active role in it.

[brodski]

So you think i should first pick one theory and then investigate? I think that's a bad idea and that you miss the crux of the whole thing: A lot of the evidence is covered up. That's the reason why i refuse to present a theory: i simply can't know. A new, public investigation is needed and if it is successful, we eventually will know if they simply did nothing (and made it happen that way ;)) or took a really active role in it.
But you have yet to show that the original investigation did not provide as close an approximation to the truth as is ever possible from any investigation. Damming the investigation just because you don't like the result is bloody stupid. And claiming that lack of evidence of a conspiracy is evidence for the conspiracy (They covered it up! they covered it up!) is the first step on the road to crippling paranoia, and will never lead you to any objective truth.

[Childlike Empress]

I already tried to point out oddities here but i wasn't successful. One problem is that i am not able to express myself sufficiently in the english language and another one is that most people here are prefering to gang up against any dissenting voice instead of looking at the evidence with an open mind. So i will limit my appearances here to some remarks.

I urge you to look at my third remark in #46 and make up your own mind.

edit: To give the people here the credit they deserve: when i first visited this forum back in may, i was 100% convinced of inside job and 70% convinced of Controlled Demolition. Now i am 100% convinced of inside job and 30% convinced of Controlled Demolition. Thanks!

[Loss Leader]

@Brodski: If one is in a position where his job is to protect the country and he knows of stuff threatening the country and keeps his mouth shut, he MAKES the threat more dangerous. When i look at how people in the truth movement (f.e. at the LC forum) use the term LIHOP (paraphrased "worse than the fence sitters") and at the origin of this term (a "********ter"), i come to the conclusion that it is one of many other dividing tactics.

@Loss Leader: That's a clear answer to the topic: Force! ;)

I don't understand your post. You're attributing a point of view to me and I don't even know what that point of view is. Without sarcasm, could you please tell me what exactly I believe, according to you?

[Loss Leader]

I urge you to look at my third remark in #46 and make up your own mind.


I have looked into the views of Dave Emory and find them ... nonsensical. They literally make no sense. There are actual Nazis running the world? And when the bad guys turned out to be Muslim fundamentalists, Emory suddenly uncovered evidence of Nazi collaboration with Muslim fundamentalists?

I am proud to say that, in part because of my grandfather, the Nazis lost. They lost. I promise, they're not running the world.

[Childlike Empress]

I didn't post this because i agree with Dave Emorys worldview (i don't). I posted it because the situation Emory described in his broadcast (based on a lot of research) (and i assume you didn't listen to it but asked wikipedia) is very telling. That said, i don't have an opinion on what you believe but you said that you only want to listen to this broadcast if you have to and i think that this is an answer to the question asked in the headline of this topic: "What is the minimum it would take for you to disbelieve the OV of 9/11". Force. ;)

[T.A.M.]

Now CLE, if we can get you from MIHOP to LIHOP, we will have really accomplished something...lol:)

[Childlike Empress]

*GRRRRRRRR* Read my posts! :shocked: ;)

[R.Mackey]

So you think i should first pick one theory and then investigate? I think that's a bad idea and that you miss the crux of the whole thing: A lot of the evidence is covered up. That's the reason why i refuse to present a theory: i simply can't know. A new, public investigation is needed and if it is successful, we eventually will know if they simply did nothing (and made it happen that way ;)) or took a really active role in it.
Oh brother, here we go again.

This is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that, if you investigate, your investigations will lead you to formulate a theory. You then test your theory by seeing what it predicts, how it differentiates itself from other theories, and experimenting to see which is correct.

If you investigate, and the Official Theory as a result seems "less likely," but you can't come up with any other theory that fits the result of your investigation, you must still conclude the Official Theory is the best theory.

Nothing wrong with bringing evidence, questioning existing evidence, or questioning an existing theory. As before, you are welcome to do so. However, I am not impressed with your "feeling" that "evidence is covered up." How do you know that? What is your evidence that there is a cover up? Let's see it. Until you back up your feeling, you're just letting your imagination run away with you.

P.S.: Why on earth did you bring up David Icke?

[Childlike Empress]

Oh brother, here we go again.

This is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that, if you investigate, your investigations will lead you to formulate a theory. [...]

P.S.: Why on earth did you bring up David Icke?

Yeah, R., that's what i am talking about. First comes evidence, not a theory like LIHOP or MIHOP.

Concerning David Icke: That was a JOKE. But honestly, i HAVE sympathy for David Icke. The human, not his theories.

edit: At least you still call it a theory.

[Loss Leader]

I don't have an opinion on what you believe but you said that you only want to listen to this broadcast if you have to and i think that this is an answer to the question asked in the headline of this topic: "What is the minimum it would take for you to disbelieve the OV of 9/11". Force. ;)

Your assumption is entirely mistaken. All that it would take to get me to question the accepted version of the events of 9/11 is one single piece of evidence inconsistent with that version - just one. I am not going to adopt a whole different worldview and then start testing that one for inconsistencies; I'm going to continue testing the worldview I have.

To date, I have seen not a single piece of evidence inconsistent with the very sad fact that the US was subject to an unprecedented terrorist attack.

I beg you, if you can, to present such evidence. But be warned, an alternate theory of how a huge multi-governmental cabal orchestrated the attacks is not evidence and will be disregarded.

[R.Mackey]

Yeah, R., that's what i am talking about. First comes evidence, not a theory like LIHOP or MIHOP.

Concerning David Icke: That was a JOKE. But honestly, i HAVE sympathy for David Icke. The human, not his theories.

edit: At least you still call it a theory.
Of course I call it a theory. I'm a scientist. That's what it's called. So is the theory of gravity, relativity, evolution, and any number of other well but imperfectly understood physical phenomena.

You would have to admit that there is a great deal of evidence available, correct? I mean, the Official Version of Sept. 11th does have a considerable weight of observed and verifiable fact behind it, does it not?

Thank you for clarifying about Icke. What little I know of him suggests he is quite mad. I can't fault you for having sympathy for him.

[Childlike Empress]

Of course I call it a theory. I'm a scientist. That's what it's called. So is the theory of gravity, relativity, evolution, and any number of other well but imperfectly understood physical phenomena.

You would have to admit that there is a great deal of evidence available, correct? I mean, the Official Version of Sept. 11th does have a considerable weight of observed and verifiable fact behind it, does it not?

Thank you for clarifying about Icke. What little I know of him suggests he is quite mad. I can't fault you for having sympathy for him.

Yeah, R.. Again (deja vu feeling on both sides, i think) this is not science, this is an investigation of a crime.

So no, in my view there isn't enough evidence to take this case as closed. Not near of it. Did you listen to Emory? Are you aware of Able Danger, BCCI and Iran-Contra, the ISI-Connnection, Indira Singh, Sibel Edmonds etc.? FBI still not wanting Bin Laden for 9/11, Kean/Hamilton ammiting that the officials lied to them, Rice (Rice!) and so on? For me, the whole thing doesn't add up.

@Loss Leader: Forget about evidence. I would love to present evidence but it isn't that simple...

[R.Mackey]

Yeah, R.. Again (deja vu feeling on both sides, i think) this is not science, this is an investigation of a crime.

So no, in my view there isn't enough evidence to take this case as closed. Not near of it. Did you listen to Emory? Are you aware of Able Danger, BCCI and Iran-Contra, the ISI-Connnection, Indira Singh, Sibel Edmonds etc.? FBI still not wanting Bin Laden for 9/11, Kean/Hamilton ammiting that the officials lied to them, Rice (Rice!) and so on? For me, the whole thing doesn't add up.

@Loss Leader: Forget about evidence. I would love to present evidence but it isn't that simple...
Investigation is investigation, be it science, justice, or philosophy. The Scientific Method has its foundations in ancient existentialism.

Is there enough evidence for anything in the world that you would consider "closed?"

How do you quantify your doubts?

Yes, I've heard of all of those things. With the exception of Iran-Contra, which was investigated -- though I have a feeling you're implying something quite different -- I haven't heard enough evidence to consider them "closed," and especially with respect to Sibel Edmonds, I've heard plenty that doesn't fit at all, casting them into severe doubt. What about the Official Theory casts it into doubt for you? Not feelings, not unsubstantiated rumour, what evidence?

And I don't buy the dodge you directed at Loss Leader. If you know something, you know it for a reason. Share the reason with us. There's nothing stopping you.

[Loss Leader]

@Loss Leader: Forget about evidence. I would love to present evidence but it isn't that simple...

In my field of law, it is. From where I stand, you are arguing a closing statement - unifying grand themes of corporate and government corruption over a span of decades. But closing statements only make sense if they account for the evidence at trial. Without evidence, you're not even allowed to make your closing statement. Without evidence, you're not even allowed to get the search warrant you need to get evidence. Without evidence, you have nothing.

You may think yourself cute or coy for alluding to various plots that you've heard of. In fact, you come across as scattered, uninformed and paranoid. Forget about evidence? Thank you, I will not.

[Pardalis]

I have looked into the views of Dave Emory and find them ... nonsensical. They literally make no sense. There are actual Nazis running the world? And when the bad guys turned out to be Muslim fundamentalists, Emory suddenly uncovered evidence of Nazi collaboration with Muslim fundamentalists?

Yeah, he's basically saying that the US government is being cohersed from within by Nazis, from WW2. And that the US are conniving with the Muslim brotherhood in Iran through somekind of global mafia of arms and drug dealers... for what purpose I have no clue. At least that's what I can make out in that huge amalgam of theories and six degrees of seperations Childlike has been posting links to so far.

If the US is being influenced by Nazis, why on earth would they be supporting Israel? It doesn't make any sense.

Childlike, why did you post Emory's broadcast if you don't believe Emory's theories? What's in it that makes you go say: "that's interesting." ?

PS: Don't worry about your lack of skills in English, the people of this board have been dealing with my mistreating of the English language for months and they haven't said a thing. ;)

[Childlike Empress]

How do you quantify your doubts? [..]

And I don't buy the dodge you directed at Loss Leader. If you know something, you know it for a reason. Share the reason with us. There's nothing stopping you.

how do i quantify my doubts? I WAITED for a thing like 9/11 in 2001 (of cause, i didn't expect SUCH a thing). I studied propaganda and the way our society is led for a long time ... read Bernays Propaganda (http://militant.org/files/propaganda.pdf). There is a motive - control. The open source society is the enemy.

@Loss Leader: Start confronting the evidence...

edit @Pardalis: I think Emory is taking the Nazi-Stuff to literally but he points out the continuity of control over several phases of "systems" very well. It's interesting because it describes the interconnection between groups that are opposed to each other in public recognition.

[Pardalis]

how do i quantify my doubts? I WAITED for a thing like 9/11 in 2001 (of cause, i didn't expect SUCH a thing). I studied propaganda and the way our society is led for a long time ... read Bernays Propaganda (http://militant.org/files/propaganda.pdf). There is a motive - control. The open source society is the enemy.

So you've been training yourself into your confirmation bias. You've trained yourself to reckognise propaganda, and now, you are seeing it everywhere. Just look at all the links you are posting, you can't even make sense yourself of all this information. And you're throwing it all to us and say" Try to see the bigger picture". What is the bigger picture? Can you see it yourself?

All I see is alot of people who supposedly know alot of other people, and it's not adding up to anything that makes any sense.

edit @Pardalis: I think Emory is taking the Nazi-Stuff to literally but he points out the continuity of control over several phases of "systems" very well. It's interesting because it describes the interconnection between groups that are opposed to each other in public recognition.

Please explain this to me: they (the US, Iran, Nazis, AlQaeda, Israel, who-ever-else) are opposing themselves in public, even waging war against eachother, but in reality, behind closed doors, they are all buddies trying to somehow control the world? Is that it?

[R.Mackey]

how do i quantify my doubts? I WAITED for a thing like 9/11 in 2001 (of cause, i didn't expect SUCH a thing). I studied propaganda and the way our society is led for a long time ... read Bernays Propaganda (http://militant.org/files/propaganda.pdf). There is a motive - control. The open source society is the enemy.
I trust you'll understand that I'm not at all impressed. This is not evidence. If you expect conspiracies, lots of things can be made to look like them.

Since you persist in treating this as a criminal investigation, I presume you understand that it takes much more than motive to prove guilt. Method would be a nice place to start. Besides, your motive is entirely hypothetical.

@Loss Leader: Start confronting the evidence...
You mean the evidence that you refuse to show because "it isn't that simple?" You're kidding, right?

What exactly are you bringing to this discussion?

[Childlike Empress]

So you've been training yourself into your confirmation bias. You've trained yourself to reckognise propaganda, and now, you are seeing it everywhere. Just look at all the links you are posting, you can't even make sense yourself of all this information. And you're throwing it all to us and say" Try to see the bigger picture". What is the bigger picture? Can you see it yourself?

It's worse, Pardalis. I am of german origin. My one grandfather fighted as a simple soldier in russia and the other was useful as a little engineer in Hitler's war machine. When i was a child and first heard about Hitler and the Holocaust in school, i was shocked. Blown away. How could it be that my loving and decent grandfathers fighted for this evil and insane system? It was my first political thought and i tried to find the reason.

I found out that fear inducing propaganda is a mighty weapon and the conciousness of the masses can easily be manipulated. Additionally i found out that the elites know that very well and use it since ages.

Edward Bernays book "Propaganda" was Joseph Goebbels Bible. Read it.

Please explain this to me: they (the US, Iran, Nazis, AlQaeda, Israel, who-ever-else) are opposing themselves in public, even waging war against eachother, but in reality, behind closed doors, they are all buddies trying to somehow control the world? Is that it?

It's literally the "upper 10 thousands". We are heading towards a globalized society, there is no doubt about it. (Our discussion is proof). There are two possibilities:

1. An open source society. We COLLABORATE to achieve goals like a good operation system for computers (linux). We use the resources we have with the up-to-date-techniques (patents are in our ways) and seek to establish a just society (no first or third world anymore).

2. A fascist (corporatism) dictatorship. We keep using the old COMPETITIVE models of business and stabilize our dominance over the rest of the world by FORCE. For that to achieve we have to establish an enemy picture and dehumanize the enemy.

A lot of people will lose their influence if #1 gets reality.

[Pardalis]

You're #1 theory is a charm of an idea, and it's starting to work in some ways (science, communications, buisiness, etc.), and your # 2 scenario does exist also to some extend, there is some propaganda going on, and not just in the US. But let me ask you this: How does a fascist dictatorship work in a globalized society? Isn't it a contradiction?

If you want to control the people into believing in the "ennemy", why do you allow them to have access to even more information than ever before in history (the internet)?

[R.Mackey]

I believe most people here have heard of propaganda, and also recognize a socially radicalized false dilemma when they see one.

So do you have some evidence supporting your claim that we don't understand Sept. 11th, or not?

[Childlike Empress]

@Pardalis: "they" can't control everything. If i would tell you otherwise you would have an example of a paranoid human. I only say that i very clear see the motive for 9/11 in preventing the open source society (btw, do you know John Perry Barlow's "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace (http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html)? I love this document) (R., you will like it too ;)) and from there on i started my investigation.

[Pardalis]

I only say that i very clear see the motive for 9/11 in preventing the open source society(btw, do you know John Perry Barlow's "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace (http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html)? I love this document) (R., you will like it too ;)) and from there on i started my investigation.

I'm sorry to say I don't agree with it. What does 9/11 have to do with it?

Childlike, you obviously are an idealist, with alot of empathy and humanism, which is rare in the world of CTists. But great all-encompassing human ideals aren't realistic, because there is alot of wrong in the world, and evil people.

From your link:

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist.

Yes they do exist, there is cyberspace terrorism, child pornography, fraud, identity theft, and alot, alot of BS on the internet. This was written in 1996, they obviously didn't see those comming. So of course there has to be laws and means to control these bad people from spreading on the internet.


The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule.

"Golden Rule"? Set by whom? And regulated by whom?

In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost

That is scary to me...

[Childlike Empress]

I'm sorry to say I don't agree with it. What does 9/11 have to do with it?

Childlike, you obviously are an idealist, with alot of empathy and humanism, which is rare in the world of CTists. But great all-encompassing human ideals aren't realistic, because there is alot of wrong in the world, and evil people.
Yes i am an idealist and i tell you now and here that at the current stage of human evolvement, the "open source society" is the logical next step. I know it and "they" know it. There are no "evil people", at least not in large scale. It is deception. Do you know an evil muslim?

Yes they do exist, there is cyberspace terrorism, child pornography, fraud, identity theft, and alot, alot of BS on the internet. This was written in 1996, they obviously didn't see those comming. So of course there has to be laws and means to control these bad people from spreading on the internet.
Come on. "Child Pornography" exists since we decided to leave the ocean ... or longer. For example.

"Golden Rule"? Set by whom? And regulated by whom?
You have a lot to learn ;) Start with Kant.

That is scary to me...
Why? That's the future.

[Pardalis]

Well, at least I understand a little more where you are coming from, Childlike. I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. :)

It's funny how you easily accept the idea that all people of this world are well intentioned, and at the same time easily accept the idea of a globalised network of evil conspirators...

[Childlike Empress]

It's anything but funny, Pardalis. But WE will prevail! :)

[Pardalis]

Hope so. I'll go get my cloak and my mask. :D

[T.A.M.]

CLE:

If you prevail, a tip of my hat and a smile to you...but I doubt that will happen.

The idea of money and power are almost as old as civilized humankind. This is what will keep your ideal from occuring. Yes a Utopian or "Star Trekian" type of future for earth, and then beyond (getting way in the future now) is a wonderful idea, but EXTREMELY unlikely.

The CT movement is EXTREMELY small, and is not growing at the pace they think it is. They are misguided by opinion polls and the expansiveness of the internet. Still 70% of the USA believe the govt had no roll in 9/11, and well over 90% believe that it was Al-Qaeda that caused 9/11.

Yes, the CT movement is growing. So is the movement that believes in alien abductions. The "movement" is almost exclusively a base of internet savy twenty somethings with alot of time on their hands (and yes there are exceptions).

Within that CT movement, are people like yourself who have a Utopian dream for the world, but that group is only a minute fraction of the CT group, with of course, a group outside the CTers who believe in a UTOPIA to join you.

UTOPIA will never happen. Call me a pesimist, I like to call myself a realist. When George W. Bush is out, someone just like him will be in. When the next King of the Saudi Royals dies, another will rise to the thrown. When Bill Gates passes, another like him will rise. Ken Lay is gone, and another is already in his place. The world is still, and always will be ruled by the wealthy and powerful...That will not likely change.

Alot of people, when I say that, will quote things like the American Revolution, and the end of Aparthoid in South Africa.

These are small steps over a large period of time, and what did they result in...well how is south africa, or any of africa doing right now. America, created on the backs of thousands of "average" people, has now become the most advanced, but also the richest, most industrialist, country in the world. It enforces its power economically and militarily world wide on a regular basis...were both of these events positive steps, of course, but with their gains, came prices. Were they worth while, of course, but They were born out of desperation, which your ideal Utopian society, is not...

Now it is not all grim and glum. I still believe there is hope. Everyone talks about "looking outside the box", but I would say the hope lies within the paradigm of "change within the box."

To think we are ever going to have a society where everyone is relatively equal in terms of wealth and power, is just a dream. However, a society where the money and power are ruled by the laws of the land, and hence kept in check...now that is possible. The USA, and all 1st world countries, need to go even further in keeping their legal system in check, so the Enron heads of the future know there will be repercussions. So that the George W Bushes known that they can and will be impeached, if needed. These areas need to be strngthened, and refined...

People like yourself need to build movements that can help bring the rest of the world up to the standards that Germany and the USA enjoy. To do it with some grandiose dream of UTOPIA, IMO is wasting your valuable time. Work, knowing that the money and power will ALWAYs be there, but work with it, and around it, and your goals, while less ambitious, have a much greater chance of success...

But I am sure you know this, and I am just standing on the soap box, so I'll get down now.

:)
TAM

[gumboot]

Come on. "Child Pornography" exists since we decided to leave the ocean ... or longer. For example.


Sexual molestation of children only became common enough to be a problem as a result of the sexually repressed Victorian society. Lots of lovely sexual deviance was born out of that sick little society. And now we're all stuck with them.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

UTOPIA will never happen.


And thank the heavens it won't. I could never live in a Utopia. The struggles we have overcome and the hardships we have endured have given birth to the undefeatable human spirit which I love and admire above all other things on this third rock from the sun.

Anyone remember their basic science classes, creating a circuit? You can have as much energy as you want, but there's no light without resistance.

-Andrew

[brodski]

Sexual molestation of children only became common enough to be a problem as a result of the sexually repressed Victorian society. Lots of lovely sexual deviance was born out of that sick little society. And now we're all stuck with them.

-Andrew
This is a pretty sweeping and radical claim- it assumes that the cultural values of the period between 1837 and 1901 where universal world wide, or that they have since become universal.
I'm pretty sure I can find evidence that child sexual abuse existed in places which Victorian morality never really influenced (Japan, or China for instance)- I would however agree that post Victorian values changed the way that we view child sexual abuse.

[gumboot]

This is a pretty sweeping and radical claim- it assumes that the cultural values of the period between 1837 and 1901 where universal world wide, or that they have since become universal. I'm pretty sure I can find evidence that child sexual abuse existed in places which Victorian morality never really influenced (Japan, or China for instance)- I would however agree that post Victorian values changed the way that we view child sexual abuse.


Sorry, I'm being ethnocentric...:o

The explosion of "sexual deviance" occured in Anglo spin-off society during the Victorian Era. That's when you first got peep shows, etc. Obviously sexual crime etc... has always existed, but prior to that in the anglo cultural sex was a fairly open thing that was talked about etc. so any naughtiness was usually spotted (obviously the interpretation for what IS naughty has always varied, but sexual activities with children has been a no-no for quite a while).

Of course it would be interesting to see how other cultures compare with sexual molestation of children that weren't so influenced by the Victorians. Though bear in mind the Victorian Era was right when the British were bringing their influence into the Far East.

-Andrew

[brodski]

Sorry, I'm being ethnocentric...:o

The explosion of "sexual deviance" occured in Anglo spin-off society during the Victorian Era. That's when you first got peep shows, etc. Obviously sexual crime etc... has always existed, but prior to that in the anglo cultural sex was a fairly open thing that was talked about etc. so any naughtiness was usually spotted (obviously the interpretation for what IS naughty has always varied, but sexual activities with children has been a no-no for quite a while). Ok I can see that, although I would still like to see an authoritative source on this, however I daren’t google it myself. ;)

The explosion of "sexual deviance" occured in Anglo spin-off society during the Victorian Era. That's when you first got peep shows, etc. Obviously sexual crime etc... has always existed, but prior to that in the anglo cultural sex was a fairly open thing that was talked about etc. so any naughtiness was usually spotted (obviously the interpretation for what IS naughty has always varied, but sexual activities with children has been a no-no for quite a while).

Of course it would be interesting to see how other cultures compare with sexual molestation of children that weren't so influenced by the Victorians. Though bear in mind the Victorian Era was right when the British were bringing their influence into the Far East.
-Andrew
I agree that the British did have military and economic influence in the far east, however there is little evidence hat those society adopted Victorian sexual morals.

[Loss Leader]

Edward Bernays book "Propaganda" was Joseph Goebbels Bible. Read it.

We are heading towards a globalized society, there is no doubt about it. (Our discussion is proof). There are two possibilities:

1. An open source society. We COLLABORATE to achieve goals like a good operation system for computers (linux). We use the resources we have with the up-to-date-techniques (patents are in our ways) and seek to establish a just society (no first or third world anymore).

2. A fascist (corporatism) dictatorship. We keep using the old COMPETITIVE models of business and stabilize our dominance over the rest of the world by FORCE. For that to achieve we have to establish an enemy picture and dehumanize the enemy.

A lot of people will lose their influence if #1 gets reality.

Well, CLE, this is as close as you've come to a basic statement of your platform, so I guess first of all thanks for putting your thoughts in some kind of order. Of course, I continue to note your complete refusal to present any evidence that your Metropolis-inspired worldview is, you know, in any way valid.

Frankly, I think it is not. Instead of reading Marxist political philosophers, you should read some economists - just basic macroeconomic survey texts. Life is a competition to secure for scarce resources. War is a violent competition to secure scarce resources. Your "open society" can never and will never happen so long as: 1) resources are scarce; and 2) people prefer their own families to strangers. When the aliens land and give us free energy and food, maybe we can work together and form some sort of united federation of planets. Until then, forget it.

But you state that the only alternative to cooperation is a fascist corporate dictatorship. That does not logically follow. The corporations are large and have a lot of influence but they are owned by shareholders and they exist because they create value. They do whatever makes them money. If we as individuals don't buy the products, they die. Ford and General Motors - these were huge companies that are suffering because they cannot make a product people want. There is no overlord ruling class of corporatists. In fact, corporations compete against each other for scarce resources just like individuals do. And they kill each other just like individuals do.

And my country, at least, has regulators working to make sure no collusion between competitors takes place.

But your last statement - that corporations must dominate the world by creating and dehumanizing an enemy - that just does not logically follow from anything else you said. Why would a corporation want to alienate potential customers? Coke wants to sell to Israelis and Arabs and Communists and Martians - Coke wants peace. War is an unpredictable time for business and business generally doesn't like unpredictability.

Last, you seem to take the example of the German people being misled by Hitler as proof that all people can be misled by fascist corporations and as proof that people can be talked into a war that is not in their own interests. I might remind you that Hitler lost. He did. He got his tiny Austrian ass kicked out of every country he invaded. Can propaganda hold sway over individuals? Absolutely. But not for long. And not when it conflicts with their economic interests. In a closed-box experiment, Hitler got 12 years out of a homogenious population with a shared sense of identity. It won't happen again.

And, if it does, I'll grab a gun and start fighting just like my grandfather did sixty years ago.

[gumboot]

Ok I can see that, although I would still like to see an authoritative source on this, however I daren’t google it myself. ;)

I agree that the British did have military and economic influence in the far east, however there is little evidence hat those society adopted Victorian sexual morals.


To be fair I very much doubt I can find records of sexual abuse back to Roman times and beyond. ;) Thus my claim is totally unsupported...:boxedin:

-Andrew

[brodski]

To be fair I very much doubt I can find records of sexual abuse back to Roman times and beyond. ;) Thus my claim is totally unsupported...:boxedin:

-Andrew

Well, that’s the other thing you have to remember when talking about such subjects, especially when people compare things like, the rate of child sexual abuse today over, say, 40 years ago- and conclude that it’s happening more frequently now that it was then, therefore society ahs going to hell, there is a big difference in an increase in reported incidents of child sexual abuse, and an actual increase in the rate of abuse.

[Loss Leader]

The explosion of "sexual deviance" occured in Anglo spin-off society during the Victorian Era. That's when you first got peep shows, etc. Obviously sexual crime etc... has always existed, but prior to that in the anglo cultural sex was a fairly open thing that was talked about etc. so any naughtiness was usually spotted.

Actually, I think it worked more along the lines of: 1) Puritan morals strictly proscribe what is appropriate and inappropriate sexually; 2) Anybody who doesn't fit in the definition of acceptable is made to feel isolated, ashamed and alone; 3) Those individuals who felt such shame as growing children lose their ***** minds and begin to conflate concepts of sex, power and innocense; 4) Those individuals grow up and begin to gratify their sexual desires using a population that is easily manipulated and cannot resist; 5) Step five is disgusting.

I think Puritan and Victorian thinking created pedophilia and a lot of other deviant behaviors by punnishing growing individuals who were exploring their sexuality. Had Jeffrey Dahmer lived in a family and a world where it was OK to be gay, he might not have felt so ashamed about his sexuality that he had to kill and eat the men he slept with.

On the other hand, Dahmer was nuts.

[brodski]

Actually, I think it worked more along the lines of: 1) Puritan morals strictly proscribe what is appropriate and inappropriate sexually

You say that, however Cromwell, the most politically influential Puritan in English history, was a bit of a ladies man. Also The commonwealth period in England was followed by the restoration period, which is notorious for it’s sexual licence, there is no direct route from English Puritanism to Victorian sexual attitudes which I can see.

[gumboot]

I think Puritan and Victorian thinking created pedophilia and a lot of other deviant behaviors by punnishing growing individuals who were exploring their sexuality. Had Jeffrey Dahmer lived in a family and a world where it was OK to be gay, he might not have felt so ashamed about his sexuality that he had to kill and eat the men he slept with.


An interesting theory I've read suggests society's prosperity was a big factor. Most people lived in communal dwellings until recently, with shared sleeping quarters. It's a bit hard to play fiddly with the kid if your wife, brother, older son, etc. are sleeping 3 feet away.

But once you started to have families living in independent multi-room dwellings you got this whole thing of personal privacy. And there's nothing better for inappropriate behaviour than privacy.

-Andrew

[Loss Leader]

You say that, however Cromwell, the most politically influential Puritan in English history, was a bit of a ladies man. Also The commonwealth period in England was followed by the restoration period, which is notorious for it’s sexual licence, there is no direct route from English Puritanism to Victorian sexual attitudes which I can see.

Ah, well, there's your difference. I was talking about America where we went from Puritanical to Hyper-Puritanical to Puritanical-But-Not-As-Racist to Puritanical-And-If-You-Don't-Like-It-Get-Out.

[brodski]

Ah, well, there's your difference. I was talking about America where we went from Puritanical to Hyper-Puritanical to Puritanical-But-Not-As-Racist to Puritanical-And-If-You-Don't-Like-It-Get-Out.
Sorry, whenever anyone says “Victorian” I automatically think “Britain and her Empire”

[Loss Leader]

So, is CLE gone? I was really hoping to get some sort of answer to my last post to her.

[tsig]

Title says it all.

Just one passenger showing up alive.

[tsig]

I'm just curious what the rough baseline is around here for purposes of demonstrating to CTists (1) our expectations of evidence, (2) that we are not close-minded and (3) that they also need to define what criteria would cause them to rethink their position. Do I think it will _really_ matter? Probably not, but I thuoght it a useful exercise none the less.

A course in Statics and Strength of Materials I & II would help. A small understanding of gravity would help.

Things fall down.

[IronSnot]

Good to see this thread here.

Waking up?

:D

[T.A.M.]

Waking up from a nightmare known as the "9/11 Truth" movement, yes...thank god. Back here in the real, non-Tom Clancy based world, we are working to make sure the rest of the general public isn't swept up by the "Fantasy" claims of bored individuals that have a flare for the "Fantastical".

We'll do are part, and I am sure the CTers will do theirs.

[Brainache]

Good to see this thread here.

Waking up?

:D

I think someone tried to post a similar thread over at loose change, but it didn't last very long.
Obviously anyone asking such a question over there is a troll and needs to be banned immediately lest they destroy the pursuit of TRUTH.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Good to see this thread here.

Waking up?

:D

Interested in answering the converse question? We're being transparent and honest about what our expectations are. Howabout you?

What evidence could be provided that would cause you to rethink your position on the OV?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Complete destruction of the Phyisical laws governing the universe as outlined by Newton and Einstein, that would be a start.

[T.A.M.]

ok, CC; your not gonna get away that easy. To make such a grandiose proposition, you must first start out by factually explaining to us how and where the official version (OV) breaks these laws...otherwise your comment is trash.

[MortFurd]

ok, CC; your not gonna get away that easy. To make such a grandiose proposition, you must first start out by factually explaining to us how and where the official version (OV) breaks these laws...otherwise your comment is trash.
I think CrazyChainsaw was referring to the title of this thread. I have trouble following him sometimes, but the message I think I get from him is that things pretty much happened the way we saw them, but there's some details of the actual happening that could be better explained. If I read him right, he's been saying that the fires and the melted aluminum from the aircraft created a form of thermite that destroyed the steel columns in the WTC towers and caused them to collapse. I don't think he's been saying that anyone did that on purpose.

So his comment would translate as "change all the laws of physics, and I'll believe your CT."

[MortFurd]

For myself, it will take lots more than conjecture, WAGs, and conclusions reached by rectal extraction to convince me of anything but that a bunch of terrorists hijacked four planes and crashed them into various buildings and that one of those planes was forced down before hitting its target by the heroic actions of the passengers.

There's not a CT out there that can get around the weight of the numbers of people who would have to be accomplices to the conspiracy.

There's not a CT out there that actually conforms to observed fact and draws a conclusion based on that rather than wishful thinking.

There's not a CT out there based on actual critical thinking.

[R.Mackey]

I think CrazyChainsaw was referring to the title of this thread. I have trouble following him sometimes, but the message I think I get from him is that things pretty much happened the way we saw them, but there's some details of the actual happening that could be better explained. If I read him right, he's been saying that the fires and the melted aluminum from the aircraft created a form of thermite that destroyed the steel columns in the WTC towers and caused them to collapse. I don't think he's been saying that anyone did that on purpose.
I might further modify that, and apologies to CC if this is not what you propose, that there were types of unusual thermite reactions created that would explain spotty physical evidence of thermite, the type claimed by charlatan extraordinaire Steven Jones, not that it actually caused the collapses themselves.

I've tried to follow your experiments and while it seems plausible, it also seems the conditions you describe would occur right after impact, and burn themselves out long before either tower fell.

[T.A.M.]

Well, if he is suggesting as you have said, then my apologies as well. I took it that he was commenting on Arkanes challenge to ironsnot...If he was not, then like I said, sorry man...if he was responding to Arkane, than please bring forth the evidence.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I might further modify that, and apologies to CC if this is not what you propose, that there were types of unusual thermite reactions created that would explain spotty physical evidence of thermite, the type claimed by charlatan extraordinaire Steven Jones, not that it actually caused the collapses themselves.

I've tried to follow your experiments and while it seems plausible, it also seems the conditions you describe would occur right after impact, and burn themselves out long before either tower fell.

It would actually be a slow process to create the thermites, you have to heat the Aluminum and Iron oxides up and the steel has to burn to form the Iron Oxide actually rust, that takes a lot of wave action and sound and time.
As long as there was a continuous source of heat Chimney effect, and wave energy it could set there until something triggered it.
The best way to trigger it by the way is drop something on it from above then it explodes. Depending on the force to mix the liquid Aluminum with the Liquid Iron Oxide, you can get hot burning fireballs of Aluminum burring in air going though out the building. Hidden by the dust and Smoke, since it produce no smoke in such reactions, it would have been practical invisible to the eye. They would have heated up the cloud of debris, and have produced a sanding effect as aluminum Oxide is the second hardest material known to man.
But what do I know, according to Dr. Jones this is Impossible!
A yellow thermite reaction in air, the iron dust inside the Aluminum is burning and as it burns it turns to iron Oxide, which causes Aluminum to burn below the Oxide coating.
It is like the Aluminum is alive breathing in air, the same way we do using Iron-Iron Oxide reactions.
http://chainsawsanders.com/notpossible.JPG

Dr. Jones has not admitted that Iron burns, so I have to conclude that Dr. Jones does not breath oxygen, and has no Blood.
That is why I say it would take a complete reversal of the physical laws governing the universe. They have to be reversed for the CT theories to work.

[R.Mackey]

Thank you for the detail, CC. But just to clarify: Your hypothesis about unexpected thermite reactions simply explains some of the observations, things that came out of the burning towers or were found in the debris, correct? Am I right in saying that you do not claim that thermite reactions caused the collapse?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Thank you for the detail, CC. But just to clarify: Your hypothesis about unexpected thermite reactions simply explains some of the observations, things that came out of the burning towers or were found in the debris, correct? Am I right in saying that you do not claim that thermite reactions caused the collapse?

Heat and fire is what caused all the phenomena it was only accelerated by sound which on its own was a powerful force that has been over looked, sound causes steel to vibrate exposing more surface to heat and Oxidation.
Burning Aluminum and burning steel would have added to the flames.
We must here differentiate between burning and Ignited reactive, metals do not have to ignite to burn Oxidize they only have to have a mechanism to expose fresh metal to air, and heat to speed the chemical reactions.
If it were not for the chemical reaction that allows Iron to become Iron Oxide no one on this board would be here now.
Thermites were the last straw that broke the camels back and helped to add to the collapse and add a little extra kick to them.
Building 7 would still be standing I believe if it was not for the generators constantly sending sound and ultra sound though the steel structure of the building, with a high sulfur diesel fuel burning inside, in that environment steel does not last long.
The muffler on my diesel tractor is stainless steel if it were a regular muffler it would be gone in a month from the effects of high sulfur diesel farm fuel on the steel exposed to both heat and sound you could actually watch the old muffler deteriorate before you eyes.

I have seen these phenomena, and I understand them, but that is not enough I have to prove them.

The plane at the Pentagon burned, the towers burned, building 7 burned, flight 93 tunneled into the ground, some of it obliterated, the rest burned.

That is what I am proving day by day, but it is hard to do that and my day job, I have to do the test myself over and over again, as well as buy everything to do them.
I am working as fast as I can, right now I am working to make thermates as I can not find a source of Thermates or super thermates that will sell me any.
I am trying to see if they are like thermites and will not survive intense sound when confined, that would be key to destroying the conspiracy theories.
The charges can not survive the impact, how does Controlled Demolition work?

[Loss Leader]

I am trying to see if they are like thermites and will not survive intense sound when confined, that would be key to destroying the conspiracy theories.

That's some optomistic thinking, there. I hope you're right.

[R.Mackey]

Heat and fire is what caused all the phenomena it was only accelerated by sound which on its own was a powerful force that has been over looked, sound causes steel to vibrate exposing more surface to heat and Oxidation.
CrazyChainsaw, you are quite correct that sound pressure, as well as vibration, can be an important factor. I happen to work in one of the few professions that takes this issue very seriously, for example sound suppression in rocket launches. (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/f_watertest.html)

Building 7 would still be standing I believe if it was not for the generators constantly sending sound and ultra sound though the steel structure of the building, with a high sulfur diesel fuel burning inside, in that environment steel does not last long.
While I agree with some of your comments, I still reject this hypothesis. You are suggesting that, during the normal life of Building 7, the generators on board -- coupled with chemical effects from diesel fuel -- deteriorated its structural integrity. This should have been detected during building inspections, if true. If you mean the period after WTC 7 was hit and set on fire, there just isn't time. Any sonic contribution to failure from the generators would have been trivial, not to mention much quieter, compared to the enormous impact from debris and the heat load from the diesel fuel itself which is cited by NIST as a likely contributor.

If you can prove otherwise, I'd be interested to see your reasoning.

I am working as fast as I can, right now I am working to make thermates as I can not find a source of Thermates or super thermates that will sell me any.
I am trying to see if they are like thermites and will not survive intense sound when confined, that would be key to destroying the conspiracy theories.
The charges can not survive the impact, how does Controlled Demolition work?
Here I agree. I've remarked elsewhere that I don't see any form of explosive charge surviving the aircraft impacts and subsequent fire, and that applies to thermite as well, not typically considered an explosive.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That's some optomistic thinking, there. I hope you're right.

The Crystal structure is the same in termites, and thermates all I need is for one particle in each device to crack to to ultra sound vibrations and controlled demolition is a myth.
Basically the fluid dynamics of the fuel explosion would have been the greatest source of ultra sound I could hope for, and the Hollow steel beams the greatest sound conduit to transmit the sound to the particles.
The very nature of thermites makes them venerable, because they have to be bolted to the beams to work.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

CrazyChainsaw, you are quite correct that sound pressure, as well as vibration, can be an important factor. I happen to work in one of the few professions that takes this issue very seriously, for example sound suppression in rocket launches. (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/f_watertest.html)


While I agree with some of your comments, I still reject this hypothesis. You are suggesting that, during the normal life of Building 7, the generators on board -- coupled with chemical effects from diesel fuel -- deteriorated its structural integrity. This should have been detected during building inspections, if true. If you mean the period after WTC 7 was hit and set on fire, there just isn't time. Any sonic contribution to failure from the generators would have been trivial, not to mention much quieter, compared to the enormous impact from debris and the heat load from the diesel fuel itself which is cited by NIST as a likely contributor.

If you can prove otherwise, I'd be interested to see your reasoning.


Here I agree. I've remarked elsewhere that I don't see any form of explosive charge surviving the aircraft impacts and subsequent fire, and that applies to thermite as well, not typically considered an explosive.

Actually I was thinking that since the diesels were running during the high sulfur diesel fire, that the vibrations and ultrasounds transmitted by the diesels influenced chemical reactions though out the buildings.
Ultra sound is not transmitted well though air, but is transmitted well though solids, and liquids.
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/pdf/sciamer8980.pdf
I have found that Ultra sound and sound or any wave form energy are the key to burning aluminum, or thermite formation by causing the metals to shed the oxide coating. Shedding the Oxide coating is key to causing them to react. I even got a thermite reaction just by clamping a pan to the front bumper on my John Deere tractor, and heating it while the tractor was running.
Imagine if the damage to the building damaged the vibration dampeners on the generators, what that would have done to the building if they were vibrating it while the fires burned.

[T.A.M.]

cc:

sorry, but the one letter you left out made your statement on "termites" absolutely comical...lol

:)

[R.Mackey]

Actually I was thinking that since the diesels were running during the high sulfur diesel fire, that the vibrations and ultrasounds transmitted by the diesels influenced chemical reactions though out the buildings.
Don't forget that the power transmitted to the building, via ultrasound or whatever, will be strictly less than the energy consumption of the generator. We can bound the theoretical upper limit of its contribution quite simply.

I have found that Ultra sound and sound or any wave form energy are the key to burning aluminum, or thermite formation by causing the metals to shed the oxide coating. Shedding the Oxide coating is key to causing them to react. I even got a thermite reaction just by clamping a pan to the front bumper on my John Deere tractor, and heating it while the tractor was running.
Interesting, even a plausible mechanism. In WTC 1 and 2 I can see it, but how much co-located aluminum and steel was there in WTC 7? It was not aluminum-clad, nor was hit by a rapidly moving aluminum aircraft. I'd expect its aluminum to be in large chunks rather than shredded.

Imagine if the damage to the building damaged the vibration dampeners on the generators, what that would have done to the building if they were vibrating it while the fires burned.
I will grant you that added vibration would stress pre-existing or newly created cracks in structural members, and would thereby accelerate damage from nearby fires. However, I think those members would have failed anyway, perhaps a few minutes later, if the source of the vibration was removed.

This should be a pretty simple experiment to conduct, to see just how much a vibration source will contribute. Say two iron beams, welded or bolted (two experiments, perhaps), a simulated office fire applied to the joint, one set of experiments with a paint shaker and one without, and X-rays after a fixed time period.

We experience similar phenomena in jet and rocket propulsion -- heat, noise, combustion, steel components, vibration. These things can be and are mitigated. I still don't see this as a major source of WTC 7 failure.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Don't forget that the power transmitted to the building, via ultrasound or whatever, will be strictly less than the energy consumption of the generator. We can bound the theoretical upper limit of its contribution quite simply.

I know but the diesels are exceptionally noisy in the ultra sonic range do to strong cavitations in the engines.

Interesting, even a plausible mechanism. In WTC 1 and 2 I can see it, but how much co-located aluminum and steel was there in WTC 7? It was not aluminum-clad, nor was hit by a rapidly moving aluminum aircraft. I'd expect its aluminum to be in large chunks rather than shredded.

Oh not much just the wiring going to the generators and some parts of he generators and the diesel fuel tanks themselves I think, also window frames, office furnishings and other aluminum products.
It does not have to be shredded just molten to burn, and burning steel produces Iron Oxide.

I will grant you that added vibration would stress pre-existing or newly created cracks in structural members, and would thereby accelerate damage from nearby fires. However, I think those members would have failed anyway, perhaps a few minutes later, if the source of the vibration was removed.

High sulfur diesel produces S02, that combines with Water from the sprinklers or in the air, in the building producing sulfuric acid, what happens when that is agitated by sound traveling though a beam and the oxide is flaked off exposing the bare metal. That is the thing if you get past the oxide the metal can react to chemicals in the building and fire.
The diesels started early and ran for a long time, they would only have stopped if damaged or the fuel ran out.
There was enough Aluminum for it to have burned, but I do not think it was as big a factor in Building 7 as in the towers, it might have given it a small kick, but I think the damage to the steel was the real cause.
Unless some aluminum with Included Iron Oxide actually fell on a one of the diesel engines that would deffinately change the dynamics in a hurry.

We experience similar phenomena in jet and rocket propulsion -- heat, noise, combustion, steel components, vibration. These things can be and are mitigated. I still don't see this as a major source of WTC 7 failure.


I know but we are talking buildings where those effects are rare, they might not have invested in Mitigating them in buildings because they were not considered necessary or cost effective.

[Loss Leader]

all I need is for one particle in each device to crack to to ultra sound vibrations and controlled demolition is a myth.


You might as well stop working. Controlled demolition is already a myth.

And the people who propound some wacky "science" of explosives aren't going to disbelieve CD because you prove there was enough energy to bring the buildings down without explosives. Their beliefs aren't based on science; their science is based on beliefs.

[R.Mackey]

Oh not much just the wiring going to the generators and some parts of he generators and the diesel fuel tanks themselves I think, also window frames, office furnishings and other aluminum products.
It does not have to be shredded just molten to burn, and burning steel produces Iron Oxide.
I know, but when I set up a toy thermite reaction, the aluminum powder and iron has to be well mixed, or at the very least in close proximity. I'm simply doubting the effectiveness of this reaction, not whether it could occur in localized, minor, spurious cases within WTC 7.

High sulfur diesel produces S02, that combines with Water from the sprinklers or in the air, in the building producing sulfuric acid, what happens when that is agitated by sound traveling though a beam and the oxide is flaked off exposing the bare metal. That is the thing if you get past the oxide the metal can react to chemicals in the building and fire.
The diesels started early and ran for a long time, they would only have stopped if damaged or the fuel ran out.
Agreed, but why didn't this happen during WTC 7's normal lifespan? Those generators surely were fired up once in a while, for testing purposes if nothing else. WTC 7, from ignition to collapse, was only about eight hours total.

I think we're talking past each other. Nothing you've claimed strikes me as incorrect. I'm only wondering whether this effect would be a large one, or a small one, particularly with respect to WTC 7. My feeling is that it would be a small effect, ultimately superfluous in regards to whether WTC 7 would collapse or remain standing. We would need to consider the situation in much more detail to see whether this is correct.

Have you tried to estimate the impact over all of WTC 7? Consideration from an energy budget standpoint, identified how local you believe this effect was, etc.? Sounds like you're not there yet, but still refining the mechanism -- which is perfectly fine -- I'm just curious.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I know, but when I set up a toy thermite reaction, the aluminum powder and iron has to be well mixed, or at the very least in close proximity. I'm simply doubting the effectiveness of this reaction, not whether it could occur in localized, minor, spurious cases within WTC 7.

Have you mixed the compound in Liquid form rapidly inside the molten Aluminum, that is how I am doing it.

Aluminum burns at
2519°.

IronOxide melts at 1565.

Aluminum Oxide melts at
2054°C.

Since the Aluminum is already molten, and the reaction produces temperatures that melt the Aluminum Oxide around the Iron Oxide it is some what like Dynamite, only difference it sends white hot burning aluminum into the air, in a self Oxidizing fire ball of burning metal.

All it takes is putting the oxide in the Aluminum at a lower temperature, the stuff is so reactive that I think breathing on it could cause a small reaction.
The bad part is that one reaction sends sound waves though the mass setting off others. It makes Jones's super thermites look like a small fire cracker.



Agreed, but why didn't this happen during WTC 7's normal lifespan? Those generators surely were fired up once in a while, for testing purposes if nothing else. WTC 7, from ignition to collapse, was only about eight hours total.

The fuel was burned in the engines and the exaust was vented outside though an exhaust pipe.
The diesel fuel fires were huge because no one shut the pump off that kept pumping fuel to the diesel engines from the tank in the basement.
Plus the shock absorbing vibration dampers would not have been damaged until the building was. They are suceptible to damage in fires as I understand them.

I think we're talking past each other. Nothing you've claimed strikes me as incorrect. I'm only wondering whether this effect would be a large one, or a small one, particularly with respect to WTC 7. My feeling is that it would be a small effect, ultimately superfluous in regards to whether WTC 7 would collapse or remain standing. We would need to consider the situation in much more detail to see whether this is correct.

Have you tried to estimate the impact over all of WTC 7? Consideration from an energy budget standpoint, identified how local you believe this effect was, etc.? Sounds like you're not there yet, but still refining the mechanism -- which is perfectly fine -- I'm just curious.

I am working on it but I also have to work my day job, as that pays the bills, and it is hard.
Plus my eyes are still bothering me, I only had a welding helmet when I did the last explosive tests and my calculations on the size of the reaction was wrong.
I now have black spots in my vision, they are going away but it takes time. Do not know it they will ever all be gone.

[R.Mackey]

Have you mixed the compound in Liquid form rapidly inside the molten Aluminum, that is how I am doing it.

Aluminum burns at 2519°. IronOxide melts at 1565. Aluminum Oxide melts at 2054°C.

Since the Aluminum is already molten, and the reaction produces temperatures that melt the Aluminum Oxide around the Iron Oxide it is some what like Dynamite, only difference it sends white hot burning aluminum into the air, in a self Oxidizing fire ball of burning metal.
No, I haven't done anything like that. Thank you for clarifying. If you jet molten aluminum onto aluminum/iron oxide, surely that will promote mixing. I can easily imagine a rapid and energetic reaction in this case.

However, getting back to WTC 7, if the building was already so heavily damaged that its own aluminum was melted (much higher than the temperature required to lose structural integrity), wouldn't WTC 7 already have been a lost cause?

Have you looked at the NIST pre-report presentation on WTC 7? Where, in their sequence of events, would you suspect this kind of thing occurred?

I am working on it but I also have to work my day job, as that pays the bills, and it is hard.
Plus my eyes are still bothering me, I only had a welding helmet when I did the last explosive tests and my calculations on the size of the reaction was wrong.
I now have black spots in my vision, they are going away but it takes time. Do not know it they will ever all be gone.
Harsh!! Please be careful. If you haven't already, I would suggest you get some guidance from a university. I love to see good research, especially that conducted out of personal interest, but please do your best to stay safe.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

However, getting back to WTC 7, if the building was already so heavily damaged that its own aluminum was melted (much higher than the temperature required to lose structural integrity), wouldn't WTC 7 already have been a lost cause?

Aluminum is auto heating it will burn do to vibrations breaking the crystalline structure of the solid Aluminum Oxide.
IN other words the Aluminum is not heated by the building, or fires but by itself its own reaction to air as its surface moves in response to wave energy.

Have you looked at the NIST pre-report presentation on WTC 7? Where, in their sequence of events, would you suspect this kind of thing occurred?

That is exactly what I would expect, for a building damaged in this way.

Harsh!! Please be careful. If you haven't already, I would suggest you get some guidance from a university. I love to see good research, especially that conducted out of personal interest, but please do your best to stay safe.

I am trying to be, my problem is no one has ever thought of this before, it is simple and probably happened before but it was Undescribed and unknown.
So who can help me find out what happens until I try it?
No one has ever tried this before, so I was expecting gun powder and got Trinitrotoluene, that was my problem. I got it to hot and triggered it to quick, I have become so good at doing Aluminum thermite reactions that I can do them three ways, slow actually watch thermite sparks jump to the Iron Oxide, Like the thermite that you have used, or thermite explosives.
It is all in knowing the temperature and the energy used to mix them.

I have dubbed it Cold thermite, Warm thermite, get the &^%$ away from it as quick as possible thermite.

[R.Mackey]

Aluminum is auto heating it will burn do to vibrations breaking the crystalline structure of the solid Aluminum Oxide.
IN other words the Aluminum is not heated by the building, or fires but by itself its own reaction to air as its surface moves in response to wave energy.
Oh, c'mon now. Any solid will experience heating as a by-product of strain hardening, but there's no way Aluminum will get spontaneously heated, by vibrations, to ~2000 oF. Not without truly incredible vibrations. Those would have been noticed. Air convection, heat conduction (aluminum is excellent for this) and blackbody radiation will prevent heat from building up in the aluminum. I'd be stunned if it got even 20 oF warmer than ambient.

You can estimate this with a simple energy calculation. It takes quite a lot of mechanical energy to heat anything. If, as you postulate, the diesel fuel tanks of the generators in WTC 7 went solely into heating aluminum pieces, through vibration or any other mechanism, the amount of aluminum that could be heated to melting is just not going to be that much. This is a simple calculation to walk through, if you'd like.

That is exactly what I would expect, for a building damaged in this way.
What I mean is, the NIST presentation has a very detailed timeline and discusses the likely failure mode for WTC 7. Where and when, based on this assumption, would you expect to get this mechanism? On what floors? At what time? I'm trying to help you scope your problem as we scale up from mechanism to operating theory of collapse.

I am trying to be, my problem is no one has ever thought of this before, it is simple and probably happened before but it was Undescribed and unknown.
So who can help me find out what happens until I try it?
No one has ever tried this before, so I was expecting gun powder and got Trinitrotoluene, that was my problem.
I wouldn't be so sure that nobody has ever tried this before. Even if it's true, any good chemistry, physics, or solid mechanics professor should be able to lend you some insight. I strongly suggest you look up your closest university and give their departments a call. Try to describe the experiments you're interested in and find one or two professors who can advise you. I don't work with combustion -- not my field, my field is AI -- but I'm sure there are many people who can help. If you happen to be in Southern California, I could point you to several distinguished experts.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Interested in answering the converse question? We're being transparent and honest about what our expectations are. Howabout you?

What evidence could be provided that would cause you to rethink your position on the OV?

Come on IronSnot. It was a simple question.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Oh, c'mon now. Any solid will experience heating as a by-product of strain hardening, but there's no way Aluminum will get spontaneously heated, by vibrations, to ~2000 oF. Not without truly incredible vibrations. Those would have been noticed. Air convection, heat conduction (aluminum is excellent for this) and blackbody radiation will prevent heat from building up in the aluminum. I'd be stunned if it got even 20 oF warmer than ambient.

You can estimate this with a simple energy calculation. It takes quite a lot of mechanical energy to heat anything. If, as you postulate, the diesel fuel tanks of the generators in WTC 7 went solely into heating aluminum pieces, through vibration or any other mechanism, the amount of aluminum that could be heated to melting is just not going to be that much. This is a simple calculation to walk through, if you'd like.

I am talking of heating though Oxidation of the Molten Aluminum itself as vibrations expose it to Oxygen by breaking the oxide coating all you have to have is a non conductive substance below it.
Diesel fuel will melt Aluminum, since the diesel produces temperature of over 800c and aluminum melts at about 660c.
Any wave motion, across the surface forms waves that break the oxide coating the aluminum burns at over 2500c and the heat builds up as the Aluminum conducts it into materials that it is in contact with.
Such as concrete, which is not as conductive, and causes the heat to reflect back into the mass of the Aluminum.
I have actually done this, Produced auto heating Molten Aluminum.
Remember that 1565 is where the Iron oxide melts, and it takes time to build up that much heat.

What I mean is, the NIST presentation has a very detailed timeline and discusses the likely failure mode for WTC 7. Where and when, based on this assumption, would you expect to get this mechanism? On what floors? At what time? I'm trying to help you scope your problem as we scale up from mechanism to operating theory of collapse.

Basically the NIST report pointed to a failure of the steel structure over the Power Distribution Station, and that is exactly what I would expect. A Build up of conditions that would cause sulfur and fire to damage the steel. That reaction combined with the Aluminum, and heating, and then the Aluminum and Iron Oxide, or Aluminum producing a hydrogen reaction, setting off the collapse of the already stressed structure.

I wouldn't be so sure that nobody has ever tried this before. Even if it's true, any good chemistry, physics, or solid mechanics professor should be able to lend you some insight. I strongly suggest you look up your closest university and give their departments a call. Try to describe the experiments you're interested in and find one or two professors who can advise you. I don't work with combustion -- not my field, my field is AI -- but I'm sure there are many people who can help. If you happen to be in Southern California, Icould point you to several distinguished experts.

Unfortunately I live in Kentucky, I called a local university materials science department, and got laughed at. The Prof. said to someone else I do not know who, and I quote, Another 9/11 fruit cake.
I have received similar replies from all the Universities around here, The only people who have listened to me are Prof. Thomas Eagar, and Dr. Frank Greening. I am continuing to work on this now not to really debunk the 9/11 truth crowd, but to save lives if I can find a way to cool the Surface of the Aluminum quickly I can stop the process at every stage. It might someday save the life of fire fighters to know this stuff.

If you could contact some experts and actually share some of my ideas with them that would help, but I fear that I will have to continue the work alone.

[R.Mackey]

Diesel fuel will melt Aluminum, since the diesel produces temperature of over 800c and aluminum melts at about 660c.
Any wave motion, across the surface forms waves that break the oxide coating the aluminum burns at over 2500c and the heat builds up as the Aluminum conducts it into materials that it is in contact with.
Such as concrete, which is not as conductive, and causes the heat to reflect back into the mass of the Aluminum.
I have actually done this, Produced auto heating Molten Aluminum.
Remember that 1565 is where the Iron oxide melts, and it takes time to build up that much heat.
Maybe it will help if you describe your experiment in detail. What is the setup, what steps, what are your operating assumptions, etc. I keep feeling like we're jumping into the middle of it. Maybe the things I'm objecting to are things you've accounted for elsewhere.

Basically the NIST report pointed to a failure of the steel structure over the Power Distribution Station, and that is exactly what I would expect. A Build up of conditions that would cause sulfur and fire to damage the steel. That reaction combined with the Aluminum, and heating, and then the Aluminum and Iron Oxide, or Aluminum producing a hydrogen reaction, setting off the collapse of the already stressed structure.
There are other reasons to support this hypothesis that have nothing to do with chemistry -- in particular, the load transfer beam design, and the large diesel fuel tank itself as an energy source. I still would like to understand your hypothesis better, since it seems to me that these facts alone would promote collapse of WTC 7.

Unfortunately I live in Kentucky, I called a local university materials science department, and got laughed at. The Prof. said to someone else I do not know who, and I quote [...]
I have received similar replies from all the Universities around here, The only people who have listened to me are Prof. Thomas Eagar, and Dr. Frank Greening. I am continuing to work on this now not to really debunk the 9/11 truth crowd, but to save lives if I can find a way to cool the Surface of the Aluminum quickly I can stop the process at every stage. It might someday save the life of fire fighters to know this stuff.
You should try again. Maybe you're going about it wrong. Instead of telling them you're investigating Sept. 11th, tell them that you're interested in researching unusual exothermic reactions in metals, relevant to manufacturing and fire safety. If you leave all political agenda out of it, you'll probably get more sympathy from professors. Organize your findings to date, clearly state your hypotheses, and propose methods for further investigation.

Tell you what I can do right now, let me try a quick literature search to see if anybody's tackled a similar problem. I'll bet there are some papers out there that come pretty close. You should be able to look them up in your own time, contact the authors, and go from there.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Maybe it will help if you describe your experiment in detail. What is the setup, what steps, what are your operating assumptions, etc. I keep feeling like we're jumping into the middle of it. Maybe the things I'm objecting to are things you've accounted for elsewhere.

Basicly what I have done is burned steel, with burning molten Aluminum, The burning molten Aluminum is created by wave motion in a diesel fire, allowing the Iron Oxide to build up in the Aluminum, then expose that to the effects of my tractor diesel engine running, by clamping the pan to a steel beam and heating it. While clamped to the front bumper of the tractor.
The result, is http://chainsawsanders.com/P1000386.JPG
Themite reactions, forturnately they tend to trigger before they become dangerous explosives, but if I were far enough away from the source of the vibrations they would act completely different.

There are other reasons to support this hypothesis that have nothing to do with chemistry -- in particular, the load transfer beam design, and the large diesel fuel tank itself as an energy source. I still would like to understand your hypothesis better, since it seems to me that these facts alone would promote collapse of WTC 7.

The tank has been ruled out because it was found still intact, something cause the main surport beam to weaken and break causing the collapse.
Or at least that is what the report said. What triggered the beam to collapse is still unknown.

You should try again. Maybe you're going about it wrong. Instead of telling them you're investigating Sept. 11th, tell them that you're interested in researching unusual exothermic reactions in metals, relevant to manufacturing and fire safety. If you leave all political agenda out of it, you'll probably get more sympathy from professors. Organize your findings to date, clearly state your hypotheses, and propose methods for further investigation.

Tell you what I can do right now, let me try a quick literature search to see if anybody's tackled a similar problem. I'll bet there are some papers out there that come pretty close. You should be able to look them up in your own time, contact the authors, and go from there.


I did that before exactly as you stated and did not mention 9/11, on my first try, and the State Police showed up they thought I was trying to make a homemade bomb.
I would rather be taken as a harmless 9/11 fruit cake than a bomb making psychotic.
I would greatly apreciate any help I can get.

[Polaris]

3. Please listen to this (http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=1103) broadcast (rm-stream) by Dave Emory, recorded in July 2001 and aired on the 10th of September 2001, and try to see the bigger picture.

Well, it was my 22nd birthday, Anne Heche was insane, Gary Condit was being convincted of murder by the media, and the biggest threat Americans faced were bloodthirsty sharks chasing us out of the water.

Boy, all that peace and prosperity was a real bitch come to think of it.

[Polaris]

However, to date, no real evidence for any 9/11 CT has come to light LIHOP, MIHOP or even IHoP.

Hearing "pancake theory" all the time puts people in the mood for lots of short stacks.

[Polaris]

Sexual molestation of children only became common enough to be a problem as a result of the sexually repressed Victorian society. Lots of lovely sexual deviance was born out of that sick little society. And now we're all stuck with them.

-Andrew

Um...Mohammad and Aisha.

[Childlike Empress]

@Polaris: Perhaps you better try to grow up before looking at the bigger picture.

CLE:

If you prevail, a tip of my hat and a smile to you...but I doubt that will happen.

The idea of money and power are almost as old as civilized humankind. This is what will keep your ideal from occuring. Yes a Utopian or "Star Trekian" type of future for earth, and then beyond (getting way in the future now) is a wonderful idea, but EXTREMELY unlikely.

The CT movement is EXTREMELY small, and is not growing at the pace they think it is. They are misguided by opinion polls and the expansiveness of the internet. Still 70% of the USA believe the govt had no roll in 9/11, and well over 90% believe that it was Al-Qaeda that caused 9/11.

I don't think that such a kind of future is unlikely. What i think is unlikely is that we can go on like we did for more than a few years. We will destroy ourselves if we don't stop this madness. You are right, it's all about money and power but this is the first time where ordinary people are really able to realize the problems (thanks to modern communication techniques). On the other hand, the same techniques are used to hypnotise and manipulate the ordinary people. The TV as we know it today is something Goebbels could only dream of in his sickest wet dream.

The people are waking up to the problems (and i don't point to 9/11 specificly) and it is up to people like you and me, to try to inform them. I'm doing my best but you seem to be not willing to even think of the possibility that it might be neccesary AND that we can be successful.

We are not up to one evil conspiracy but our system is so corrupt that it conspires against itself mostly because of fear (and greed).

Yes, the CT movement is growing. So is the movement that believes in alien abductions. The "movement" is almost exclusively a base of internet savy twenty somethings with alot of time on their hands (and yes there are exceptions).

Within that CT movement, are people like yourself who have a Utopian dream for the world, but that group is only a minute fraction of the CT group, with of course, a group outside the CTers who believe in a UTOPIA to join you.

UTOPIA will never happen. Call me a pesimist, I like to call myself a realist. When George W. Bush is out, someone just like him will be in. When the next King of the Saudi Royals dies, another will rise to the thrown. When Bill Gates passes, another like him will rise. Ken Lay is gone, and another is already in his place. The world is still, and always will be ruled by the wealthy and powerful...That will not likely change.

You speak from a very "western" view. What you call "CT Movement" and put in a corner with "alien abduction", is the mainstream in south america, africa, the middle east and parts of asia.

[...] But I am sure you know this, and I am just standing on the soap box, so I'll get down now.

:)
TAM

I know your arguments (oh boy, i really do...). I say: Humanity - evolve or die.

Well, CLE, this is as close as you've come to a basic statement of your platform, so I guess first of all thanks for putting your thoughts in some kind of order. Of course, I continue to note your complete refusal to present any evidence that your Metropolis-inspired worldview is, you know, in any way valid.

Frankly, I think it is not. Instead of reading Marxist political philosophers, you should read some economists - just basic macroeconomic survey texts. Life is a competition to secure for scarce resources. War is a violent competition to secure scarce resources. Your "open society" can never and will never happen so long as: 1) resources are scarce; and 2) people prefer their own families to strangers. When the aliens land and give us free energy and food, maybe we can work together and form some sort of united federation of planets. Until then, forget it.

Sorry for the delay, LL, i had a busy weekend and have generally not a lot of time to write here.

We have enough resources - food and energy - if we really use our abilites and stop following this insane consumerism ideology. I personally don't need the most of this crap. I don't even have a car (ok, that's perhaps not possible in the USA today).

We are are damned heavy populated planet these days but that's due to the underdevelopment of big parts of the world. If they would be allowed to develop modern social security systems, they wouldn't breed like rabbits anymore. These are all problems that can be solved.

But you state that the only alternative to cooperation is a fascist corporate dictatorship. That does not logically follow. The corporations are large and have a lot of influence but they are owned by shareholders and they exist because they create value. They do whatever makes them money. If we as individuals don't buy the products, they die. Ford and General Motors - these were huge companies that are suffering because they cannot make a product people want. There is no overlord ruling class of corporatists. In fact, corporations compete against each other for scarce resources just like individuals do. And they kill each other just like individuals do.

And my country, at least, has regulators working to make sure no collusion between competitors takes place.

It's centralization of power against decentralization of power (open source society). With the money system and the economic sytem we have (based on interest), centralization is a "natural" development and i doubt that the anti-trust laws in your country can really stop it.

But your last statement - that corporations must dominate the world by creating and dehumanizing an enemy - that just does not logically follow from anything else you said. Why would a corporation want to alienate potential customers? Coke wants to sell to Israelis and Arabs and Communists and Martians - Coke wants peace. War is an unpredictable time for business and business generally doesn't like unpredictability.

I said that building up an enemy picture and dehumanizing "them" is necessary for stabilizing "our" dominance over the rest of the planet by force. That is because humans normally don't like to hurt or kill other humans.

Last, you seem to take the example of the German people being misled by Hitler as proof that all people can be misled by fascist corporations and as proof that people can be talked into a war that is not in their own interests. I might remind you that Hitler lost. He did. He got his tiny Austrian ass kicked out of every country he invaded. Can propaganda hold sway over individuals? Absolutely. But not for long.

Oh yes, he lost. Thanks to your grandfathers! And this perhaps last battle of the few against the many they will lose to. The problem is - his ideology didn't lose by now. Look through the propaganda and:

grab a gun and start fighting just like my grandfather did sixty years ago.

(leave the gun - we don't need it) ;)

Now back to 9/11. Good night.

P.S.: Another good book on the subject:

Rev. Priest - Yes! The Conspiracy really exists! - And furthermore it's all your fault! (http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics13/submulti/images/YesTheCon-Priest_sBookPDF.pdf) :D

[Loss Leader]

Well, I guess thanks to CLE for answering. Nothing she says is necessarily true ... or even logical ... or sane. But she's got a really great avatar. So, there's that.

[Childlike Empress]

Nothing to see here. Move on! As you are from New York, LL, (havn't seen that), forget my remark about cars. Insane to own one in NY, isn't it?

[T.A.M.]

CLE:

1. Yes my view is Western, but I am not naive to what "the world" thinks. Soccer is the number one sport in the world, yet most in N. America think is dull/boring. I understand that the North American View is not neccesarily, or even usually, the world view.

2. Like I said before, your Utopian dream, is just that, a dream. To some degree it is a nice dream, but I am gonna be crass, and Politically Incorrect on this one. I am a firm believer in "you get what you work for". If you spent years in University to get yourself a top knotch education (I spent 11 years in University to get where I am, and no I never repeated a year), than you deserve to have success and make alot of money, and yes you deserve to make more than someone who makes a point of not educating themselves, and decides they are not gonna work for a living, but collect a cheque from the govt every month instead. Now don't get me totally wrong...welfare has an important role in society, but in modern times it is thoroughly abused by lazy cut cats who could be, but choose not to be, out working. As well, I am not saying University is the only path to success, far from it. Alot of the richest people in the world had little more than highschool education. I tip my hat to those people. And you know what...there is a reason Communism is all but dead (China will lose it eventually)...it doesn't work...

3. The "Star Trek" view of the future will only work when resources are shared, and not sold, when money/wealth/fame/power becomes worthless. that WILL NOT HAPPEN in our lifetime, or even in 10 lifetimes...

So like I said, you can waste your entire life fruitlessly working to change the box, or you can work within it, to make it better for everyone...

[R.Mackey]

If you folks want to continue this discussion, the Politics forum is thataway...

Not denigrating the topic at all, just trying to separate this discussion from the never-ending Sept. 11th conspiracy stuff, since we've clearly deviated.

[Childlike Empress]

T.A.M., sorry to say that but you are indeed argumenting completely from inside the box. I rant about the few against the many and you think "oh, a communist - they want that everybody, regardless of what they know or contribute to the society get the same status and money. They want my privileges". That absolutely not my point.

Sorry but i really have to leave now (4am here). Perhaps R. is right and we need a new topic for that (but i will come back to "CT"s in it ;)).

Bye for now.

[Kent1]

Basicly what I have done is burned steel, with burning molten Aluminum, The burning molten Aluminum is created by wave motion in a diesel fire, allowing the Iron Oxide to build up in the Aluminum, then expose that to the effects of my tractor diesel engine running, by clamping the pan to a steel beam and heating it. While clamped to the front bumper of the tractor.
The result, is http://chainsawsanders.com/P1000386.JPG
Themite reactions, forturnately they tend to trigger before they become dangerous explosives, but if I were far enough away from the source of the vibrations they would act completely different.



The tank has been ruled out because it was found still intact, something cause the main surport beam to weaken and break causing the collapse.
Or at least that is what the report said. What triggered the beam to collapse is still unknown.



I did that before exactly as you stated and did not mention 9/11, on my first try, and the State Police showed up they thought I was trying to make a homemade bomb.
I would rather be taken as a harmless 9/11 fruit cake than a bomb making psychotic.
I would greatly apreciate any help I can get.


Just a correction, the 2 6000 gal. tanks were reported to be damaged by debris in the NIST report. Some fuel was also found leaked into the gravel and sand below the tanks. http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

The pressurized piping system from the basement fed 2 generators on the 5th floor. One working hypothesis is that the line was feeding fuel for a long period of time. The tanks were found empty. Before the disaster they were considered full.

[Polaris]

@Polaris: Perhaps you better try to grow up before looking at the bigger picture.


If by "grow up" you mean cast all reason and factual analysis to the side and believe in a misguided cornucopia of lunacy like 9/11 CTs, then with all due respect, shove it my dear.

[Pardalis]

Childlike, I'm curious, you have said that you have gone from 70% to 30% in your belief that the WTC were demolished by CD. What was it that made you more skeptical of the CD theory, and on what do you base your remaining 30%?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Just a correction, the 2 6000 gal. tanks were reported to be damaged by debris in the NIST report. Some fuel was also found leaked into the gravel and sand below the tanks. http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

The pressurized piping system from the basement fed 2 generators on the 5th floor. One working hypothesis is that the line was feeding fuel for a long period of time. The tanks were found empty. Before the disaster they were considered full.

I know thanks the tanks are believed to have survived the fire, and then been damaged in the collapse.
They were not melted and did not explode as first thought, thanks for clarifying that though.
Here is what I have been doing a few, drawings of the mechanics, they are crud and my apologies for that.

http://chainsawsanders.com/ExplosiveAluminum.jpg

http://chainsawsanders.com/donottrythisathome.jpg