All 9/11 ideas welcomed here [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : All 9/11 ideas welcomed here

Pages : 1 [2]

Gravy

21st May 2007, 01:16 PM

I am simply asking questions based on a theory (that's how theories are proved)!No, the proof of a theory is in the evidence that supports it.

I think a Christian is somone who looks at all evidence from all angles and makes a decision based off overwhelming evidence in one way or another....we don't have that with 911 and it's hard to confirm any theory because of that. If what you say is correct, then you won't have any problem pointing out what the investigations – which produced massive amounts of evidence – got wrong. Can you do that?

JonnyFive

21st May 2007, 01:30 PM

You're right Mr. Jonny, Russo is the only account, credible or not...if anyone finds anymore evidence please let us know. Let's get Nick on CNN :)

So you have basically no reason to leap to any conclusions based on what he said at all. So why don't you provide:

1) Evidence Nick Rockefeller said any of what Aaron Russo claims he did, not counting Aaron Russo claiming he said those things without evidence.

2) Evidence the Rockefellers are an "Illuminati family"

Go on, you must have something. Documents. Letters. Testimony by disgruntled insiders. Some kind of hard evidence. If not, why are you talking about the Rockefellers being an "Illuminati family?"

I see reasons to suspect Russo may not be the best, least biased source right off. I can see how the image of the tyrannical Rockefellers plays very well into his anti-Federal Reserve, taxation-is-illegal worldview. His views on these matters seem to prevent him from seeing the situation as anything but a deep-seated conspiracy.

Consider this, israelside:

The world is not ruled by evil masters bent on domination of the "sheeple." In fact, the world is not really ruled by anyone. Governments are held together by fragile, corruptable social contracts that can and do crumble into dust for the smallest of reasons.

Our economic system is built on the unsteady foundation of mutual consent. The market, through all its technical complexity, is simply a product of the people that make it up and their mutual wants and needs. It can be modelled and studied, but tends to resist attempts at controlling it in the most confounding ways.

Currency is worth nothing. Gold is worth nothing. Nothing is worth anything but what another person is willing to pay for it. There are no grand societies that rule through time and space, only groups of men and women trying to hold onto their fragile wealth in a changing, dangerous world.

The real world is one where a group of religious fanatics with sufficient resources and a few lucky breaks can snuff our a few thousand lives forever. The real world is one where a rogue leader could wield the power to wipe an entire city from the face of the Earth.

To say that 9/11 was caused by this evil cabal, or that the Illuminati manipulate history is to say "at least someone was in control!" All we need to do is remove them from power, then life will be fine.

Too bad that's not reality. The reality is that there will probably always be those who are willing to destroy others because of their fanatical beliefs. There is no global elite to fight against, no corporate masters that can be toppled to magically fix the world. There is only the true believer, waiting in the dark, sharpening his box-cutter, looking for an opportunity to strike against something he hates.

To say that 9/11 was not an inside job requires a measure courage. It requires that one admit that the world is chaotic, and sometime s**t happens for no good reason. The "they" of the conspiracy theorist is a nice, warm, safe blanket against the real world. "They" might be horrible, but least "they" are predictable, and can be readily fought against.

Too bad it's not like that in the real world.

Skeptic Guy

21st May 2007, 02:48 PM

Better yet, that there is any such thing as an "Illuminati" for crying out loud. Leave alone that the Rockefellers were members.

PhantomWolf

21st May 2007, 09:13 PM

It is not the same

No it's not the same, OBL's statments were firsthand, the claimed quote from Rockefeller is heresay.

OBL may have been behind it (but he did initially deny involvement)

Well duh! I mean come on, he was facing extradition to the US if he owned up. How many times have you heard about anyone that commited a crime owning up to it when first asked if they did it?

I think we can take a Rockefeller's statement about world affairs much more serious.

Why? Because it conforms to what you want to believe already?

Has anyone found out more about what Rockefeller said?

It was heresay from Aaron Russo which has nothing other then his word behind it as evidence of it ever occuring. This is Heresay, which you seem to have admited below.

You're right Mr. Jonny, Russo is the only account, credible or not...if anyone finds anymore evidence please let us know. Let's get Nick on CNN :)

For what purpose? If he really did say it, why would he admit to doing so, and if he claimed that he hadn't ever said it, would you believe him?

gumboot

21st May 2007, 09:16 PM

I think a Christian is somone who looks at all evidence from all angles and makes a decision based off overwhelming evidence in one way or another....

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. What are you smoking?

-Gumboot

beachnut

21st May 2007, 09:52 PM

Better yet, that there is any such thing as an "Illuminati" for crying out loud. Leave alone that the Rockefellers were members.
He saw it on the History Channel, it has to be "true". Can I sue the History Channel, they let as much misinformation flow sometimes as the truth movement does all the time.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd May 2007, 06:32 AM

ok Arkan I don't need 50 websites saying the same thing...I am not speaking in circles like "begging the question" indicates.
Petitio principii <> circulus in demonstrando.

I said the Rockefellers are a pronounced Illuminati family and therefore has a great stake of influence in world affairs/policy ...this makes him a credible source (doesn't prove he did 911).
THAT IS BEGGING THE QUESTION. You assume that we agree that the Illuminati exist, and that the Rockefellers are part of it. We do not. You must substantiate this, otherwise the rest of your argument is based upon a petitio principii fallacy.

ETA: Look, to put it another way, you are saying:
P1: If Rockefeller is part of the Illuminati, then he is a credible source
P2: He is part of the Illuminati
C: Therefore, he is a credible source

Now, while that is logically consistent, P2 has not been shown to be true, nor have you demonstrated that the Illuminati exist as an organization such as you imply. Therefore, we can not agree with your conclusion.

Belz...

22nd May 2007, 09:26 AM

Afternoon bob, Nick Rockefeller has quite a deal of authority in his field and so do many of the Rockefeller's as a whole. The family is a deep seeded illuminati family

Evidence ?

and have quite a bit of money (which if you don't notice moves things in this world).

Ah, yes. Evil money. Do you work for free ?

I might be wrong, but the odds are when someone like that speaks with such determination and conviction how can you really ignore it right?

That's called charisma, and it's not an argument.

Belz...

22nd May 2007, 09:30 AM

Look Arkan, I am not proving evidence based on an argument I have predetermined, I am simply asking questions based on a theory (that's how theories are proved)!

Nope. Theories are proved by providing evidence, the very thing you admit to NOT doing.

"Theft is illegal because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be against the law." is foolish...theft is illegal because we created laws to defeat a morally offensive act as taking something somone else has without their consent!

Which is the same thing as the first sentence.

I'm saying if he had motivations behind 911 (or other big wigs) then it would prove the theory

No, it wouldn't. Motive is only one of the things that puts physical evidence into perspective, but it does not prove a case.

Evolution is a theory and people look at apes to try and prove it...or creationists try to point out God's hand in the world to prove their theory...that is not a fallacy, it is proving your theory (based no little evidence) by collecting more evidence!

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming as to be called FACT. The process of evolution, however, is the theory. Do you know what the word "theory" means ?

But we should not be blind to contrary evidence either (contrary to our theory)!

Hopefully YOU have been doing that as well.

Belz...

22nd May 2007, 09:33 AM

I disagree, the truth movement is full of smart people that theorize about 911 and its aftermath based off world history, former terrorist attacks and current evidence (as much as we have).

I don't care if they're smart or not. I care about the evidence that they have.

Christ was a Jew but also God...so we could get very deep in this but its pointless. Christ blamed the pharasee's for making the temple into a "den of theves"...he blamed people for persecuting him, and us for standing fast in our faith. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

Yes, and Gandalf said that all you can decide is what to do with the time that is given to you. Quoting fictional characters is not the issue.

I said the Rockefellers are a pronounced Illuminati family and therefore has a great stake of influence in world affairs/policy...this makes him a credible source

Except that we don't even know if the Illuminati exist.

Belz...

22nd May 2007, 09:36 AM

There is no global elite to fight against, no corporate masters that can be toppled to magically fix the world. There is only the true believer, waiting in the dark, sharpening his box-cutter, looking for an opportunity to strike against something he hates.

And in that respect, he's not that different from the guy who shoots himself in the head after killing innocent people in a school for getting bad grades, or his girlfriend and family because she left him.

Hatred is a powerful thing. It often can't be predicted, and bad things happen. CTers would like things to be simplistic, so they can be easily controlled. They are wrong. Terribly, horribly wrong.

Belz...

22nd May 2007, 09:38 AM

A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. What are you smoking?

Thermite.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd May 2007, 09:46 AM

Belz...

22nd May 2007, 09:54 AM

I kinda feel sorry for you, Arkan, but nice effort !! ;)

Blackwell

22nd May 2007, 10:59 AM

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. What are you smoking?

-Gumboot

Who knows. Maybe he meant to say "I think a Christian is somone who looks at all evidence from all angels" :D

Or maybe he's just nutty.

CurtC

22nd May 2007, 11:15 AM

Y'see, a Christian has to look at and weigh the various scenarios of young earth creationism, old earth creationism, directed evolution, and intelligent design, among others, and make the choice of which one he wants to believe. We atheists are stuck in our naturalistic evolution, evidence-based dogma.

israelside

22nd May 2007, 01:30 PM

Better yet, that there is any such thing as an "Illuminati" for crying out loud. Leave alone that the Rockefellers were members.

The Illuminati is a real group, maybe they don't exist anymore but they did at one time. Families, like the big bankers (Morgans, Rockefellers, etc) hold great power in this world because of their influence socially, economically and politically. Whether you believe their goals are ultimately good or evil is your opinion but whether they have great authority is not questioned by experts. Yes the Rockefellers have bloodlines of the "Illuminati" indeed!

JimBenArm

22nd May 2007, 01:37 PM

The Illuminati is a real group, maybe they don't exist anymore but they did at one time. Families, like the big bankers (Morgans, Rockefellers, etc) hold great power in this world because of their influence socially, economically and politically. Whether you believe their goals are ultimately good or evil is your opinion but whether they have great authority is not questioned by experts. Yes the Rockefellers have bloodlines of the "Illuminati" indeed!
Your opinion has been noted. Now, prove there is, or even was, a group called the Illuminati, using something other than assertion and accusation.

I'll just hold my breath while you try to do this.

israelside

22nd May 2007, 01:43 PM

Further clarification:
Circular reasoning
(Judeo-Christian) God wrote the bible. How do we know? The bible tells us so.

Begging the question
God wrote the bible. The bible says abortion is wrong. Since the bible is the word of God, we should outlaw abortions.

Probability insists that some form of life supernatural exists, ghosts have been proven by the catholics, mediums and millions of known sitings. The probablity of life existing on earth based on heat, water, oxygen is very small, the odds our kind exists somewhere else in our galaxy is limited aswell based on the size of other suns. This raises the probability of God exisiting, prophecies have come true based on biblical accounts and various others. This proves (atleast as much as we want to believe) that God exists...therefore God wrote the bible because the writings are based on evidence and truth prophecies. The bible says killing is wrong (atleast from man to man) (killing is unjust aswell)...abortion is unjust, so all abortions should be outlawed. Be specific when you speak about stuff

israelside

22nd May 2007, 01:46 PM

Anyone have a debunking for the new evidence surrounding professor Jones' findings?

They have a challenge for you!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm

JimBenArm

22nd May 2007, 01:51 PM

Probability insists that some form of life supernatural exists, ghosts have been proven by the catholics, mediums and millions of known sitings. The probablity of life existing on earth based on heat, water, oxygen is very small, the odds our kind exists somewhere else in our galaxy is limited aswell based on the size of other suns. This raises the probability of God exisiting, prophecies have come true based on biblical accounts and various others. This proves (atleast as much as we want to believe) that God exists...therefore God wrote the bible because the writings are based on evidence and truth prophecies. The bible says killing is wrong (atleast from man to man) (killing is unjust aswell)...abortion is unjust, so all abortions should be outlawed. Be specific when you speak about stuff
Sayeth the one who just spoke on how many different subjects?

You keep making assertions, but offering no proof. Just stating something like the Catholics and mediums (oh, boy) have proven ghosts are real is opinion. The Catholics? Really? Where do you get that from? How did they prove it? What was the protocol used? Could there have been cheating? We don't know. We just have somebody's opinion, who probably isn't very good at critical thinking from the stuff posted by him so far.

Get some real evidence. Otherwise you are wasting your and our time.

israelside

22nd May 2007, 01:58 PM

Your opinion has been noted. Now, prove there is, or even was, a group called the Illuminati, using something other than assertion and accusation.

I'll just hold my breath while you try to do this.

Illuminati evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
http://www.benbest.com/history/bavarian.html

Under a section called "Fritz Springmeier" you find the 13 families

http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Illuminati

Removed lines due to violation of civility rules. Do not attack the person, attack the argument.

Redtail

22nd May 2007, 02:29 PM

Anyone have a debunking for the new evidence surrounding professor Jones' findings?

They have a challenge for you!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm

The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.
The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.

So they found traces od sulphur and that proves it was arson? Great! See I don't have tornado insurance but I do have fire and theft insurance on my home. Using the logic in the quote that means if my house gets hit by a tornado they will find iron, aluminum, and sulphur (which the vast vast VAST majority of buildings will have) and I can get them to pay!

beachnut

22nd May 2007, 02:33 PM

beachnut

22nd May 2007, 02:39 PM

I disagree, the truth movement is full of smart people that theorize about 911 and its aftermath based off world history, former terrorist attacks and current evidence (as much as we have).
Full of what? The truth movement is full of misinformation. You need to base your conclusions on facts and evidence, not a work of fiction by people who are telling lies. The truth movement is full of two types of people, gullible people who believe lies, and those telling the lies. A simple cult with dissimilar splinter clusters spouting the same old junk.

If only you had some evidence. As much as you have = 0

JimBenArm

22nd May 2007, 05:37 PM

For one thing Jim, you are a total sarcastic ass...you say nothing of value but everything of foolish ignorance.

Illuminati evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
http://www.benbest.com/history/bavarian.html

Under a section called "Fritz Springmeier" you find the 13 families

http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Illuminati
So, me challenging you to support your outrageous views really upsets you, doesn't it? Do you think it bothers me in the least?
Oh, can you link the Bavarian Illuminati to the present day? Your links say the conspiracy loons believe it, but again, belief is not proof. Lots of "alleged", "believed to be", absolutely no proof.
So, again, think you're up to the task? Come on, I'm willing to be convinced, but you have to come up with something a whole lot better than this nonsense!
Next thing, you'll tell me Oswald wasn't the lone gunman!

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd May 2007, 05:42 PM

Probability insists that some form of life supernatural exists, ghosts have been proven by the catholics, mediums and millions of known sitings. The probablity of life existing on earth based on heat, water, oxygen is very small, the odds our kind exists somewhere else in our galaxy is limited aswell based on the size of other suns. This raises the probability of God exisiting, prophecies have come true based on biblical accounts and various others. This proves (atleast as much as we want to believe) that God exists...therefore God wrote the bible because the writings are based on evidence and truth prophecies. The bible says killing is wrong (atleast from man to man) (killing is unjust aswell)...abortion is unjust, so all abortions should be outlawed. Be specific when you speak about stuff
Okay, I'll be very specific:
There is no God, Judeo-Christian or otherwise. Your strawman arguments concerning life on Earth are addressed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

ETA: Now, drop the red herring and address the logical fallacy in your argument.

PhantomWolf

22nd May 2007, 05:57 PM

Okay, I'll be very specific:
There is no God, Judeo-Christian or otherwise.

Care to prove that claim?

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd May 2007, 06:01 PM

Care to prove that claim?
Not in this particular subforum.

PhantomWolf

22nd May 2007, 06:18 PM

Oh any subforum would do, I just want to see you being the first person in history to prove a negative.

Arkan_Wolfshade

22nd May 2007, 06:22 PM

Oh any subforum would do, I just want to see you being the first person in history to prove a negative.
If you want to discuss it, start a thread in Religion and Philosophy and send me a link. Either way, drop it from this thread, it's a red herring by israelsides.

Corsair 115

22nd May 2007, 07:21 PM

Probability insists that some form of life supernatural exists, ghosts have been proven by the catholics, mediums and millions of known sitings. Ghosts have been proven have they? Then in which scientific periodical may I read the article which puts forth the evidence for that claim? Evidence which withstood peer review?

The probablity of life existing on earth based on heat, water, oxygen is very small, the odds our kind exists somewhere else in our galaxy is limited aswell based on the size of other suns. This raises the probability of God exisiting, prophecies have come true based on biblical accounts and various others. How exactly does the probability of an event have anything to do with proving or disproving the existence of God?

The Super 7 lottery here in Ontario has odds of 21 million to 1 against someone having successfully picked the correct 7 numbers out of 47 to win the full jackpot. I remember a draw last year in which there were two such winning tickets - an extremely unlikely event. Does this therefore prove the existence of God? Does it raise the probability of God existing?

...therefore God wrote the bible because the writings are based on evidence and truth prophecies. God wrote the Bible? I thought people wrote the Bible. Granted, these folks were apparently listening to God as they transcribed what He was saying, but nevertheless it was people who wrote it down. So how do you eliminate the possibility that some of those human being who were writing down the Bible didn't mishear something God said? Or perhaps heard it right but wrote it down wrong? (And do I even dare raise the thorny issue of the many, many different translations there are of the Bible? Which translation is the correct one?)

The bible says killing is wrong (atleast from man to man) (killing is unjust aswell)...You must therefore be a pacifist, yes? You must therefore be against war under any circumstance, yes? The commandment against killing does not list any exceptions or exemptions, it just says, "Thou shall not kill."

CurtC

22nd May 2007, 09:18 PM

Oh any subforum would do, I just want to see you being the first person in history to prove a negative.
In that same vein, no one can prove that there was no NWO involvement in 9/11, we can just present the evidence that indicates the most parsimonious explanation is that a link did not exist. Just like with God.

Dave Rogers

23rd May 2007, 01:23 AM

Anyone have a debunking for the new evidence surrounding professor Jones' findings?

They have a challenge for you!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm

A classic case of affirming the consequent, something Steven Jones is particularly good at. The reasoning goes something like this:

Thermate contains sulfur.
Samples from the WTC contain sulfur.
Therefore, the WTC was demolished by thermate.

An equivalent piece of reasoning would be:

Rotten eggs give off hydrogen sulfide, which contains sulfur.
Samples from the WTC contain sulfur.
Therefore, the WTC was demolished by being pelted with rotten eggs.

Basically there's nothing here to debunk.

Dave

Belz...

23rd May 2007, 04:54 AM

The Illuminati is a real group, maybe they don't exist anymore but they did at one time.

Just saying that they are real does not make it so. Do you have ANY form of evidence that they do ? If not, how can you claim that anyone's part of them ?

Probability insists that some form of life supernatural exists

Not really. It doesn't matter how many people believe in it or claim to have seen it. Only evidence matters.

ghosts have been proven by the catholics, mediums and millions of known sitings. The probablity of life existing on earth based on heat, water, oxygen is very small, the odds our kind exists somewhere else in our galaxy is limited aswell based on the size of other suns. This raises the probability of God exisiting, prophecies have come true based on biblical accounts and various others. This proves (atleast as much as we want to believe) that God exists...

Well that says a lot about your ability to form a rational thought. No wonder you're a truther.

therefore God wrote the bible because the writings are based on evidence and truth prophecies.

Now THAT is circular reasoning.

israelside

23rd May 2007, 12:26 PM

So, me challenging you to support your outrageous views really upsets you, doesn't it? Do you think it bothers me in the least?
Oh, can you link the Bavarian Illuminati to the present day? Your links say the conspiracy loons believe it, but again, belief is not proof. Lots of "alleged", "believed to be", absolutely no proof.
So, again, think you're up to the task? Come on, I'm willing to be convinced, but you have to come up with something a whole lot better than this nonsense!
Next thing, you'll tell me Oswald wasn't the lone gunman!

You're right Jim, I don't have conclusive evidence of these things but the fact that the B.I. bloodlines do include the rockefellers hints to the fact that they may hold secrets of upper establishment kings...why do you refuse and ignore any such scenarios? You like to think everything and everyone in the world is honest and good and their goals are pure, if anyone is naive it's you! Don't you realize how corrupt our govt is and the UN? I am still working on more evidence of things but you seem to refuse any evidence of corruption anywhere...but 90+ % of people now know that oswald was the patsy and another gunman was in the grassy knowl..everyone in my family believes it and no way JFK's head can fly backwards like it did in the car not to mention the "magic" lone bullet that did all that damage (and went different directions). Nostradamus did predict there would be a patsy and another man would escape free in JFK's shooting. Speaking about this is really a waste of time if you don't know the overwhelming evidence!

gumboot

23rd May 2007, 12:29 PM

You're right Jim, I don't have conclusive evidence of these things but the fact that the B.I. bloodlines do include the rockefellers hints to the fact that they may hold secrets of upper establishment kings...why do you refuse and ignore any such scenarios? You like to think everything and everyone in the world is honest and good and their goals are pure, if anyone is naive it's you! Don't you realize how corrupt our govt is and the UN? I am still working on more evidence of things but you seem to refuse any evidence of corruption anywhere...but 90+ % of people now know that oswald was the patsy and another gunman was in the grassy knowl..everyone in my family believes it and no way JFK's head can fly backwards like it did in the car not to mention the "magic" lone bullet that did all that damage (and went different directions). Nostradamus did predict there would be a patsy and another man would escape free in JFK's shooting. Speaking about this is really a waste of time if you don't know the overwhelming evidence!

Nostradamus? :faint:

-Gumboot

Blackwell

23rd May 2007, 12:33 PM

...Nostradamus did predict there would be a patsy and another man would escape free in JFK's shooting. Speaking about this is really a waste of time if you don't know the overwhelming evidence!

israelside, I thought you claimed to be a Christian? You do realize that believing in Nostradamus' predictions is against your religion, don't you?

israelside

23rd May 2007, 12:35 PM

A classic case of affirming the consequent, something Steven Jones is particularly good at. The reasoning goes something like this:

Thermate contains sulfur.
Samples from the WTC contain sulfur.
Therefore, the WTC was demolished by thermate.

An equivalent piece of reasoning would be:

Rotten eggs give off hydrogen sulfide, which contains sulfur.
Samples from the WTC contain sulfur.
Therefore, the WTC was demolished by being pelted with rotten eggs.

Basically there's nothing here to debunk.

Dave

Ok Dave, since you know alot about what was in the WTC or even building 7...what does thermate have in it that would distinguish it out from anything else in the buildings? If nothing, then could you have really prove thermate was in the building? NO i imagine...Where did sulfur exist in the buildings? I understand your logic and it makes sense but answer my question since you know alot about the situation.

Disbelief

23rd May 2007, 12:40 PM

JonnyFive

23rd May 2007, 12:40 PM

Arkan_Wolfshade

23rd May 2007, 12:42 PM

Not being an expert, but I believe thermate has barium and there was not enough found on site to prove it was there. Also, wouldn't sulfur be in the drywall?
Correct on both counts kitten-bo^h^h^h^h Disbelief.

israelside

23rd May 2007, 12:43 PM

israelside, I thought you claimed to be a Christian? You do realize that believing in Nostradamus' predictions is against your religion, don't you?

Many mysteries exist in the universe...no matter how Nostradamus got his prophecies doesn't matter, the fact if they come true or not is all that matters right? That's like saying an Atheist knew a car was coming straight at you and told you to move out of the way, but since he didn't believe in God I should just keep on walking and get hit. Sometimes people know things that don't believe exactly how we believe even if it's supernatural...I thought Nostradamus was a christian, maybe he just had a gift.

JonnyFive

23rd May 2007, 12:47 PM

Many mysteries exist in the universe...no matter how Nostradamus got his prophecies doesn't matter, the fact if they come true or not is all that matters right? That's like saying an Atheist knew a car was coming straight at you and told you to move out of the way, but since he didn't believe in God I should just keep on walking and get hit. Sometimes people know things that don't believe exactly how we believe even if it's supernatural...I thought Nostradamus was a christian, maybe he just had a gift.

You know what would really convince me? Posting a few of Nostradamus' prophecies that unequivocally predict something specific in the future, that can actually be attributed to Nostradamus.

None of this curve-fitting BS where you struggle to try to fit something that happened to a prophecy. Also, no making up Nostradamus quotes that sound better than the real ones.

Corsair 115

23rd May 2007, 12:49 PM

Many mysteries exist in the universe...no matter how Nostradamus got his prophecies doesn't matter, the fact if they come true or not is all that matters right?Uh, considering that Nostradamus' predictions are written so vaguely that it relies on the reader to supply the interpretation as to what is supposedly being described, I think your claim that he accurately predicted anything is without much merit.

Now, if Nostradamus had written something like, "On the 11th of September in the new millennium, two great towers in the New city of York will crumble down in great clouds of smoke" that would be much more interesting, since it is at least contains some specific details.

Alas, he wrote nothing like this whatsoever. All his predictions require a great amount of interpretation on the part of the reader to discern.

israelside

23rd May 2007, 12:51 PM

You know what would really convince me? Posting a few of Nostradamus' prophecies that unequivocally predict something specific in the future, that can actually be attributed to Nostradamus.

None of this curve-fitting BS where you struggle to try to fit something that happened to a prophecy. Also, no making up Nostradamus quotes that sound better than the real ones.

You're right, alot of his predictions are vague and might be applied to alot of events but the one about hister and the one about JFK are specific and don't line up with much else of great magnatude...granted the one about hister (hitler) doesn't say his name outright but he was writing in another language and the translation may have missed it...too many things line up though to simple ignore it however

CurtC

23rd May 2007, 12:53 PM

You're right Jim, I don't have conclusive evidence of these things but the fact that the B.I. bloodlines do include the rockefellers hints to the fact that they may hold secrets of upper establishment kings...

I'll just ignore all the nonsense about Oswald and Nostradamus, although it does make me think that you are too far gone to save.

But about the Illuminati - can you see the glaring problem with your reasoning in just the sentence I quoted above? You don't have evidence that the Illuminati even exists, yet you state that it's a "fact" that the Rockefellers are in it. And then from that shaky start, you go on to assert that they may hold some kind of unspecified secrets.

Can you at least see the problem with that?

Blackwell

23rd May 2007, 12:56 PM

Many mysteries exist in the universe...no matter how Nostradamus got his prophecies doesn't matter, the fact if they come true or not is all that matters right? That's like saying an Atheist knew a car was coming straight at you and told you to move out of the way, but since he didn't believe in God I should just keep on walking and get hit. Sometimes people know things that don't believe exactly how we believe even if it's supernatural...I thought Nostradamus was a christian, maybe he just had a gift.

No, that's not all that matters, according to your god and your holy book:

http://www.watchman.org/na/psychicno.htm
http://www.gotquestions.org/psychics-Christian.html

ETA: I'm getting off topic here. If you want to know more about the "prophecies" of Nostra D, search these forums. Or start a new thread.

israelside

23rd May 2007, 12:56 PM

Uh, considering that Nostradamus' predictions are written so vaguely that it relies on the reader to supply the interpretation as to what is supposedly being described, I think your claim that he accurately predicted anything is without much merit.

Now, if Nostradamus had written something like, "On the 11th of September in the new millennium, two great towers in the New city of York will crumble down in great clouds of smoke" that would be much more interesting, since it is at least contains some specific details.

Alas, he wrote nothing like this whatsoever. All his predictions require a great amount of interpretation on the part of the reader to discern.

Ya, who couldn't believe that then, and then thousands of lives would have been saved....I do wish he would have spoken more clear, but given how close he was in alot of his predictions doesn't that raise atleat one eye brow? Maybe he just didn't know enough...doesn't mean it was wrong or he wasn't credible. I think alot of people in here are too narrow minded, sometimes you must think big..yes to prove something we must have alot of evidence but sometimes we need to connect the tots in order to make the picture make sense. That would never be the case to anyone in here...and that I think is yals mistake.

JonnyFive

23rd May 2007, 01:00 PM

You're right, alot of his predictions are vague and might be applied to alot of events but the one about hister and the one about JFK are specific and don't line up with much else of great magnatude...granted the one about hister (hitler) doesn't say his name outright but he was writing in another language and the translation may have missed it...too many things line up though to simple ignore it however

Could you perhaps post the predictions to which you refer?

I've seen the "Hister" one, although I don't think it clearly refers to Adolf Hitler. I have seen reference to the word also possibly referring to an area of the Danube (http://people.howstuffworks.com/nostradamus5.htm), and it seems like a pretty round-about way to refer to the second world war.

That's the problem with Nostradamus. Everything is so vague it can refer to lots of things.

So what's the JFK prophecy? I haven't seen that one before.

israelside

23rd May 2007, 01:01 PM

I'll just ignore all the nonsense about Oswald and Nostradamus, although it does make me think that you are too far gone to save.

But about the Illuminati - can you see the glaring problem with your reasoning in just the sentence I quoted above? You don't have evidence that the Illuminati even exists, yet you state that it's a "fact" that the Rockefellers are in it. And then from that shaky start, you go on to assert that they may hold some kind of unspecified secrets.

Can you at least see the problem with that?

Rockefeller bloodlines do exist in the at one time illuminati order...they still hold much power be it illuminati secrets or just social pecking order...i wasn't clear enough....their secrets may not be from the illuminati but they are certainly from the social status and involvment in the CRF etc! Why do you ignore this though and speak only on things i am not clear about? yea...are you ever wrong?

israelside

23rd May 2007, 01:04 PM

Could you perhaps post the predictions to which you refer?

I've seen the "Hister" one, although I don't think it clearly refers to Adolf Hitler. I have seen reference to the word also possibly referring to an area of the Danube (http://people.howstuffworks.com/nostradamus5.htm), and it seems like a pretty round-about way to refer to the second world war.

That's the problem with Nostradamus. Everything is so vague it can refer to lots of things.

So what's the JFK prophecy? I haven't seen that one before.

i must go for now, but i will be on tomorrow or sometime!
you can find those prophecies online..
God bless all!

JonnyFive

23rd May 2007, 01:05 PM

Rockefeller bloodlines do exist in the at one time illuminati order...they still hold much power be it illuminati secrets or just social pecking order...i wasn't clear enough....their secrets may not be from the illuminati but they are certainly from the social status and involvment in the CRF etc! Why do you ignore this though and speak only on things i am not clear about? yea...are you ever wrong?

You're talking a lot about ancient Illuminati bloodlines and world domination-type crap, but providing no evidence for the validity of those theories.

Corsair 115

23rd May 2007, 01:06 PM

Ya, who couldn't believe that then, and then thousands of lives would have been saved....I do wish he would have spoken more clear, but given how close he was in alot of his predictions doesn't that raise atleat one eye brow?You perhaps should read my post again. His predictions are written so vaguely that it relies entirely on the interpretation of the reader to figure out what is being predicted.

If you doubt this, post up some of your favourite Nostradamus quotes and what they purport to predict and I bet myself or others here can offer up equally valid yet completely different assessments of what it is supposedly being predicted.

JonnyFive

23rd May 2007, 01:06 PM

i must go for now, but i will be on tomorrow or sometime!
you can find those prophecies online..
God bless all!

Mind posting some links when you come back? Maybe some of your own interpretation?

twinstead

23rd May 2007, 01:08 PM

Rockefeller bloodlines do exist in the at one time illuminati order...they still hold much power be it illuminati secrets or just social pecking order...i wasn't clear enough....their secrets may not be from the illuminati but they are certainly from the social status and involvment in the CRF etc!

With all due respect, I'm confused about how you and some folks like you can believe things like this as gospel with so little evidence. At best you should be agnostic about this whole Rockefeller and Illuminati bloodline stuff.

But, for some reason you accept all of this as a stone-cold incontrovertible fact.

What is your definition of compelling evidence?

CurtC

23rd May 2007, 02:19 PM

Could you perhaps post the predictions to which you refer?

I've seen the "Hister" one, although I don't think it clearly refers to Adolf Hitler. I have seen reference to the word also possibly referring to an area of the Danube (http://people.howstuffworks.com/nostradamus5.htm)

I no longer count the howstuffworks.com site as being a credible source. That guy buys into creationism and the 9/11 conspiracy apparently.

How about this one (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_051.html)?Yet another verse mentions a certain "Hister," which some claim refers to Adolph Hitler. In fact, though, Hister is simply the classical name for the Lower Danube, and Nostradamus uses it as such in several instances.

chipmunk stew

23rd May 2007, 02:37 PM

Nostradamus did predict there would be a patsy and another man would escape free in JFK's shooting. Speaking about this is really a waste of time if you don't know the overwhelming evidence!
:yikes:

:jshark

JimBenArm

23rd May 2007, 02:51 PM

ConspiRaider

23rd May 2007, 03:25 PM

Ya, who couldn't believe that then, and then thousands of lives would have been saved....I do wish he would have spoken more clear, but given how close he was in alot of his predictions doesn't that raise atleat one eye brow? Maybe he just didn't know enough...doesn't mean it was wrong or he wasn't credible. I think alot of people in here are too narrow minded, sometimes you must think big..yes to prove something we must have alot of evidence but sometimes we need to connect the tots in order to make the picture make sense. That would never be the case to anyone in here...and that I think is yals mistake.
Nostradamus didn't know anything more about "what is gonna happen yonder" than anyone else.

The esteemed James Randi wrote a book called The Mask of Nostradamus, which I now hold in my hand. You should get a copy. It's 256 pages including index. Even has a separate later-added page of Errata.

Randi also wrote a book called Conjuring which I'm also holding in my hand. 314 pages. More for your education - on how easy it is to fool people. Especially those who wish to be fooled.

Randi wrote another one called An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. Got that one too, 284 pages. Terrific reference on a plethora of paranormal ploys.

All 3 tomes are even specialer because the big man autographed 'em to me. You can bet I coo about that to my Diary each and every night.

Since you are entranced with Nostradamus, I'd start with that first one and get grounded in a perspective from that of a true skeptic...

beachnut

23rd May 2007, 03:31 PM

Anyone have a debunking for the new evidence surrounding professor Jones' findings?

They have a challenge for you!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm
It is his same old story. BTW, Yosemite was hit by thermite the other day; PNAC did it!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244745b6c300ddac7.jpg

As you have been told, the sulphur is not due to thermite it was due to wallboard. Wallboard is made from gypsum. Gypsum is CaSO4·2H2O. That S is for Sulfur. OMG, the wallboard did it. Sulfur, wallboard, smoking gun. WOW! Wallboard did it, tons of it. (or was it the eggs?)

Did you even read his new/old stuff? If you can not debunk Jones, you can not debunk anyone. (plus if it is from PrisionPlanet it is pre-debunked)

Dave Rogers

24th May 2007, 01:51 AM

Ok Dave, since you know alot about what was in the WTC or even building 7...what does thermate have in it that would distinguish it out from anything else in the buildings? If nothing, then could you have really prove thermate was in the building? NO i imagine...Where did sulfur exist in the buildings? I understand your logic and it makes sense but answer my question since you know alot about the situation.

Well, no, I don't really know a lot about what was in the WTC buildings, it's just fairly obvious that neither does Jones. I imagine it would be more or less impossible to prove, conclusively, the existence of therm*te in the buildings by chemical analysis, because after all there are less than 100 naturally occurring elements and the ones in therm*te aren't particularly rare. The presence of an element that's present in therm*te is therefore never going to be conclusive evidence of therm*te.

Dave

Belz...

24th May 2007, 05:00 AM

You're right Jim, I don't have conclusive evidence of these things but the fact that the B.I. bloodlines do include the rockefellers hints to the fact that they may hold secrets of upper establishment kings...why do you refuse and ignore any such scenarios?

Because they're nonsense.

You like to think everything and everyone in the world is honest and good and their goals are pure

Strawman. You think everyone's evil ?

but 90+ % of people now know that oswald was the patsy and another gunman was in the grassy knowl..

That's "knoll". A whole lot of people think they know. There is NO evidence to suggest a second gunman. Why would you need one ?

everyone in my family believes it and no way JFK's head can fly backwards like it did in the car

Ever see someone shoot watermellons with a high-powered rifle ?

not to mention the "magic" lone bullet that did all that damage (and went different directions).

Stop watching Kevin Costner movies.

Nostradamus did predict there would be a patsy and another man would escape free in JFK's shooting.

Is there anything you don't believe in ?

Nostradamus' prediction powers, if they existed, would be magic, and therefore a tool of the devil. How can a good christian like you not see that ?

Belz...

24th May 2007, 07:05 AM

Many mysteries exist in the universe...no matter how Nostradamus got his prophecies doesn't matter, the fact if they come true or not is all that matters right?

And how would you know if it came true or not ?

That's like saying an Atheist knew a car was coming straight at you and told you to move out of the way, but since he didn't believe in God I should just keep on walking and get hit.

That's the worst analogy ever.

Sometimes people know things that don't believe exactly how we believe even if it's supernatural...

Just because you guess something right doesn't mean you "knew" it.

You're right, alot of his predictions are vague and might be applied to alot of events but the one about hister and the one about JFK are specific and don't line up with much else of great magnatude...

Why would we expect them to line up with anything ? Seems to me like you simply want them to be true.

too many things line up though to simple ignore it however

A million coincidences still remain coincidences.

Rockefeller bloodlines do exist in the at one time illuminati order...they still hold much power be it illuminati secrets or just social pecking order...i wasn't clear enough....

Evidence ?

israelside

24th May 2007, 03:52 PM

Once upon a time there was an evil group of men who enslaved others, actively participated in terrorism, theft, arson and murder. They conspired to change the laws of a neighboring area to fit more to their liking. There was a war that resulted in one major population area being practically burned to the ground.
What am I talking about? The Missouri/Kansas border war, the James Gang and Quantrell's Raiders. My bloodlines can be traced to all that. In the 1850's, Quantrell's Raiders and members of the group that would become the James Gang raided Lawrence, Kansas and burned it to the ground. They were trying to get Kansas admitted as a slave state so their slaves would not have a free state to flee to right at their doorstep. They robbed the banks all around here, including right down the road in Liberty, Missouri. My ancestors were part of this group. So, israelside, am I still to be held accountable for what they did? Does this mean I have access to plans for bank robberies, evil cabals that want to restore slavery, or other evils? You are perfectly willing to brand the Rockefellers on less than this, only because they are guilty of having money. You have made vile accusations of their integrity, honor, and morality based on rumor, innuendo, gossip, and jealousy. They have been deemed guilty on the basis of unfounded paranoia, only because they happen to possibly have relatives generations removed that maybe did bad things. My relatives did much worse, and it's not rumor, it's fact. So maybe I should be rounded up, by your logic.
Think a bit more about what you're saying about these people, and look at what evidence you're using to tar them with. Look at the sources you're getting the information from. Then think about who's being naive, here.

The Rockefeller bloodline holds great power, aswell as great corruption aswell as great monetary value. My bloodline goes back to quanna parker, he killed people so does that mean i should be held accountable? No way, that's not the issue...obviously you don't understand the 13 key bloodlines and their influence in the world. True, different generations have different mindsets and goals and should not be held accountable (necessarily) for evils previous generations did, however since they hold great authority aswell as secrets we must consider that when one of them speaks right?? Doesn't mean everything they say comes from that "secret cabal of evil" mindset but it does mean their position on the world stage makes them the first to consider when evil raises or power shifts....its not that complex, why do you assume I am making such bold accusations of guilt (because of family history) even though I have repeatedly said this?

defaultdotxbe

24th May 2007, 03:58 PM

As you have been told, the sulphur is not due to thermite it was due to wallboard. Wallboard is made from gypsum. Gypsum is CaSO4·2H2O. That S is for Sulfur. OMG, the wallboard did it. Sulfur, wallboard, smoking gun. WOW! Wallboard did it, tons of it. (or was it the eggs?)

Did you even read his new/old stuff? If you can not debunk Jones, you can not debunk anyone. (plus if it is from PrisionPlanet it is pre-debunked)
even if there was thermate at the WTC i doubt any of the sulphur would still be around, the heat of the thermite reaction would boil the sulphur and probably burn it into sulphur dioxide, which is a gas and would just blow away in the breeze

also interesting is that steven jones cites content of aluminum, iron oxide and barium nitrate, all COMPONENTS of thermate, but not PRODUCTS, hes enver found anything youd expect to be around AFTER a thermite reaction

israelside

24th May 2007, 04:02 PM

Well, no, I don't really know a lot about what was in the WTC buildings, it's just fairly obvious that neither does Jones. I imagine it would be more or less impossible to prove, conclusively, the existence of therm*te in the buildings by chemical analysis, because after all there are less than 100 naturally occurring elements and the ones in therm*te aren't particularly rare. The presence of an element that's present in therm*te is therefore never going to be conclusive evidence of therm*te.

Dave

If it wasn't for me no one would talk in these forums :) however Dave you are getting at another crucial point, that is, if you can show there is no way to ever prove something like thermate was used in the WTC then you prove it wasn't in there? So if we can't prove it was in there by chemical analysis and we can't prove it wasn't in there because of chemical analysis thennnn that must mean we should trust the government and believe their statements about the events of 911. That's why these things are theories...no one can really prove it (yet atleast) we just hope it's true based off prior knowledge of govts and their actions. Speaking about these things (that can't be proved) really is a waste of time you see why? Why not talk about the known cases of CIA drug smuggling or illegal weapons trades by govt agents and try to convict them? Because we all want to push the envelope and create something more, I am guilty at times but is anyone else in here guilty of that aswell? Sure, we all have bias towards something because of our experience with it and our assumptions on cases based off of those experiences we have had. 911 is very deep and unless we get more evidence (namely a chemical in thermate that is distict from all other chemicals in the WTC) or anything else about 911 we just have to theorize...but that doesn't make the theorist nutty or a wacko...it most likely means they as hoping for something to be true that they have seen before, if you havn't you call them nuts and walk away...

israelside

24th May 2007, 04:06 PM

even if there was thermate at the WTC i doubt any of the sulphur would still be around, the heat of the thermite reaction would boil the sulphur and probably burn it into sulphur dioxide, which is a gas and would just blow away in the breeze

also interesting is that steven jones cites content of aluminum, iron oxide and barium nitrate, all COMPONENTS of thermate, but not PRODUCTS, hes enver found anything youd expect to be around AFTER a thermite reaction

ok default, help us all out please...be specific

After thermite or thermate reacts what does it produce? Are any of those chemicals distinct to it alone and not to anything else in the WTC? If not, drop the subject. That's simple right? What created the tremendous heat beneath the towers and wtc7 for so long after 911 then?

beachnut

24th May 2007, 04:13 PM

even if there was thermate at the WTC i doubt any of the sulphur would still be around, the heat of the thermite reaction would boil the sulphur and probably burn it into sulphur dioxide, which is a gas and would just blow away in the breeze

also interesting is that steven jones cites content of aluminum, iron oxide and barium nitrate, all COMPONENTS of thermate, but not PRODUCTS, hes enver found anything youd expect to be around AFTER a thermite reaction
Jones' research is absent. Never has he presented more than fluff and rant, but he is so darn personable everyone loves him. He is pure nuts. NUTS

If a 9/11 truth movement follower believes Jones, then they have no facts and cannot think for themselves or others.

beachnut

24th May 2007, 04:16 PM

defaultdotxbe

24th May 2007, 04:17 PM

ok default, help us all out please...be specific

After thermite or thermate reacts what does it produce? Are any of those chemicals distinct to it alone and not to anything else in the WTC? If not, drop the subject. That's simple right? What created the tremendous heat beneath the towers and wtc7 for so long after 911 then?
sulphur dioxide: gas, might have been found in the EPA tests, but its a product of many combustion reaction, such as diesel fuel burning

elemental iron: again, not unique to thermite since the WTC was made of steel and im sure lots of cast iron machinery was in there as well

barium nitrate: not actually sure what would happen to this, but given the temperatures of a thermite reaction ic an pretty much guarantee it wont remain in this chemical state

alumunium oxide: as i have said many many times before THIS is what jones should be looking for, it would be produced in very large quanities by a thermite reaction and i cant imagine large amounts of it coming from anything else

oh, BTW, thermite burns very rapidly and theres no way to slow the reaction down, the fact that heat remained long after 9/11 is evidence it came from something other than thermite (such a slow burning fire)

israelside

24th May 2007, 04:27 PM

sulphur dioxide: gas, might have been found in the EPA tests, but its a product of many combustion reaction, such as diesel fuel burning

elemental iron: again, not unique to thermite since the WTC was made of steel and im sure lots of cast iron machinery was in there as well

barium nitrate: not actually sure what would happen to this, but given the temperatures of a thermite reaction ic an pretty much guarantee it wont remain in this chemical state

alumunium oxide: as i have said many many times before THIS is what jones should be looking for, it would be produced in very large quanities by a thermite reaction and i cant imagine large amounts of it coming from anything else

oh, BTW, thermite burns very rapidly and theres no way to slow the reaction down, the fact that heat remained long after 9/11 is evidence it came from something other than thermite (such a slow burning fire)

fire doesnt exist without oxygen, millions of tons of steel on top of anything would absorb alot of friction but anything that would glow so hot after weeks would be some sort of chemical reaction makes sense.....if some explosion was in the basement maybe that made the hot spots.

Aluminum is what the debunkers said shooted out that one window caused by the siding of the building melting....if thermate produces aluminum oxide then that is plausible right? granted it should still be there...but remember in order to take out the supporting columns i dont guess much thermate had to be used...

Gravy

24th May 2007, 04:42 PM

....if some explosion was in the basement maybe that made the hot spots.I'll bet you can't explain how that's possible. Don't feel bad: neither can anyone else. Also, there was no explosion in the basement that could cause any hot spots for any length of time. There was, however, many millions of pounds of fuel available to the subterranean fires, and many places where oxygen could enter naturally, as well as being introduced during cleanup.

Aluminum is what the debunkers said shooted out that one window caused by the siding of the building melting....The NIST scientists, who are not debunkers, say the majority of the molten material was most likely aluminum from the aircraft. if thermate produces aluminum oxide then that is plausible right?An intensely hot fire was burning in that corner from the moment the aircraft plowed into it. What's that got to do with thermate?

granted it should still be there...but remember in order to take out the supporting columns i dont guess much thermate had to be used...You guessed wrong. From the NIST WTC FAQ: (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

defaultdotxbe

24th May 2007, 04:44 PM

fire doesnt exist without oxygen, millions of tons of steel on top of anything would absorb alot of friction but anything that would glow so hot after weeks would be some sort of chemical reaction makes sense.....if some explosion was in the basement maybe that made the hot spots.
no, it doesnt make sense, thermite burns out and begins to cool, there is no possible way for it to stay that hot for that long unless you had literally tons of thermite to sustain the reaction

as for a fire, it will draw oxygen through any hole, crack, opening, subway tunnel, hallway, whatever it can find, look up centralia pa, or burning mountain australia, centralia is a coal fire that has been burning underground for 45 years, burning mountain is a coal fire thats estimated to be over 6000 years old, neither seems to have any trobl egetting oxygen

Aluminum is what the debunkers said shooted out that one window caused by the siding of the building melting....if thermate produces aluminum oxide then that is plausible right? granted it should still be there...but remember in order to take out the supporting columns i dont guess much thermate had to be used...
aluminum and aluminum oxide are not the same thing, they dont look the same, they dont react the same to heat, they dont have any physical properties in common other than that they are solid at room temperature

here is what aluminum oxide looks like after a thermite reaction, its a yellowish/whitish powder (depending on the purity)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/defaultdotxbe/aftertheweld.jpg

israelside

24th May 2007, 04:55 PM

Gravy

24th May 2007, 04:58 PM

well think about this, if you placed thermate on every supporting column on just 1 floor, say the 40th floor...if you ignited it then the entire top would fall down on the lower part and crush it and the building would topple over...thats logical right? so if you do that to 20 floors you got a nice collapse like it happend...just a thoughtYour illogical fantasies have gotten the best of you. Your ideas aren't clever, or interesting, or related to reality. They are nonsense. Please try to get a grip on yourself. NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HAPPENED. NOTHING.

Your continued fantasizing will never change that. Buck up.

israelside

24th May 2007, 05:03 PM

Your illogical fantasies have gotten the best of you. Your ideas aren't clever, or interesting, or related to reality. They are nonsense. Please try to get a grip on yourself. NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HAPPENED. NOTHING.

Your continued fantasizing will never change that. Buck up.

my comment was about something that could have happend right? if if you dont think a bunch of floors had thermate or even any, if 1 did like i said wouldn't it topple the whole building? answer that butterfly man

defaultdotxbe

24th May 2007, 05:04 PM

well think about this, if you placed thermate on every supporting column on just 1 floor, say the 40th floor...if you ignited it then the entire top would fall down on the lower part and crush it and the building would topple over...thats logical right? so if you do that to 20 floors you got a nice collapse like it happend...just a thought
if you did that it would burn through whatever casing its in, fall on the floor and burn down through the concrete floor, it wouldnt hurt the columns

also, the building wouldnt topple, the structure would break apart long before it could tilt that far over, skycrapers are designed to stand upright, the farther away from vertical you get the weaker the structure becomes

Gravy

24th May 2007, 05:06 PM

my comment was about something that could have happend right? if if you dont think a bunch of floors had thermate or even any, if 1 did like i said wouldn't it topple the whole building? answer that butterfly manYour illogical fantasies have gotten the best of you. Your ideas aren't clever, or interesting, or related to reality. They are nonsense. Please try to get a grip on yourself. NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HAPPENED. NOTHING.

Your continued fantasizing will never change that. Buck up.

israelside

24th May 2007, 05:07 PM

if you did that it would burn through whatever casing its in, fall on the floor and burn down through the concrete floor, it wouldnt hurt the columns

also, the building wouldnt topple, the structure would break apart long before it could tilt that far over, skycrapers are designed to stand upright, the farther away from vertical you get the weaker the structure becomes

so you're saying its impossible to glue thermate to a column and melt it enough to weaken it? if not completely melt it? if you can then thats what i mean by my statement!

israelside

24th May 2007, 05:10 PM

Your illogical fantasies have gotten the best of you. Your ideas aren't clever, or interesting, or related to reality. They are nonsense. Please try to get a grip on yourself. NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HAPPENED. NOTHING.

Your continued fantasizing will never change that. Buck up.

ignoring my questions...what else from a man who puts his face in a butterfly.

I am 10 times more interesting than you dude, why is this forum only filled with hardend people like yourself? I'v been on here for a few months now and no one has agreed with my hardly at all...funny

Gravy

24th May 2007, 05:12 PM

ignoring my questions...what else from a man who puts his face in a butterfly.

I am 10 times more interesting than you dude, why is this forum only filled with hardend people like yourself? I'v been on here for a few months now and no one has agreed with my hardly at all...funnyIf a bunch of smart, informed, logical, critical thinkers didn't agree with me over a several month period, I'd think about tuning in to the reality channel.

beachnut

24th May 2007, 05:16 PM

so you're saying its impossible to glue thermate to a column and melt it enough to weaken it? if not completely melt it? if you can then thats what i mean by my statement!
Glue? lol is there a ceramic glue? Have you seen thermite? Even if you had the column cutting device to place thermite in, I think it was invented after 9/11. But the device would have to be on the Steel, not 3 inches away behind the wall board or fire insulation.

You need to research Jones and you ideas and then use your head. Jones has nothing. If you need his first paper he wrote I have a copy. He keeps making up stuff as he goes. His first paper is funny. His current work is sad.

Swing Dangler

24th May 2007, 05:21 PM

The CIA do not have a close relationship with the ISI okay? They had a brief alliance of convenience during the Soviet-Afghan War because they both had an interest in the Soviets being beaten. That's it. You're assuming that association was official. When I say "the connections between Al Qaeda and the ISI were well known" I mean it was well known that individual members of the ISI were friendly to and supported Al Qaeda. Not that the organisation officially did. If you think either the ISI or CIA has any control over the former Afghan Mujhideen (let alone Al Qaeda) you are sadly mistaken.
-Gumboot

From the Journal Of Homeland Security and Management-
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
After the embassy bombings of 1998:

Although a credible adversary was present, Tenet could
only pull so much money away from the other bureaus of the CIA for the
campaign against Al Qaeda. The amount of money needed to effectively fight
terrorism and to fund the Counterterrorism Center remained a pipe dream, and the CIA continued to rely on Pakistan’s ISI and other intelligence agencies to do the bulk of the work inside Afghanistan.

The New York Times, October 29, 2001
Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say
The intelligence service of Pakistan, a crucial American ally in the war on terrorism, has had an indirect but longstanding relationship with Al Qaeda, turning a blind eye for years to the growing ties between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, according to American officials.The I.S.I. did cooperate with the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. on several counterterrorism operations in the 1990's. Most notably, the Pakistanis were instrumental in the capture in Islamabad in 1995 of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and the arrest in Pakistan in 1997 of Mir Aimal Kansi, who killed two C.I.A. employees on a shooting rampage outside C.I.A. headquarters in 1993.One former official said the C.I.A. "fell for" what amounted to a stalling tactic aimed at fending off political pressure. The C.I.A. equipped and financed a special commando unit that Pakistan had offered to create to capture Mr. bin Laden. "But this was going nowhere," the former official said. "The I.S.I. never intended to go after bin Laden. We got completely snookered."

I could post a lot more information on the relationship, but you get the point.
Gumbot, you are either lying or lack the knowledge about the relationship the CIA has and continues to have with ISI.
On another note, thanks for being the subject of my first post here at JREF!

defaultdotxbe

24th May 2007, 05:23 PM

so you're saying its impossible to glue thermate to a column and melt it enough to weaken it? if not completely melt it? if you can then thats what i mean by my statement!
yes, thats exactly what im saying, when thermite is reacting is 2500 degrees centigrade and its a liquid, no glue is going to hold it in place

imagine trying to boil water in a cup made out of ice, it aint happening

Even if you had the column cutting device to place thermite in, I think it was invented after 9/11. But the device would have to be on the Steel, not 3 inches away behind the wall board or fire insulation.

the device has been patented (after 9/11) but never produced, and from what ic an tell from reading the patent documents it pretty much only cuts downward, and in circular holes

Swing Dangler

24th May 2007, 05:52 PM

You need to research Jones and you ideas and then use your head. Jones has nothing.

Or you could perform the experiments yourself to invalidate or validate his theory. If the theory was invalidated through the scientific process and experiments, it would completely end any discussion of Jone's theory.

Blackwell

24th May 2007, 06:01 PM

Or you could perform the experiments yourself to invalidate or validate his theory. If the theory was invalidated through the scientific process and experiments, it would completely end any discussion of Jone's theory.

...and then you could move on to Judy Woods. Build an energy beam, launch it into space, aim it at some buildings, and see what happens. Right?
It's not up to us to INVALIDATE his theory. HE needs to validate his theories "through the scientific process and experiments". The onus is on those who propose these outlandish theories to prove their merit.

PS - welcome to the forum, SD

gumboot

24th May 2007, 11:25 PM

From the Journal Of Homeland Security and Management-
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
After the embassy bombings of 1998:

The New York Times, October 29, 2001
Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say

I could post a lot more information on the relationship, but you get the point.
Gumbot, you are either lying or lack the knowledge about the relationship the CIA has and continues to have with ISI.
On another note, thanks for being the subject of my first post here at JREF!

Nothing you have posted refutes what I have said. Neither indicate a close relationship between the CIA and ISI, in fact they suggest the total opposite - one of reluctant cooperation when forced to by political pressure.

This is a far cry from Israelside's assertion that the CIA controls the ISI.

Also neither indicate any sort of official government-sanctioned relationship between Al Qaeda and the ISI. As I said, the ties between specific ISI members (even high-ranking ones) and Al Qaeda has been common knowledge for a very long time, and is no surprise whatsoever.

-Gumboot

Dave Rogers

25th May 2007, 01:57 AM

If it wasn't for me no one would talk in these forums :) however Dave you are getting at another crucial point, that is, if you can show there is no way to ever prove something like thermate was used in the WTC then you prove it wasn't in there? So if we can't prove it was in there by chemical analysis and we can't prove it wasn't in there because of chemical analysis thennnn that must mean we should trust the government and believe their statements about the events of 911.

Wrong.

There is no realistic possibility of proving by chemical analysis of the debris that therm*te either was or was not present; the main constituents of thermite, aluminium, oxygen and iron, were all present in enormous quantities in the structure of the towers and the air around them, and any other elements found by Jones can be explained by experimental artefacts and contamination from other materials known to be present in enormous quantities. As a result, Jones's work tells us precisely nothing.

OK, that's chemical analysis disposed of. However, there is more to consider than chemical analysis. There is the absence of any testimony that large scale work was under way in the WTC towers prior to the attacks that might have been a cover for installing thermite cutting devices. There is the observed failure mode of the towers, which is visibly inconsistent with the cause being severing of the core columns. There are the known properties of the thermite reaction, which make it impossible that the proposed demolition mechanism could have been used without technology that is not known to exist and would certainly involve bulky installations, taking us back to the first point. There is the absence of any testimony from the workers cleaning up ground zero and the FBI agents examining the debris to the effect that any mechanisms were found whose purpose was unknown or mysterious and might have been connected with the use of thermite to effect a controlled demolition. There is the absence of any credible motive for controlled demolition of the towers. And so on, and so on.

In summary, there is overwhelming physical, testimonial (is that the word?) and circumstantial evidence that there was no controlled demolition of the twin towers. The suggestion that it should be considered as a possibility because a piece of evidence claimed to suggest CD cannot in fact be shown to disprove CD is what's known as shifting the burden of proof - and in this case there's ample proof to shoulder the burden.

Dave

chipmunk stew

25th May 2007, 05:32 AM

I'v been on here for a few months now and no one has agreed with my hardly at all...
Worth repeating.

JimBenArm

25th May 2007, 05:57 AM

Worth repeating.
Yes, the "Everyone is wrong but me!" argument. Works on me every time! So, now I'm a twoofer, and there is obviously an evil shadow organization. Of course, removing by brain with a spoon helped me reach this realization!

Calcas

25th May 2007, 06:06 AM

I am 10 times more interesting than you dude, why is this forum only filled with hardend people like yourself? I'v been on here for a few months now and no one has agreed with my hardly at all...funny

I would nominate this but I think the irony would fly right over his head...

JonnyFive

25th May 2007, 06:27 AM

so you're saying its impossible to glue thermate to a column and melt it enough to weaken it? if not completely melt it? if you can then thats what i mean by my statement!

Do you have any idea what thermite is or how it works?

twinstead

25th May 2007, 06:44 AM

Do you have any idea what thermite is or how it works?

Oh my, we certainly DO need to stop right here and make sure Israelside understands how thermite works.

gumboot

25th May 2007, 06:47 AM

I would nominate this but I think the irony would fly right over his head...

It's okay, I Stundied it...

-Gumboot

JonnyFive

25th May 2007, 06:52 AM

Oh my, we certainly DO need to stop right here and make sure Israelside understands how thermite works.

I'd prefer to start simple. Perhaps israelside can tell us what he thinks thermite/thermate is.

Belz...

25th May 2007, 07:15 AM

The Rockefeller bloodline holds great power, aswell as great corruption aswell as great monetary value. My bloodline goes back to quanna parker, he killed people so does that mean i should be held accountable? No way, that's not the issue...obviously you don't understand the 13 key bloodlines and their influence in the world.

Obviously not, but it would help us a great deal if you'd stop preaching about it and actually presented evidence that what you're saying is true.

True, different generations have different mindsets and goals and should not be held accountable (necessarily) for evils previous generations did, however since they hold great authority aswell as secrets we must consider that when one of them speaks right??

Wrong.

well think about this, if you placed thermate on every supporting column on just 1 floor, say the 40th floor...if you ignited it then the entire top would fall down on the lower part and crush it and the building would topple over...thats logical right?

Evidence, please. No more meaningless rant.

my comment was about something that could have happend right?

Like a petulant child, begging his parents to believe his story about his real but invisible friend.

Belz...

25th May 2007, 09:01 AM

Gumbot, you are either lying or lack the knowledge about the relationship the CIA has and continues to have with ISI.
On another note, thanks for being the subject of my first post here at JREF!

Well, that'll be a good, friendly start.

Or you could perform the experiments yourself to invalidate or validate his theory.

I think you need to get an education in the term "burden of proof".

chipmunk stew

25th May 2007, 09:12 AM

Or you could perform the experiments yourself to invalidate or validate his theory. If the theory was invalidated through the scientific process and experiments, it would completely end any discussion of Jone's theory.
What experiments? All the peer reviewed ones that Jones performed?

His theory is not presented in a falsifiable manner. There's nothing to validate or invalidate, just the ravings of a crank. He invalidates himself.

chipmunk stew

25th May 2007, 09:20 AM

This is a far cry from Israelside's assertion that the CIA controls the ISI.
Au contraire, gumboot.

Swing Dangler's post proves just how much control the CIA had over the ISI:
We [the CIA] got completely snookered [by the ISI].

Oh, wait...

negativ

25th May 2007, 11:48 AM

I am 10 times more interesting than you dude, why is this forum only filled with hardend people like yourself?

I agree that delusional people are usually more interesting than normals, but they are far less useful for ordinary, day-to-day life.

As for hardness, I can't speak for anyone else, but I involuntarily underwent a full-body polymerization process as an infant. My external skin was completely replaced by a space-age plastic. And you thought circumcision was bad!

I'v been on here for a few months now and no one has agreed with my hardly at all...funny

I can't begin to imagine why that might be. You know how the toothpaste adverts always claim "4 out of 5 dentists agree" about the efficacy of the product? Imagine that last dentist (possibly a follower of Kevin Trudeau) going around insisting, absent all evidence, that New Improved Crelm Toothpaste actually causes tooth decay and brain tumors. Now you know exactly how that lone dentist feels.

"In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world." -- Frank Zappa

israelside

25th May 2007, 01:55 PM

Nothing you have posted refutes what I have said. Neither indicate a close relationship between the CIA and ISI, in fact they suggest the total opposite - one of reluctant cooperation when forced to by political pressure.

This is a far cry from Israelside's assertion that the CIA controls the ISI.

Also neither indicate any sort of official government-sanctioned relationship between Al Qaeda and the ISI. As I said, the ties between specific ISI members (even high-ranking ones) and Al Qaeda has been common knowledge for a very long time, and is no surprise whatsoever.

-Gumboot

Has any ISI agents been arrested or brought to court because of the relationships with Al Qaeda? That would be like saying, sure the bush's and the bin ladens vacation together and have oil interests together, but just ignore all of that when you try to figure out their motives in iraq, afghanistan or the world. Anyone who is half way smart can figure that out gumboot...I didn't say the CIA controls the ISI, but their relationship seems like a good one given pakistan is the major ally in the war on terror in the middle east right?

israelside

25th May 2007, 02:06 PM

Wrong.

There is no realistic possibility of proving by chemical analysis of the debris that therm*te either was or was not present; the main constituents of thermite, aluminium, oxygen and iron, were all present in enormous quantities in the structure of the towers and the air around them, and any other elements found by Jones can be explained by experimental artefacts and contamination from other materials known to be present in enormous quantities. As a result, Jones's work tells us precisely nothing.

OK, that's chemical analysis disposed of. However, there is more to consider than chemical analysis. There is the absence of any testimony that large scale work was under way in the WTC towers prior to the attacks that might have been a cover for installing thermite cutting devices. There is the observed failure mode of the towers, which is visibly inconsistent with the cause being severing of the core columns. There are the known properties of the thermite reaction, which make it impossible that the proposed demolition mechanism could have been used without technology that is not known to exist and would certainly involve bulky installations, taking us back to the first point. There is the absence of any testimony from the workers cleaning up ground zero and the FBI agents examining the debris to the effect that any mechanisms were found whose purpose was unknown or mysterious and might have been connected with the use of thermite to effect a controlled demolition. There is the absence of any credible motive for controlled demolition of the towers. And so on, and so on.

In summary, there is overwhelming physical, testimonial (is that the word?) and circumstantial evidence that there was no controlled demolition of the twin towers. The suggestion that it should be considered as a possibility because a piece of evidence claimed to suggest CD cannot in fact be shown to disprove CD is what's known as shifting the burden of proof - and in this case there's ample proof to shoulder the burden.

Dave

If known MIT professors claim the wtc was a CD, and known experts in CD and building contruction claim wtc 7 was imploaded that should be enough mustard to build a theory, but since many other disagree with that...we can't prove it. Who cares, deal with things you can prove like i said before...if so many people have studied wtc7 for example tell me where i can find 100 experts that have studied it in detail and overwhelmingly believe it fell from fires and collapsing beams and then tell me why the other few believe it was a CD...I have not studied it enough but I continue to reply in here because I assume some of you must know these things...guess not

israelside

25th May 2007, 02:08 PM

Do you have any idea what thermite is or how it works?

I'v seen it burn and now know its afterproducts and how quickly and hot it burns things...how much more do you know professor Jonny? :)

Blackwell

25th May 2007, 02:12 PM

I'v seen it burn and now know its afterproducts and how quickly and hot it burns things...how much more do you know professor Jonny? :)

So you know it burns DOWN, correct? How could it create the horizontal cut needed to sever a column? And I'm sure you read the posts above regarding how much thermite would be required...

israelside

25th May 2007, 02:13 PM

Now you know exactly how that lone dentist feels.

I am not alone in my thoughts, any of yal written a book? Since yal are so smart why not?

Each of you tell me a few corrupt things the bush admin has done since 2000, the worst things in your opinion.

JimBenArm

25th May 2007, 02:17 PM

I am not alone in my thoughts, any of yal written a book? Since yal are so smart why not?

Each of you tell me a few corrupt things the bush admin has done since 2000, the worst things in your opinion.
He used my toothbrush at NWO camp last year. And he took my lunch when I wasn't looking.

israelside

25th May 2007, 02:19 PM

So you know it burns DOWN, correct? How could it create the horizontal cut needed to sever a column? And I'm sure you read the posts above regarding how much thermite would be required...

Why couldn't they wrap thermate around the column in a horizontal manner and secure it with steel clamps, so the time it melts the outter clamp it would melt the column enough to weaken it and since its horizontal melting downard would be no problem.

israelside

25th May 2007, 02:21 PM

He used my toothbrush at NWO camp last year. And he took my lunch when I wasn't looking.

Yulp, about as much as I'd expect from you...another foolish joke that only makes light of a serious question. Maybe you need to ease back on the drinking Jim or is that your illegal drugs you bought from the cia? ;)

CurtC

25th May 2007, 02:23 PM

If known MIT professors claim the wtc was a CD,
Are you speaking hypothetically, or is there an MIT professor who claims WTC (any WTC) was a CD?

if so many people have studied wtc7 for example tell me where i can find 100 experts that have studied it in detail and overwhelmingly believe it fell from fires and collapsing beams and then tell me why the other few believe it was a CD...
Just 100? That's easy, just take a look at the names of the experts who have worked on the NIST analysis.

Now, what experts believe it was a CD? Jowenko? OK, there's one. You can always find one person in a group who would agree that Cap'n Crunch did it. Any more?

israelside

25th May 2007, 02:25 PM

so bet on the world when a band of rebels in britan decided to revolutionize the world and create the greatest democracy in the world with the greatest liberties the world has ever known, ya America! It's not always so simple

Dave Rogers

25th May 2007, 02:27 PM

If known MIT professors claim the wtc was a CD,

Which MIT professors are these?

and known experts in CD and building contruction claim wtc 7 was imploaded

Three, by all accounts, one of whom has clearly said that WTC1 and 2 weren't CDs.

that should be enough mustard to build a theory, but since many other disagree with that...we can't prove it. Who cares, deal with things you can prove like i said before...

So what can you prove? I've yet to see you even try to prove your allegations about Rockefellers and Illuminati.

if so many people have studied wtc7 for example tell me where i can find 100 experts that have studied it in detail and overwhelmingly believe it fell from fires and collapsing beams

They're called NIST. There should be a report out some time soon, and if it suggests that CD was a likely cause of the collapse of WTC7 then a great many people here will have to re-examine their assumptions, myself included. I'm not holding my breath, though.

and then tell me why the other few believe it was a CD...

Who knows why anyone believes anything? One of them got ambushed in an interview and has been very quiet since. The other two, I don't know. If they're serious about it, no doubt they'll submit a paper to a reputable peer-reviewed journal some time, then we'll see their reasoning.

I have not studied it enough but I continue to reply in here because I assume some of you must know these things...guess not

If you've decided nobody here really does know these things, then by all means look elsewhere.

Dave

Blackwell

25th May 2007, 02:28 PM

He used my toothbrush at NWO camp last year. And he took my lunch when I wasn't looking.

Sorry, Jim -- I was going to tell you about that, but W threatened to give me an Atomic Wedgie™.

Why couldn't they wrap thermate around the column in a horizontal manner and secure it with steel clamps, so the time it melts the outter clamp it would melt the column enough to weaken it and since its horizontal melting downard would be no problem.
Really? Wrap it around the column? REALLY? And what kind of clamps do you propose they would use? Seen any evidence for those clamps? How much damage do you suppose that would do to a column before the thermite was able to melt through those clamps? And considering the direction of load (I'm sure there's a technical term for that), how far into the columns would it have to melt in order to create any appreciable melting? Feel free to post calculations.

israelside

25th May 2007, 02:28 PM

Are you speaking hypothetically, or is there an MIT professor who claims WTC (any WTC) was a CD?

Just 100? That's easy, just take a look at the names of the experts who have worked on the NIST analysis.

Now, what experts believe it was a CD? Jowenko? OK, there's one. You can always find one person in a group who would agree that Cap'n Crunch did it. Any more?

jeff king at MIT...

Other than NIST...independent organizations

JimBenArm

25th May 2007, 02:32 PM

Yulp, about as much as I'd expect from you...another foolish joke that only makes light of a serious question. Maybe you need to ease back on the drinking Jim or is that your illegal drugs you bought from the cia? ;)
What? You don't believe me? I've got as much proof of it as you do that the Illuminati control world affairs!
Come to NWO camp next year, and I'll show you around!

CurtC

25th May 2007, 02:32 PM

Jeff King?!? I must have missed that news - when was he hired as a professor at MIT?

Hint: look this one up, you just might learn something about the credibility of CT sources.

beachnut

25th May 2007, 02:37 PM

Why couldn't they wrap thermate around the column in a horizontal manner and secure it with steel clamps, so the time it melts the outter clamp it would melt the column enough to weaken it and since its horizontal melting downard would be no problem.
You are going to wrap powder around a column with clamps. Who took off the 3 inches of wallboard? Funny stuff, and you said you knew thermite.

israelside

25th May 2007, 02:39 PM

Jeff King?!? I must have missed that news - when was he hired as a professor at MIT?

Hint: look this one up, you just might learn something about the credibility of CT sources.

all i see is he studied engineering at MIT and is a phsician, can't find much else about him...

Dave Rogers

25th May 2007, 02:40 PM

Other than NIST...independent organizations

Define "independent" in such a way as not to exclude everybody with expertise in structural engineering or demolition.

Dave

israelside

25th May 2007, 02:44 PM

Define "independent" in such a way as not to exclude everybody with expertise in structural engineering or demolition.

Dave

People that have a great deal of experience but arn't associated with the gov't in any way...

CurtC

25th May 2007, 02:55 PM

all i see is he studied engineering at MIT and is a phsician, can't find much else about him...
But you were looking for his being an engineering professor at MIT, right? And you didn't find that.

Jeff King got a bachelor's degree in engineering in the 1970s from MIT, along with a biology degree IIRC. For the last 25 years, he's been doing some kind of family practice physician thing in California (although I've never found anything about a medical degree). He's not an MIT engineering professor.

chipmunk stew

25th May 2007, 03:19 PM

And it was electrical engineering, IIRC.

...Whatever happened to old Plague Puppy, anyway? You don't hear much about him anymore.

defaultdotxbe

25th May 2007, 03:26 PM

People that have a great deal of experience but arn't associated with the gov't in any way...
but thats the problem, when someone says something you dont liek CTers dig up the most tenuous connections to the government they can find just to discredit the person, theyll find out he designed a post office building in 1983 and say hes a government contractor

or, failing that, they just invent a nonexistant connection liek with ben chertoff

chipmunk stew

25th May 2007, 03:33 PM

People that have a great deal of experience but arn't associated with the gov't in any way...

Local? state? federal?

Can they be registered in a political party?

Does filing for gov't permits or working to gov't-mandated codes or working with gov't-appointed inspectors "associate" them with the gov't in some way?

It's very important that you be specific in your definition of "independent", otherwise you exclude literally everyone qualified, if not everyone period.

edit: especially in a country like the US, where public and private works are so intertwined and interdependent, and people...PEOPLE!!!...move in and out of government positions seamlessly.

Blackwell

25th May 2007, 04:23 PM

Local? state? federal?

Can they be registered in a political party?

Does filing for gov't permits or working to gov't-mandated codes or working with gov't-appointed inspectors "associate" them with the gov't in some way?

It's very important that you be specific in your definition of "independent", otherwise you exclude literally everyone qualified, if not everyone period.

edit: especially in a country like the US, where public and private works are so intertwined and interdependent, and people...PEOPLE!!!...move in and out of government positions seamlessly.

And (please correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't the US Gov. contract MIT for certain projects? I would think that would exclude King from the group of "...people that have a great deal of experience but arn't associated with the gov't in any way..."

Elizabeth I

25th May 2007, 04:31 PM

I'v been on here for a few months now and no one has agreed with my hardly at all...
I haven't even heard from your hardly. What does it have to say? I might agree with it.

stateofgrace

25th May 2007, 05:40 PM

so you're saying its impossible to glue thermate to a column and melt it enough to weaken it? if not completely melt it? if you can then thats what i mean by my statement!

Iraelside, I am sure this as already been addressed but hopefully you can clear this up for me. The problem I have is I debate guys just like you on other forums. Now they all say that there were explosions, lots and lots of reports of explosions. Here is an example.

Re firefighters who reported bombs in the WTC:

-NEW YORK TIMES ‘ORAL HISTORIES’ - WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEWS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY Interview Date: October 3, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110008.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF)

pgs 14-16: I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too... it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. …

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. I don't know how far down this was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you know, I don't know.

-CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE Interview Date: November 7, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF)

pg 10: I had no clue what was going on. Never turned around because a sound came from somewhere that I never heard before. Some people compared it with an airplane. It was the worst sound of a rolling sound, not a thunder. I can’t explain it, what it was. All I know is -- and a force started to come hit me in my back. I can’t explain it. You had to be there. All I know is I had to run because I thought there was an explosion.

pg 11: Whatever this explosion was simply sucked all the oxygen out of the air.

pg 15: Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and I told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion…

-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK Interview Date: October 1, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110001.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110001.PDF)

pgs 13-14: I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building... My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.

FIREFIGHTER EDWARD CACHIA Interview Date: December 6, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110251.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110251.PDF)

pg 5: As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

-PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA Interview Date: OCTOBER 10 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF)

pg 9: It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear “pop, pop, pop, pop, pop”? That’s exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that’s when I saw the building coming down.

-FIREFIGHTER KENNETH ROGERS Interview Date: December 10, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110290.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110290.PDF)

pgs 3-4: … then there was an explosion in the south tower... I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.

-LIEUTENANT GEORGE J. DeSIMONE Interview Date: October 22, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110129.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110129.PDF)

pg 6: The next thing I know, we heard a little bit of a rumbling, and then white powder came from the first collapsed building. I thought it was an explosion initially.

pgs 7-8: After that, I still thought it was an explosion. I thought it was some kind of thermal explosion where I'm either going to get burnt -- and I had kind of ideas that it was going to be something like Hiroshima where all this heat was coming at me and we were going to get burnt...

pg 10: I was fearful that there were bombs in the building. That was my first thought, being the military kind of guy that I am.

-FATHER JOHN DELENDICK Interview Date: December 6, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110230.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110230.PDF)

pgs 5-6: I remember asking Ray Downey was it the jet fuel that blew up. He said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even.

-NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson: “[Albert Turi] the Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York City told me he received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place. …That his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.” Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv

FIREFIGHTER TIMOTHY JULIAN Interview Date: December 26, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110386.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110386.PDF)

pg 10: … right when we got to the corner of Washington and Albany, that’s when I heard the building collapse. First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know, secondary device. I was convinced for a week it was secondary devices. … You know, and I just heard like an explosion and a then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down…

-MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez: "… Police have found what they describe as a suspicious device, and they fear that it might be something that could lead to another explosion...I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the WTC aside from the ones that may have been caused by the impact of the plane with the building, may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it. So, their fear here is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area ..."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....explosives.wmv (http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.police.found.explosives.wmv)

BATTALION CHIEF DOMINICK DeRUBBIO Interview Date: October 12, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110064.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110064.PDF)

pg 5: It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion

-Reporter: “… there was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was.. and the whole building, at that point, bellied out in flames…”Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv

-FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS Interview Date: December 11, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110288.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110288.PDF)

pgs 3-4: After a while, and I don't know how long it was, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down

-FIREFIGHTER THOMAS TURILLI Interview Date: January 17, 2002
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110501.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110501.PDF)

pgs 4-5: … sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight

-FIREFIGHTER KEITH MURPHY Interview Date: December 5, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110238.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110238.PDF)

pgs 19-20: I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don’t know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs

-War Corespondent, Jack Kelley: "…Apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time two planes hit the building that there... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time, and brought both of them down..."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....jack.kelley.rm (http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.truck.bombs.fbi.jack.kelley.rm)

-Terrorism Security Expert (used by many news organizations): “We’ve heard reports of secondary explosions after the aircraft impacted, whether in fact there wasn't something else at the base of the towers that in fact were the coup de grace to bring them to the ground.”
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.s...frey.beatty.wmv (http://terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.jeffrey.beatty.wmv)

-FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI Interview Date: December 6, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110253.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110253.PDF)

pgs 3-4: We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

-FIREFIGHTER CRAIG CARLSEN Interview Date: January 25, 2002
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF)

pg 6: I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.

-ABC Reporter: “…the entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off....”
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.abc.demolition.team.wmv

-Witness: "I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv

-Witness: "...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions. "
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv

-FDNY: "As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv

-FIREFIGHTER CHRISTOPHER FENYO Interview Date: December 11, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110295.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110295.PDF)

pg 3: There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial Center.

pg 5: About a couple minutes after George came back to me is when the south tower from our perspective exploded from about midway up the building.

pgs 6-7: At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges. We had really no concept of the damage on the east side of 2 World Trade Center at that point, and at that point many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade…

-FDNY: "We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses..." Video: http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov

-FIREFIGHTER FRANK SWEENEY Interview Date: October 18, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110113.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110113.PDF)

pg 9: I hear what sounded like firecrackers and a low rumble. I look up, and the south tower – I could see the top part of the siding overlapping the bottom side of the siding..

Clip of firemen talking about bombs found in one of the towers:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928

* Fireman: "There's a bomb in the building!"
Fireman: "Here we go again"
Fireman: "There's a bomb in the building, start clearing out."
Bystander: "Sorry? Did you say there was a bomb? What did you say?"
Fireman: "Bomb in the building! Start clearing out!"
Fireman: "We gotta get the **** outta here!"
Fireman "There's a secondary device in the building!"
Fireman: "We got a secondary device!"
Fireman: "Got a secondary device in the building!"
Fireman: "Secondary device!"

-FDNY recall "detonations" in South Tower:

fireman: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman: yea detonated yea
fireman: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
Video: http://www.prisonplanet.tv/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Now the problem I have is that thermite is actually an incendiary device, it does not explode, it burns. So maybe you could just clear this up for me .Are you saying that all the reported sounds of explosions are false, or are you saying that they are correct?

I am just asking questions, just like you really.
So were there explosions or not? Why did thermite explode, it simply burns, I am curious.

Belz...

26th May 2007, 03:05 AM

I have not studied it enough but I continue to reply in here because I assume some of you must know these things...guess not

You're dangerously close to admitting that you simply WANT the US government to be evil.

Why couldn't they wrap thermate around the column in a horizontal manner and secure it with steel clamps, so the time it melts the outter clamp it would melt the column enough to weaken it and since its horizontal melting downard would be no problem.

You DO know that thermate burns DOWNWARDS ?

so bet on the world when a band of rebels in britan decided to revolutionize the world and create the greatest democracy in the world with the greatest liberties the world has ever known, ya America!

Please check your unwarranted patriotism at the door.

People that have a great deal of experience but arn't associated with the gov't in any way...

Still doing circular reasoning ?

gumboot

26th May 2007, 06:45 AM

Has any ISI agents been arrested or brought to court because of the relationships with Al Qaeda? That would be like saying, sure the bush's and the bin ladens vacation together and have oil interests together, but just ignore all of that when you try to figure out their motives in iraq, afghanistan or the world. Anyone who is half way smart can figure that out gumboot...I didn't say the CIA controls the ISI, but their relationship seems like a good one given pakistan is the major ally in the war on terror in the middle east right?

Arrest the ISI members? You mean, say, have the CIA secretly abduct them and carry them off to a secret prison?

Pakistan is far from a "major" ally. Pakistan's commitment to the War on Terror is lukewarm at best. Unfortunately for all concerned, we need Pakistan as a major player or we have no chance at all of stopped El Terroristo.

Abducting Pakistani government agents is probably not the best way to keep them on side.

-Gumboot

twinstead

26th May 2007, 07:24 AM

I'm not sure whom I would fear more if they were in charge of the world--a secret nefarious cabal of shadowy Illuminati, or somebody like Israelside.

It really is a wash.

CurtC

26th May 2007, 10:15 AM

And (please correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't the US Gov. contract MIT for certain projects? I would think that would exclude King from the group of "...people that have a great deal of experience but arn't associated with the gov't in any way..."
Although Jeff King's connections to MIT are so long ago and so insignificant that I can't imagine that disqualifying him. However, if he is a licensed physician (which I'm not convinced of), the government is the licensing body, right? So he's out.

Dave Rogers

27th May 2007, 03:45 PM

People that have a great deal of experience but arn't associated with the gov't in any way...

So we've got to find people that have somehow managed to amass "a great deal of experience" in structural engineering without ever working on a public building, or one that was used for any government department - that immediately eliminates everyone involved in design and construction of the WTC complex, or any of the major demolition firms brought in for the cleanup. We can eliminate all university professors - including Steven Jones - because universities get government money. We've pretty well eliminated any possible source of experience by now - but hey, what about people who are associated with the government in that they're governed by it? I think we can probably rule you out too.

Dave

JonnyFive

29th May 2007, 07:05 AM

I'v seen it burn and now know its afterproducts and how quickly and hot it burns things...how much more do you know professor Jonny? :)

Very patronizing, yes, but this is the kind of thing that a couple of university level chemistry courses could easily clear up without needing to be a professor in the subject.

If you've actually seen it burn, then you can probably guess a few of the limitations of the reaction.

As the iron oxide reacts with the aluminum in the thermite reaction, the rapid oxidization produces the by-products (primarily free iron and aluminum oxide) as well as a large amount of heat. Note that this is an oxidization reaction, not an explosion. Thus, the reagents react rapidly, but are in no way propelled against the force of gravity. Observing a thermite reaction clearly shows that it melts whatever it is intended to melt in the direction gravity pulls it.

Thermate, a commonly used military variant of the reaction, simply adds in some incendiary elements to increase reaction temperature and decrease ignition temperature. While this makes thermate more effect for incendiary purposes, it still doesn't make thermite "explode" and thus the reaction progresses in the same basic fashion.

The value of thermite (for purposes of clarity, I will continue to say "thermite"... "thermate" is similar enough that the distinction is unimportant) is solely in the heat released by the reaction. As you may recall from college-level chemistry, explosives work by reacting so radiply that they release energy in a shock wave that damages not only through heat but through the rapid expansion of gases. Gravity is not a major factor in explosive reactions, because the rapid expansion provides a force to act against gravity.

The thermite reaction, on the other hand, does not exhibit the rapid release of gas shown in an explosive reaction. It instead, as I mentioned above, exhibits a rapid release of heat, doing its damage through melting and burning.

Which brings us back to the subject of thermite as used for demolitions. Simply put, this is impractical to the point of being nonsense. The problem of gravity's influence over the thermite reaction makes directing the reaction to the side difficult. This is not impossible, as we were able to discover the patent for a device that directs the reaction to the side by providing the reaction with one possible outlet.

However, this device is bulky, and to use it to "weaken the columns" of the WTC would require two highly improbable/potentially impossible conditions:

1) A large number of these devices attached to the columns.
2) That the aforementioned devices were not damaged or dislodged by the plane or resulting fires.

The second condition in particular makes it pretty much impossible that, even given the device to direct a thermite reaction, any such devices were used on the columns that ultimately failed.

You can't simply stick a chunk of thermite to something and let it go.

Finally, the aluminum oxide and free iron products of the reaction are common in other instances. The presence of aluminum, iron, and steel would lead one to believe that some of these compounds would be found in the wreckage of the towers (or dust from them), especially after experiencing a catastrophic fire. Moreover, the more exotic by-products of a thermate reaction have not been found; that is where the barium nitrate everyone keeps mentioning comes into play.

This is a ridiculous avenue of inquiry. You might as well argue that giant, metal-eating beavers gnawed the columns down and then disappeared.

israelside

1st June 2007, 12:36 PM

Arrest the ISI members? You mean, say, have the CIA secretly abduct them and carry them off to a secret prison?

Pakistan is far from a "major" ally. Pakistan's commitment to the War on Terror is lukewarm at best. Unfortunately for all concerned, we need Pakistan as a major player or we have no chance at all of stopped El Terroristo.

Abducting Pakistani government agents is probably not the best way to keep them on side.

-Gumboot

So you're saying, forego any attempts at arresting possible suspects in 911 (from the ISI) simple because we need greater Pakistani cooperation in the war on terror? You have even said the ISI and Al Queda have had a close relationship for a long time...I am not confident anyone in the ISI has really been investigated a great deal in terms of their ties to 911...but I guess not much else can be done about it. 4 tapes of the plane hitting the pentagon are being held by the DOD, anyone wana pay the money to get the tapes and let us all see it by filling out a FOIA request?

israelside

1st June 2007, 12:39 PM

chipmunk stew

1st June 2007, 12:46 PM

So you're saying, forego any attempts at arresting possible suspects in 911 (from the ISI) simple because we need greater Pakistani cooperation in the war on terror? You have even said the ISI and Al Queda have had a close relationship for a long time...I am not confident anyone in the ISI has really been investigated a great deal in terms of their ties to 911...but I guess not much else can be done about it.
Does the next sentence have some relation to the previous 3?
4 tapes of the plane hitting the pentagon are being held by the DOD, anyone wana pay the money to get the tapes and let us all see it by filling out a FOIA request?

How would you suggest we go about arresting ISI members and investigating their connections with Al Qaeda? The US can't just go around arresting people of other nations.

JonnyFive

1st June 2007, 12:49 PM

We know the DOD and the pentagon has multiple camera angles of the attack on the pentagon, yet the public has only seen 5 frames and 2 junk camera shot from the gas station and the hotel (which shows nothing)...why hasn't the media shown us any of these other tapes? According to you guy, it could never NEVER be because they are hiding the truth...but because they "letting us grieve" and will show it in time? No excuse not to release these tapes...they show nothing more than what we have seen before (except for the plane and at another angle).

1) What do you think happened?
2) Do you have any proof of it?
3) What exactly do you want the government to do?

israelside

1st June 2007, 12:53 PM

Does the next sentence have some relation to the previous 3?

How would you suggest we go about arresting ISI members and investigating their connections with Al Qaeda? The US can't just go around arresting people of other nations.

nah no relation, just threw it in...but you mention that instead of replying with anthing of value.

We arrest or atleast detain "terrorist" suspects from around the world all the time...bush even said "we wont distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them", so arresting ISI agents suspected in the biggest terrorist crime in the world would seem legit in that endeavor. We've blown up 2 nations chipmunk...changing people's worlds, arresting terrorists, looking for others, not finding bin laden :), yet you say we cant go around arresting people of other nations, thats foolish. We've arrested every person in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of their previous life...we police the world, always have, always will...police arrest people that do crimes against them or their citizens! And no, just because the ISI has more esteme or credibility or are even partners with us in this war on terror DOES NOT MEAN that are immune from investigation.

israelside

1st June 2007, 12:55 PM

1) What do you think happened?
2) Do you have any proof of it?
3) What exactly do you want the government to do?

1. I think that a plane did hit, but I want proof.
2. No, I just want the tape to be release to the public in the media
3. govt shud do their job and let the public know of whats going on, no hidden agendas, or really no evil at all...but that will never happen SO that means we need more checks and balances do you agree with that??

israelside

1st June 2007, 12:58 PM

hey Johnny tell us all where your bias is and what you have been wrong about concerning 9/11 or if nothing anthing with politics?

JonnyFive

1st June 2007, 01:08 PM

You think a plane hit but the existing evidence that a plane hit is insufficient? Uh... what?

What "checks and balances" would you suggest?

hey Johnny tell us all where your bias is and what you have been wrong about concerning 9/11 or if nothing anthing with politics?

About 9/11? Well, I was mistaken about some terms of Silverstein's insurance coverage, and promptly corrected my mistake when I learned more about his coverage.

I'll admit I'm somewhat biased against people that shoot their mouths off without knowing what they're talking about. I'm also quite biased against people that make broad, sweeping assertions about complicated issues they don't particularly understand under the guise of "just asking questions."

And I ***** hate when people bring up issues, especially in the manner I just described, and then ignore all discussion on it while simply switching topics.

Your turn, israelside. You are, of course, planning to return to the thermate issue you raised earlier, right?

israelside

1st June 2007, 01:22 PM

You think a plane hit but the existing evidence that a plane hit is insufficient? Uh... what?

What "checks and balances" would you suggest?

About 9/11? Well, I was mistaken about some terms of Silverstein's insurance coverage, and promptly corrected my mistake when I learned more about his coverage.

I'll admit I'm somewhat biased against people that shoot their mouths off without knowing what they're talking about. I'm also quite biased against people that make broad, sweeping assertions about complicated issues they don't particularly understand under the guise of "just asking questions."

And I ***** hate people that bring up issues, especially in the manner I just described, and then ignore all discussion on it while simply switching topics.

Your turn, israelside. You are, of course, planning to return to the thermate issue you raised earlier, right?

Glad to see the real you Johnny :) really thats not showing your bias, thats not answering the simple question i asked. I am researching 911, i do have ideas of what happend and by no means am stagnet in my beliefs...thats why i theorize but can still be proven wrong. Yet, since you know quite alot about 911 and are 100% correct about your "biased theories" then I have come to hear from people like you....yet you fail to give true answers to complicated questions...I am biased against established govts because i feel that they do indeed hold great power, and with power comes corruption...which makes them untrustable (for the most part, not all the time). I see most people as evil, yet you must see them as great and totally believable. The bottom line is no one can conclusively say with 100% confidence that no foreign agencies, (isi) or other agencies like the cia that would benefit, did not play a part in helping the terrorists carry out 911! I'm not switching topics, I will reply when i get the chance, I don't have all day to sit at the computer and read news like you, but I will read it when I can.

israelside

1st June 2007, 01:28 PM

israelside

1st June 2007, 01:36 PM

It could have been possible they had the device to cut beams with thermite on 911, just was in infant stage...

Oh and stateofgrace, I think both bombs and thermate could have been used, why is that out of the question? Can't prove thermate, but bombs look likely. Thermate weakens it, bombs clear the way...it could have been an easier way to do it. Granted all they really need was thermate but bombs could have been used b/c it would have been too expensive to place so much thermate everywhere...think about that? Seems plausible...I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS 100% FACT. Just theorizing...you people are so dogmatic.

beachnut

1st June 2007, 01:37 PM

Glad to see the real you Johnny :) really thats not showing your bias, thats not answering the simple question i asked. I am researching 911, i do have ideas of what happend and by no means am stagnet in my beliefs...thats why i theorize but can still be proven wrong. Yet, since you know quite alot about 911 and are 100% correct about your "biased theories" then I have come to hear from people like you....yet you fail to give true answers to complicated questions...I am biased against established govts because i feel that they do indeed hold great power, and with power comes corruption...which makes them untrustable (for the most part, not all the time). I see most people as evil, yet you must see them as great and totally believable. The bottom line is no one can conclusively say with 100% confidence that no foreign agencies, (isi) or other agencies like the cia that would benefit, did not play a part in helping the terrorists carry out 911! I'm not switching topics, I will reply when i get the chance, I don't have all day to sit at the computer and read news like you, but I will read it when I can.
You have not said much of anything.

but it is entirely plausible for the building to have been a CD

No, it is not. You said that, but you were wrong. You make statements that are wrong. You bring zero support then get upset when people know more about everything that you do.

If you can not come up with any ideas and support of what happen on 9/11, then why are you wasting your time? You can not even state what you believe. You are hiding behind statements like this: but it is entirely plausible for the building to have been a CD

Why not just come out and say what you think happen on 9/11 and stop hiding behind a foggy facade of nothing.

We have paid our dues, fess up and come on out. Say what you think. Stop getting faking the upset routine and either ask for help or tell us why 19 terrorist did or did not do 9/11. Come on you are here to show everyone how it goes down. Do it. Say it, stop acting like the pdoh guy and make a stand. Go ahead and make everyone's day, expose a smoking gun. But please stop the thermite crap, Dr Jones is an old washed up professor who can not understand momentum, and you seem to be hung up on his delusional never used as CD, thermite lie. What new item do you have and why are you afraid to post what you think?

JonnyFive

1st June 2007, 01:38 PM

Glad to see the real you Johnny :) really thats not showing your bias, thats not answering the simple question i asked. I am researching 911, i do have ideas of what happend and by no means am stagnet in my beliefs...thats why i theorize but can still be proven wrong. Yet, since you know quite alot about 911 and are 100% correct about your "biased theories" then I have come to hear from people like you....yet you fail to give true answers to complicated questions...I am biased against established govts because i feel that they do indeed hold great power, and with power comes corruption...which makes them untrustable (for the most part, not all the time). I see most people as evil, yet you must see them as great and totally believable. The bottom line is no one can conclusively say with 100% confidence that no foreign agencies, (isi) or other agencies like the cia that would benefit, did not play a part in helping the terrorists carry out 911! I'm not switching topics, I will reply when i get the chance, I don't have all day to sit at the computer and read news like you, but I will read it when I can.

When did I say I was talking about you specifically with my comments, israelside? I was quite serious, I don't find people who do those things (and there are a lot of them in the 9/11 "Truth" movement) credible, or worth listening to. I am incredibly biased against them, because I think they are idiots. To be fair, they do an excellent job of reinforcing the factual basis for this bias.

You asked me what my bias was. Just because you didn't appreciate, comprehend, like, or whatever my answer doesn't mean I wasn't being honest.

Nice subtle dig at me, though. Very good, almost as nice as the "professor" comment.

Your automatic distrust of governments (and humanity) is as naive and childish as one who would simply trust a government (or a person) without question. As much as I appreciate your incredible false dichotomy, I do not automatically assume people are great and believable.

Who said I sit and read news all day? You make a lot of assumptions for someone that claims to not form assumptions.

milesalpha

1st June 2007, 01:46 PM

Wonder if he's ever list all those "organizations" that disagree with the various reports. Or have they gone the same way as his MIT engineering professor? Ah well, either way he makes for quite humourous reading.

israelside

1st June 2007, 01:48 PM

israelside

1st June 2007, 01:55 PM

beachnut

1st June 2007, 01:55 PM

So Johnny you say its improbably that thermate was used in such great volume and that the plane didnt damage some...I don't see shipping thermate in and attaching it as that hard..do it at 2-4 am when no one's in, they could have used multiple levels of bombs near the plane impact zone, or even a few thermate devices just in case...why is that so hard for you to imagine? Sure it may have been expensive, but the war on terror is what around 4 or 5 billion now? Nothing compared to that...if the govt funded the bombs in the wtc. Look, I'm no physics professor or chemistry guru or a thermate expert but how hard can it be to make a device that would take a consierable amount longer to melt than steel when in contact to thermate? You angle it so the thermate touches the steel, set it off remotely, the steel burns faster than the device the thermate is in and wala the steel is weakend to fall. Ok experts.....tell me this, and be EXACT What substance takes longer to weaken than steel and how much longer when in contact with thermate? I'm just coming up with ideas, no real answers...but since you all know everything about 911 and thermate, by all means you should know this and thought about these things way before i just did...so why not post that? Probably because you are a bunch of liars that really know nothing!
You have wasted your time. You come with no facts or evidence to even support your bunch of liars comment. You are just some CT believer too afraid to tell anyone. You are a thermite guy, a Dr Jones follower. 6 years too late, no clue or story, just wasting time, is that it?

What is your idea on 9/11? Oh, I forgot, you have nothing. Good job

israelside

1st June 2007, 02:03 PM

When did I say I was talking about you specifically with my comments, israelside? I was quite serious, I don't find people who do those things (and there are a lot of them in the 9/11 "Truth" movement) credible, or worth listening to. I am incredibly biased against them, because I think they are idiots. To be fair, they do an excellent job of reinforcing the factual basis for this bias.

You asked me what my bias was. Just because you didn't appreciate, comprehend, like, or whatever my answer doesn't mean I wasn't being honest.

Nice subtle dig at me, though. Very good, almost as nice as the "professor" comment.

Your automatic distrust of governments (and humanity) is as naive and childish as one who would simply trust a government (or a person) without question. As much as I appreciate your incredible false dichotomy, I do not automatically assume people are great and believable.

Who said I sit and read news all day? You make a lot of assumptions for someone that claims to not form assumptions.

What a joke, I said my bias is untrusting towards the govt due to their history and corruption, I do however trust them at times like i said and believe in what they say....but we all have this bias and if you ignore that you are lieing to yourself! No one reserves judgment for people when you mee them, you automatically pigeon hole them in your mind...after a while you change your feelings about them b/c you know them more thats how I am, you are and every human is but that also means we have initial bias...that's what i'm saying about govt's and the people that run them but you make me out to be childish and naive even though I never said anything like that. You sit and read blogs quite a bit, maybe not news directly from cnn but if people post "news" or articles you read those right? And link to pages that prove people's theories? You people are funny...enough of wasteful time today.

israelside

1st June 2007, 02:05 PM

You have wasted your time. You come with no facts or evidence to even support your bunch of liars comment. You are just some CT believer too afraid to tell anyone. You are a thermite guy, a Dr Jones follower. 6 years too late, no clue or story, just wasting time, is that it?

What is your idea on 9/11? Oh, I forgot, you have nothing. Good job

read my other posts, if you don't understand what I am saying maybe you need to question your critical thinking skills ;)

beachnut

1st June 2007, 02:07 PM

beachnut, I do say what I think, and my theories about 9/11...I am collecting more evidence but can't say 1 way or another...its pointless to keep writing in here with mindless people like youself, again, I do not have all the answers but beach since you do and have made up your mind, tell us why the ISI has no involvement in 911 and if they do, why not investigated?
Oh, you have the collected evidence, expose it for us. Please? I would like to know how many facts you have on the ISI stuff. Rip it out.

I expect your ISI information is as good as you thermite is. If you have something we would be seeing it on the news. Go ahead give us the collected evidence of the person who has already exposed JREF as a waste of time. I mean you could ask the paranormal guys to expose this 9/11 stuff, you know, you believe in all the paranormal stuff. Just expose it all now. Stop wasting time and show everyone how much you have. You failed on thermite, you may do better in your field of what ever. Are you a scientist or an engineer? So what great ISI stuff do you have?

You are not investigating, you think this is a waste of time. You still can not expose your secret ideas on 9/11 because you will never have them or are you just afraid to be open and honest about you ideas. Which is it? Which item is next on the all ideas welcome thread of nothing?

I welcome your ideas on the ISI, or terrorist pilots and why they can't fly, or why the building can't fall as fast as they did, or why planes can break steel, or how people with cut throats die fast, or how 19 terrorist were able to do it, etc. Which idea do you think is good?

There is the, how did the guys planting the bomb and unknown thermite devices and know where the planes were going to hit idea. Got any?

beachnut

1st June 2007, 02:10 PM

read my other posts, if you don't understand what I am saying maybe you need to question your critical thinking skills ;)
I did read you posts but you said you had no idea on what happen on 9/11. Did I mess up?

You even said, once maybe more, that people at JREFF are wasting their time. And I am pretty sure you said you had not ideas on what happen on 9/11. Are you changing you mind?

You missed it, I never claimed what you want me to question.

david griffin is a well respected investigator, i have to consider what he says.
You are right, I do not understand what you say, it does not make sense. Like DRG, he is not a respected investigator, his work is misleading and can be considered lies if he would make a stand. But I an waiting for you to take a stand, but the only thing you have said you stand behind is this - you people waste more time than anyone i knowWhen will you share your ideas and evidence. You want to tell us about the ISI, what is it? What great stuff do you have on the ISI?

When will you have an idea what you think happen on 9/11? How long will it be? What is your biggest smoking gun?

gumboot

2nd June 2007, 12:18 AM

I ignore issues? I have replied more in here than anyone, and the issues I ignore is because I don't think its worth my time...I replied alot about wtc7 collapse, and replied a ton to gumboot...guess you forgot to see those posts...

You do reply a lot, but you completely ignore everything in the posts you reply to. That is why I have stopped replying to you. Continue any discussion with you is a complete waste of my very valuable time.

-Gumboot

JonnyFive

4th June 2007, 06:29 AM

So Johnny you say its improbably that thermate was used in such great volume and that the plane didnt damage some...I don't see shipping thermate in and attaching it as that hard..do it at 2-4 am when no one's in, they could have used multiple levels of bombs near the plane impact zone, or even a few thermate devices just in case...why is that so hard for you to imagine? Sure it may have been expensive, but the war on terror is what around 4 or 5 billion now? Nothing compared to that...if the govt funded the bombs in the wtc. Look, I'm no physics professor or chemistry guru or a thermate expert but how hard can it be to make a device that would take a consierable amount longer to melt than steel when in contact to thermate? You angle it so the thermate touches the steel, set it off remotely, the steel burns faster than the device the thermate is in and wala the steel is weakend to fall.

You didn't read what I wrote about thermite, did you?

First of all, you don't just "attach" thermate to stuff. You need a device capable of directing the reaction sideways.

Second, the device mentioned to direct a thermite reaction is not something you simply stick on the girders. It is a fairly bulky, unwieldy device that would be difficult to employ in the manner you imagine. There is no evidence that the device has been manufactured in any great quatities.

Third, such a device must properly function. Especially if you assume your remote ignition theory, the device must not be damaged in any way. In addition to the impact of the plane, there is also the issue of the fires. If either destroyed such a device's circuitry or dislodged it, it would fail to work properly.

Fourth, we have not seen evidence that such a device can actually cut through a full girder. The demonstrations by the company that developed it shown it only cutting a piece of rebar.

Finally, there is not evidence of the reaction products of thermate that do not occur in common construction materials.

You're not really looking at the evidence for or against any of your theories. If you're just throwing this stuff out for discussion, you seem pretty hell-bent on defending the possibility of these theories against the incredible level of evidence against them.

Rant all you want about bias, you're not really engaging anyone in productive discussion.

chipmunk stew

4th June 2007, 07:09 AM

nah no relation, just threw it in...but you mention that instead of replying with anthing of value.

We arrest or atleast detain "terrorist" suspects from around the world all the time...bush even said "we wont distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them", so arresting ISI agents suspected in the biggest terrorist crime in the world would seem legit in that endeavor. We've blown up 2 nations chipmunk...changing people's worlds, arresting terrorists, looking for others, not finding bin laden :), yet you say we cant go around arresting people of other nations, thats foolish. We've arrested every person in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of their previous life...we police the world, always have, always will...police arrest people that do crimes against them or their citizens! And no, just because the ISI has more esteme or credibility or are even partners with us in this war on terror DOES NOT MEAN that are immune from investigation.
You're right. Let's invade Pakistan. That should do the trick.

This is silly.

Belz...

4th June 2007, 09:20 AM

We know the DOD and the pentagon has multiple camera angles of the attack on the pentagon, yet the public has only seen 5 frames and 2 junk camera shot from the gas station and the hotel (which shows nothing)...why hasn't the media shown us any of these other tapes?

How do "we know" that they have more camera angles, if we've never seen others ?

The bottom line is no one can conclusively say with 100% confidence that no foreign agencies, (isi) or other agencies like the cia that would benefit, did not play a part in helping the terrorists carry out 911!

We cannot also say conclusively with 100% confidence that you are not an alien bent on conquering Earth. But then why would we care to disprove something that has no basis in reality ? That's why we have this little thing called burden of proof.

Belz...

4th June 2007, 09:25 AM

So Johnny you say its improbably that thermate was used in such great volume and that the plane didnt damage some...I don't see shipping thermate in and attaching it as that hard..do it at 2-4 am when no one's in

This is another glaring example of how truthers know nothing about anything. THERE WAS ALWAYS people in the WTC.

they could have used multiple levels of bombs near the plane impact zone

And how would these survive the impact without causing more damage, themselves or causing premature collapse ?

or even a few thermate devices just in case...why is that so hard for you to imagine?

Because the operation is impossible. Thermate couldn't possibly cut horizontally. Why is that so hard for you to understand ?

Sure it may have been expensive, but the war on terror is what around 4 or 5 billion now? Nothing compared to that...

Impossible > Expensive

Look, I'm no physics professor or chemistry guru or a thermate expert but how hard can it be to make a device that would take a consierable amount longer to melt than steel when in contact to thermate?

Because you've just made it up. It has to be able to cut horizontally. I'd need to know actual proof that such a device exists.

I'm just coming up with ideas, no real answers...

Indeed.

but since you all know everything about 911 and thermate, by all means you should know this and thought about these things way before i just did...so why not post that? Probably because you are a bunch of liars that really know nothing!

When someone refuses to answer to nonsense, it doesn't mean that the nonsense is real.

israelside

4th June 2007, 12:55 PM

repeat

israelside

4th June 2007, 12:57 PM

israelside

4th June 2007, 01:05 PM

How do "we know" that they have more camera angles, if we've never seen others ?

We cannot also say conclusively with 100% confidence that you are not an alien bent on conquering Earth. But then why would we care to disprove something that has no basis in reality ? That's why we have this little thing called burden of proof.

I have heard there atleast 4 from some friends I know in the DOD (who was there on 911 and said a plane did hi) and state dept. My statements have a basis in reality you joker...proving a negative is nearly impossible unless you have 100% evidence, say camera angles but even then the camera may have stalled for 1 minute...none the less i guess sense we can't prove thermate was in the building we can't say it was in there. I still think wtc7 fell straight down haha.

israelside

4th June 2007, 01:09 PM

Oh, you have the collected evidence, expose it for us. Please? I would like to know how many facts you have on the ISI stuff. Rip it out.

I expect your ISI information is as good as you thermite is. If you have something we would be seeing it on the news. Go ahead give us the collected evidence of the person who has already exposed JREF as a waste of time. I mean you could ask the paranormal guys to expose this 9/11 stuff, you know, you believe in all the paranormal stuff. Just expose it all now. Stop wasting time and show everyone how much you have. You failed on thermite, you may do better in your field of what ever. Are you a scientist or an engineer? So what great ISI stuff do you have?

You are not investigating, you think this is a waste of time. You still can not expose your secret ideas on 9/11 because you will never have them or are you just afraid to be open and honest about you ideas. Which is it? Which item is next on the all ideas welcome thread of nothing?

I welcome your ideas on the ISI, or terrorist pilots and why they can't fly, or why the building can't fall as fast as they did, or why planes can break steel, or how people with cut throats die fast, or how 19 terrorist were able to do it, etc. Which idea do you think is good?

There is the, how did the guys planting the bomb and unknown thermite devices and know where the planes were going to hit idea. Got any?

ISI stuff: gen mahmud wired 100K to saeid who gave it to atta.
also abbas (known isi agent) knew the towers were going to come down.
saeid has known connections with the ISI.
the ISI and Al Qaueda have a pretty long history of drug smuggling and weapons deals not to mention covering for terrorist suspects.
I'm not saying the ISI is the solution to all the problems of 911 or where to find all the terrorists, they are just 1 small piece of the giant puzzle. Have you read the complete 911 timeline at all?

Most everything about 911 I have posted somewhere in this thread, go read those and respond.

beachnut

4th June 2007, 01:13 PM

ISI stuff: gen mahmud wired 100K to saeid who gave it to atta.
Sources and proof? What does it mean?

No thermate. Dr Jones started with simple thermite in his first paper. He does no have a clue.

JonnyFive

4th June 2007, 01:16 PM

I asked a serious question Belzabub and Johnny, all you do is critisize me...of course nothing i say could be good nor do any of my legit questions deserve response, why can't you admit you just don't know or whatnot? You people have so much pride, atleast I have said where I am wrong and how my beliefs can change. Again, what substance melts much slower than steel? If you don't know just say it, stop trying to belittle my point just because you don't like me. You people come in this safe forum with no one else to challenge your argument except for someone with little experience in these fields and go home proud that you accomplished a great day of defeating falsehoods...just a bunch of overblown egos we are stroking here arn't we?

If your question was "is there a serious case for thermate being used in the collapse of the twin towers?" then the answer is "no." There are serious problems with that hypothesis that have been outlined several times. You aren't the first person to come around touting the thermate theory, and it just doesn't work due to the technical problems that would need to be overcome.

If you want to start dragging in "what if" devices that we have no evidence for the existence of, then you might as well argue for space beams, holographic cruise missiles, or Godzilla.

Why do you keep asking what substance melts slower than steel, anyway? Anything with a higher melting point would, by definition, melt slower. The current understanding of the collapse is not that the steel was melted, simply that it was weakened.

israelside

4th June 2007, 01:17 PM

Sources and proof? What does it mean?

No thermate. Dr Jones started with simple thermite in his first paper. He does no have a clue.

its under the ISI section http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

israelside

4th June 2007, 01:23 PM

If your question was "is there a serious case for thermate being used in the collapse of the twin towers?" then the answer is "no." There are serious problems with that hypothesis that have been outlined several times. You aren't the first person to come around touting the thermate theory, and it just doesn't work due to the technical problems that would need to be overcome.

If you want to start dragging in "what if" devices that we have no evidence for the existence of, then you might as well argue for space beams, holographic cruise missiles, or Godzilla.

Why do you keep asking what substance melts slower than steel, anyway? Anything with a higher melting point would, by definition, melt slower. The current understanding of the collapse is not that the steel was melted, simply that it was weakened.

Those other ideas are outrageous, a device to secure thermate to a beam (which now exisists by the way) could have been used in a priliminary trial on the wtc...that's not proof but it's not so outrageous to think like you want us to believe. No you are ignoring the question...I asked WHAT SUBSTANCE DOES MELT SLOWER you have no idea right? Why can't you just say that Jonny? If a substance melts slower than steel then u can wrap the thermate in that substance in order to weaken the column, do i have to keep repeating this? These are not just wild fantasies i am talking about, but legit things that could have happend and you know it!! Now answer it or say you don't know.

Edited to remove incivility; remember, this sub-forum is currently under a stricter interpretation of the membership agreement. Do not indulge yourself in ad hom's in the future - attack the argument only.

JonnyFive

4th June 2007, 01:41 PM

Those other ideas are outrageous, a device to secure thermate to a beam (which now exisists by the way) could have been used in a priliminary trial on the wtc...that's not proof but it's not so outrageous to think like you want us to believe. No you are ignoring the question...I asked WHAT SUBSTANCE DOES MELT SLOWER you have no idea right? Why can't you just say that Jonny? If a substance melts slower than steel then u can wrap the thermate in that substance in order to weaken the column, do i have to keep repeating this before you get it threw your thick skull? These are not just wild fantasies i am talking about, but legit things that could have happend and you know it!! Now answer it or say you don't know.

Yes, I know about the devices. However, they don't "secure thermate" to anything. They serve to direct the reaction sideways. They are large, bulky devices similar to firepots (for lack of a better comparison). They have been demonstrated to melt light rebar only. No one supporting these theories has obtained so much as a shred of evidence that such a device can damage a thick supporting column or survive the impact of a plane.

I just told you what melts slower than steel: All materials with a higher melting point. Your continued assertion that I "have no idea" makes it no more true. If you want an exhaustive enumeration of all the compounds, alloys, and elements that have a higher melting point than steel, you're not getting it.

First of all, which alloy of steel are you talking about? The WTC steel specifically? Got a figure for the melting point of that particular alloy?

Let's say, for example, it melts at 2500 degrees F (in the real world, the number is going to be different). That would put the following materials in the "melts slower" category, among others:

-Titanium (3034 F)
-Diamond (6420 F)
-Carbon (7280 F)

So you believe that the columns were wrapped in a kind of "cup" of, say, carbon that had a thermate reaction in it, which would then melt the steel?

Except that the steel would be melted at the base of the surrounding material, allowing the thermate reaction to progress downward, and not melt the rest of the steel column. Oddly enough, absolutely no evidence has been found for this mechanism, which would undoubtedly leave obvious traces and a rather unique pattern to the columns affected by it.

I'm quite capable of following your arguments. Because I disagree with them does not make me stupid, contrary to your ad hominem posing. Please be more civil.

Arkan_Wolfshade

4th June 2007, 01:46 PM

So you believe that the columns were wrapped in a kind of "cup" of, say, carbon that had a thermate reaction in it, which would then melt the steel?

Except that the steel would be melted at the base of the surrounding material, allowing the thermate reaction to progress downward, and not melt the rest of the steel column. Oddly enough, absolutely no evidence has been found for this mechanism, which would undoubtedly leave obvious traces and a rather unique pattern to the columns affected by it. QFE. In order for a device to cut horizontally through a steel beam it must use pressure to force the thermite along a horizontal path.

israelside

4th June 2007, 01:51 PM

ok jonny I see what you mean now that it couldn't burn all the way through the column. Well bombs are a much more likely device then...don't see how wtc7 fell so quick without some sort of device to pull it down.

israelside

4th June 2007, 01:54 PM

QFE. In order for a device to cut horizontally through a steel beam it must use pressure to force the thermite along a horizontal path.

You think it could have been done on 9/11?

beachnut

4th June 2007, 02:03 PM

Arkan_Wolfshade

4th June 2007, 02:07 PM

You think it could have been done on 9/11?
Given that no evidence has been presented that such a device exists, no I do not think it could have been done.

Par

4th June 2007, 02:11 PM

So you believe that the columns were wrapped in a kind of "cup" of, say, carbon that had a thermate reaction in it, which would then melt the steel?

Except that the steel would be melted at the base of the surrounding material, allowing the thermate reaction to progress downward, and not melt the rest of the steel column.

They clamped thousands of thermite-filled, remote-controlled, sealed, spring-loaded, carbon conical iris values around the columns. What could be simpler?

Blackwell

4th June 2007, 05:17 PM

They clamped thousands of thermite-filled, remote-controlled, sealed, spring-loaded, carbon conical iris values around the columns. What could be simpler?

Trained suicidal chimps with hacksaws.

Belz...

5th June 2007, 04:58 AM

I have heard there atleast 4 from some friends I know in the DOD (who was there on 911 and said a plane did hi)

Hearsay, then.

My statements have a basis in reality you joker...

Of course. Hearsay exists.

proving a negative is nearly impossible unless you have 100% evidence

Proving that there WERE other cameras is not proving a negative, Side.

I still think wtc7 fell straight down haha.

I don't know what's so funny about it.

Belz...

5th June 2007, 05:01 AM

why can't you admit you just don't know or whatnot?

There's lots of things I don't know. I don't jump to the conclusion that it means anything.

Again, what substance melts much slower than steel?

Careful, now. You've already been stundied for that.

If you don't know just say it, stop trying to belittle my point just because you don't like me.

Oh, look. It's teething. Look, man. I don't like you because you're spewing nonsense. Get to doing some research, and we'll talk.

just a bunch of overblown egos we are stroking here arn't we?

Blah, blah, blah. Go away, and bring back some evidence, wiull you ?

JonnyFive

5th June 2007, 06:05 AM

Belz...

5th June 2007, 07:02 AM

israelside

5th June 2007, 02:07 PM

To be fair, I should probably clarify that the ability of a material to conduct heat would also factor into its ability to melt. Steel is a relatively good conductor of heat, although there are certainly better conducters that might have marginally higher melting points but melt slightly "faster" due to their greater ability to conduct thermal energy. However, I think it's fair to say that the substances I mentioned are all going to melt slower than steel in similar conditions.

Now, if we're done with the thermite, we can talk about explosives.

Israelside, in a standard controlled demolition, explosives are used only to weaken the supporting structure enough to allow gravity to pull the structure down. The problem is that the actual speed of collapse isn't going to be any greater than a structure that's falling because its supporting elements have failed for other reasons.

There are several engineers, and at least one architect (handily using the screen name "Architect") on this forum that can explain it all far better than I can.

Is there anything, other than collapse speed, that leads you to believe explosives were used? A series of loud reports in sequence before collapse? Visible flashes from explosive charges? Reports of people moving in and out of the building with large quantities of unknown packages?

Do you believe that explosives were a possibility for the twin towers, or only WTC 7? If so, why? If not, why?

How many steel frame skyscrapers have fallen down on itself (for the most part atleast if you dont think so) with no help of CD's. In wtc7's case it did have damage and some fires...but it does seem odd that the designers wouldn't have made it stronger to hold up the building in case a catastrophic event like 9/11.

I think wtc7 is the best case for a CD...the upper corner of the building looked like a few demolitions were set right before the building came down have you seen those? I don't know about reports of packages...but like you say as long as crucial beams are taken out I dont see the need for a large quantity of explosives...anyone here is a CD expert and can give us some numbers on this with your experience? I just can't tell really if any of the buildings had thermate or explosives...I can't prove it so i really can't hold to saying they were in any building, however wtc7 looks eerily similar to a CD if you look at the multiple camera angles. Can't you agree that it looks similar to a CD even if you think it wasn't.

Has NIST come out with their final report yet testing for bombs in the building? I guess their findings are as good as any.

israelside

5th June 2007, 02:10 PM

israelside

5th June 2007, 02:15 PM

Arkan_Wolfshade

5th June 2007, 02:21 PM

Pardalis

5th June 2007, 02:23 PM

Taboire! :eek:

Civilized Worm

5th June 2007, 02:27 PM

JimBenArm

5th June 2007, 02:28 PM

Bombs don't pull things.
Did you say pull? Are you Silverstein in disguise?
Conspiracy!!!!

Belz...

6th June 2007, 04:57 AM

How many steel frame skyscrapers have fallen down on itself (for the most part atleast if you dont think so) with no help of CD's.

Irrelevant. Something doesn't need to have happened before in order to happen.

In wtc7's case it did have damage and some fires...but it does seem odd that the designers wouldn't have made it stronger to hold up the building in case a catastrophic event like 9/11.

Why would they ? You said yourself that it NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

I think wtc7 is the best case for a CD...the upper corner of the building looked like a few demolitions were set right before the building came down have you seen those?

Yes. Why would you want to blow charges AT THE TOP of the building ?

I just can't tell really if any of the buildings had thermate or explosives...

That's okay. They had neither.

however wtc7 looks eerily similar to a CD if you look at the multiple camera angles.

Yeah. From certain angles tomato juice looks eerily similar to blood.

Can't you agree that it looks similar to a CD even if you think it wasn't.

Of course. The building fell down.

So beachnut, to you everyone on here is either a "troofer" or a "debunker" no one can be in the middle...or ever change their position right?

Those who claim to be in the middle often end up having being truthers for a while. I guess they're not as concerned with the truth as they claim.

Belz...

6th June 2007, 04:58 AM

JonnyFive

6th June 2007, 07:04 AM

How many steel frame skyscrapers have fallen down on itself (for the most part atleast if you dont think so) with no help of CD's.

I think the WTC's case is a perculiar one, considering the damage done to the towers and the uncontrolled nature of the fires. The whole "first time in history" thing is something of a red herring, in that respect. 9/11 was an unprecedented event, and to try to claim this somehow suggest CD is, at best, somewhat lazy.

Here is a good debunking page on this topic (http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm), which includes links to information on other fires in steel framed structures that did collapse. If nothing else, this should illustrate that steel is in no way immune to the effects of fire.

In wtc7's case it did have damage and some fires...but it does seem odd that the designers wouldn't have made it stronger to hold up the building in case a catastrophic event like 9/11.

You can't just "ma[ke] it stronger" ad infinitum. There are real, physical limits to what a tall building can survive. In the case of WTC 7, it was able to survive collapse for long enough to evacuate everyone inside. From a disaster management point of view, I think that's an ideal outcome.

Also, bear in mind that WTC 7 was damaged by debris from the towers as they collapsed. It wasn't structurally sound.

I think wtc7 is the best case for a CD...the upper corner of the building looked like a few demolitions were set right before the building came down have you seen those? I don't know about reports of packages...but like you say as long as crucial beams are taken out I dont see the need for a large quantity of explosives...anyone here is a CD expert and can give us some numbers on this with your experience? I just can't tell really if any of the buildings had thermate or explosives...I can't prove it so i really can't hold to saying they were in any building, however wtc7 looks eerily similar to a CD if you look at the multiple camera angles. Can't you agree that it looks similar to a CD even if you think it wasn't.

It looks "similar" in some ways because it collapsed due to the force of gravity, which is the main force acting on a building in a real CD.

However, some of the key elements of a CD are absent. most notably, you can't hear or see any charges.

Why would they need to demolish WTC 7 and then not tell anyone, anyway?

I thought you'd given up on thermate.

Has NIST come out with their final report yet testing for bombs in the building? I guess their findings are as good as any.

No, I don't think they have. Their job isn't the "test for bombs" anyhow, it's to help explain collapse initiation.

Ill finish that up by saying that..at the end of the day whether you are extremely self giving or not we all are alone...just us and God. So by that fact we all must be selfish in the end, granted we can care about others along the way and even seem to be totally self giving but when we die everyone has to think about themselves more than anything, simply because it's out choice if we are going to believe in Jesus or not, be saved or not..this is for another forum, but really God covers all topics ;) If you say God does not belong in 1 topic then really that denies who God is.

Sorry, I really haven't seen any convincing evidence for God. Certainly not the "God" of Christianity. If you have some, I guess you can start another thread in the religion sub forum.

I'm really not sure what that had to do with this topic, though.

beachnut

8th June 2007, 04:03 PM

So beachnut, to you everyone on here is either a "troofer" or a "debunker" no one can be in the middle...or ever change their position right? Life really is not as clear cut as you imagine...even the greatest debunker in the world probably has some conspiracy theories he thinks are plausible why? Because ultimately the world is evil and we can't truely trust everyone around us to seek our best interest...or anyone's true best interest...at times yes, but most of the time their interest is their own because deep down we are all selfish by nature.
Middle of the road for lies and misinformation about 9/11. I guess not. Change a position based on lies and no evidence. How can someone make a mistake in the first place. Most people base their factual statements of events based on facts and evidence that support them. They also list why or why not the points of evidence are valid and why they could be invalid. Example, I hear a gun shot in the next room. I go in the next room and find a paper bag. Oops the sound was the bag being ruptured and making a loud sound.

I can not think of one CT in the whole world I believe. Name one that I missed. The moon landing happen, this is one reason I was an engineer. Watergate was not a CT, it was a conspiracy. It really happened and lots of people told on them and a lot of people when to prison. Ron Brown died in an aircraft accident along with my friend; that was not a CT. I have seen CT propagated due to someone political biases. I have seen CT propagated due to stupidity. There are day to day actual conspiracies to sell products, but we all should know Kool-aid will not help you break down walls. The 9/11 CT junk may sound cool, but it is not based in fact. Conclusion of the 9/11 truth movement are lies, and not supported by the misinformation and made up stuff of a few people making profits, or spewing lies due to their political biases.

Oh, the world is evil? You mean people. I have yet to find the evil world stalking me, or that dangerous curve in road actual come after me and crash my car.

So you ignore 19 terrorist (the evil guys) who came up with a surprise attack that was so simple and caught us off guard. And you prefer the made up lies of 9/11 truth. You have chosen poorly. If you noticed, "we", in the form of flight 93 passengers actually solved 9/11 when they stood up and attacked the cockpit! They figured out 9/11 in a few minutes and you have essential messed up every single fact about 9/11 and come the the wrong conclusion after 5 years. Flight 93 passengers were correct, you are wrong. I am not sure if I had been on flight 93 if I would have figured it out with a different set of people. But given 5 or 6 years I would be ashamed to be on the side of 9/11 truth where only lies can be found. Over 5 years and no sign of intelligent life found in the 9/11 truth movement in regard to 9/11 events. End of story. FF

beachnut

8th June 2007, 04:10 PM

Ill finish that up by saying that..at the end of the day whether you are extremely self giving or not we all are alone...just us and God. So by that fact we all must be selfish in the end, granted we can care about others along the way and even seem to be totally self giving but when we die everyone has to think about themselves more than anything, simply because it's out choice if we are going to believe in Jesus or not, be saved or not..this is for another forum, but really God covers all topics ;) If you say God does not belong in 1 topic then really that denies who God is.
God has let you down. God knows the truthers are full of lies. It is a test of your ability to do the hard research it takes to save you from a life facing terminal stupidity. God has given you the tools and you must of lost them. 9/11 is like falling for the anti-Christ, you like what you hear and you believe it, but it is the evil you speak of. You have fallen for the things you want to hear, the stuff you like to hear, you have been lied to and you are eating the apple of lies the snakes of 9/11 truth. God has let you down, but bigger, you have let god down, have you broken all the tools he gave you.

If you pray real hard, you may get a second chance. God told me how to cure terminal stupidity, I will tell you if you repent. Even Christ knows about 9/11, how did you mess it up I-man? You did not learn much from the Bible, you need to read it again.

israelside

12th June 2007, 12:57 PM

God has let you down. God knows the truthers are full of lies. It is a test of your ability to do the hard research it takes to save you from a life facing terminal stupidity. God has given you the tools and you must of lost them. 9/11 is like falling for the anti-Christ, you like what you hear and you believe it, but it is the evil you speak of. You have fallen for the things you want to hear, the stuff you like to hear, you have been lied to and you are eating the apple of lies the snakes of 9/11 truth. God has let you down, but bigger, you have let god down, have you broken all the tools he gave you.

If you pray real hard, you may get a second chance. God told me how to cure terminal stupidity, I will tell you if you repent. Even Christ knows about 9/11, how did you mess it up I-man? You did not learn much from the Bible, you need to read it again.

Ok Beachnut, God will never let me down, and how can I let God down? He expects us to be weak in our natural bodies...how can we comprehend the mind of God? How can we know truely if our feelings of betrayal or apostate living towards others is how God sees us? The scriptures say God's ways are not our way...maybe you need to read the bible again, but all i'v said about 9/11 are possible theories based off loose ended strings, no hard facts, no hard evidence and by no means conclusive, research paper writing facts. You don't understand that, never will. If you have done alot of research and are an expert in the fields of study about 9/11 and physics or whatnot then you speak I probably can trust you...i dont know that of you though. I never said I was an expert, or even knew all the answers, granted the odds of these certain conspiracies are not in favor however history and knowing govts past is evidence enough to question the story of 9/11 and because certain organizations have benefitted from 9/11 we should atleast question their motivation behind the event even if they are guilty, thats what prosecutors do...that's all I am doing.

israelside

12th June 2007, 01:01 PM

God has let you down. God knows the truthers are full of lies. It is a test of your ability to do the hard research it takes to save you from a life facing terminal stupidity. God has given you the tools and you must of lost them. 9/11 is like falling for the anti-Christ, you like what you hear and you believe it, but it is the evil you speak of. You have fallen for the things you want to hear, the stuff you like to hear, you have been lied to and you are eating the apple of lies the snakes of 9/11 truth. God has let you down, but bigger, you have let god down, have you broken all the tools he gave you.

If you pray real hard, you may get a second chance. God told me how to cure terminal stupidity, I will tell you if you repent. Even Christ knows about 9/11, how did you mess it up I-man? You did not learn much from the Bible, you need to read it again.

If you are so concerned about evidence and conclusive proof of things before you make up your mind about an issues (which we should be by the way) then why do you keep assuming that I am a "troofer" or whatever? Someone that is researching a topic holds theories, all kinds...that doesn't mean they are guilty of holding onto and preaching a anti-govt anti-troop nwo pushing ideology.

By the way, anyone in here heard of the quote by David Rockefeller in his book "Memoirs" in which he admits to being in a secret cabal of world elites? Ill find the quote if not..

israelside

12th June 2007, 01:07 PM

David Rockefeller Sept. 23, 1994 "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -David Rockefeller, from his own book, Memoirs.

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson

"We know in the not too distant future, a half dozen corporations are going to control the media.
We took this step (merger) to ensure we were one of them"--Time Warner spokesperson.

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise their power from behind the
scenes."-- Justice Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court.

you can find more interesting quotes here:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/quotes_on_the_new_world_order.htm

JonnyFive

12th June 2007, 01:09 PM

israelside

12th June 2007, 01:10 PM

I'm sure glad you all have quoted alot of those quotes before, afterall brilliant folks should have known that...you didnt know of those beach, jonny? Hum.....enough said.

HyJinX

12th June 2007, 01:13 PM

God doesn't like sass.

israelside

12th June 2007, 01:19 PM

Could you please cite sources that verify those quotes.

Not that I don't trust jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Illuminati as an unbiased source of historical record, but a little corroboration would be nice.

A few of them are in his book "Memoirs" but the rest you can find on google...Can't prove all of them with a billion references but atleast some of them.

JonnyFive

12th June 2007, 01:20 PM

I'm sure glad you all have quoted alot of those quotes before, afterall brilliant folks should have known that...you didnt know of those beach, jonny? Hum.....enough said.

What you just said here doesn't really make sense.

That's odd... I started to check Google for the Rockefeller source (probably the most blatant of your "quotes"), since you're not exactly forthcoming when people ask you to justify your beliefs with evidence... all I can find are conspiracy web sites. I don't see a recording, or his own writing, or a video of him saying it, or a verified transcript of him saying it.

How unusual. Did you know that you said "I am a liar. Everything I say about 9/11 is a lie! I am an agent of the New World Order!" It's true, I swear you said it once. You probably just don't remember and it was deleted from the board. But I said it here, so it must be true.

No? You didn't? Well then, how about you verify those quotes rather than expect me to simply take your word for it?

You're the one claiming these quotes were indeed said by those attributed, and that they prove something. I believe that would make it your claim, and therefore your burden of proof.

israelside

12th June 2007, 01:25 PM

What you just said here doesn't really make sense.

That's odd... I started to check Google for the Rockefeller source (probably the most blatant of your "quotes"), since you're not exactly forthcoming when people ask you to justify your beliefs with evidence... all I can find are conspiracy web sites. I don't see a recording, or his own writing, or a video of him saying it, or a verified transcript of him saying it.

How unusual. Did you know that you said "I am a liar. Everything I say about 9/11 is a lie! I am an agent of the New World Order!" It's true, I swear you said it once. You probably just don't remember and it was deleted from the board. But I said it here, so it must be true.

No? You didn't? Well then, how about you verify those quotes rather than expect me to simply take your word for it?

You're the one claiming these quotes were indeed said by those attributed, and that they prove something. I believe that would make it your claim, and therefore your burden of proof.

The quotes of importance are found in books and letters, go buy the book and then you can prove it to your own stone walled mind.

JonnyFive

12th June 2007, 01:27 PM

A few of them are in his book "Memoirs" but the rest you can find on google...Can't prove all of them with a billion references but atleast some of them.

No, telling me to Google it is insufficient. You do your own research, israelside. I don't need a "billion references," I just need one or two verified sources per quote. Give me evidence they actually said it, not that some guy said they said it.

I found the quote from "Memoirs." It's on page 405. That would be this quote:

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -David Rockefeller Memoirs (p. 405)

Of course, to the non-paranoid it appears he is saying he's collaberated with others to build a more integrated global economy.

Now, do you have sources for the more damning quotes? Namely, the first one?

JonnyFive

12th June 2007, 01:30 PM

The quotes of importance are found in books and letters, go buy the book and then you can prove it to your own stone walled mind.

Oh, in "letters." And you have evidence of this, right? You know, a copy of the letter, perhaps? A reprint?

If not, why do you unquestioningly believe that the quotes are accurate? Because some conspiracy web site says so? Because they agree with your view of the world?

You do know that the "do your own research for my claims" BS is the height of intellectual dishonesty, right?

Gravy

12th June 2007, 01:47 PM

David Rockefeller Sept. 23, 1994 "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

You've combined two purported David Rockefeller quotes here. This is part 1, with some more context (also, you have the date wrong):

"Now, as the United Nations approaches its 50th anniversary, business support for the numerous internationally related problems in which it is involved has never been more urgently needed.... With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the opportunity for enlightened American leadership is, perhaps, even greater than it was in 1939, at the beginning of the Second World War, or in 1945 when the Cold War began. "But this present 'window of opportunity,' during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global cooperation." (address to the 28th Annual United Nations Ambassador Dinner, September 14, 1994, as quoted in the Business Council for the United Nations Briefing; Vol. 8, Issue 2, Winter 1995, page 1).

Now please cite a verifiable source for this purported David Rockefeller quote.

"All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

I'll bet you can't.

beachnut

12th June 2007, 03:24 PM

I never said I was an expert, or even knew all the answers, granted the odds of these certain conspiracies are not in favor however history and knowing govts past is evidence enough to question the story of 9/11 and because certain organizations have benefitted from 9/11 we should atleast question their motivation behind the event even if they are guilty, thats what prosecutors do...that's all I am doing.

Name one person who has benefited from 9/11, and how that makes them responsible for doing 9/11? Come on use all that god has given you to spew this innuendo and false conclusions which you can not stand by. Go ahead and say who did it and why. Then tell me who you think benefited had no damage or grief suffered on 9/11. Can you actually gather some facts and put together something you think happened? Are you just talking and have nothing real to present because you want to spew lies and cast doubt on what really happen? You want to blame others so you have no intention of reading what there is to disprove all the entire work of the 9/11 truth movement that is false and made up by godless capitalistic frauds and ignorant cult members who believe false information.

Try researching 9/11 and start reading and do some real analysis before you spew the non conclusion of nothing. You want to say something about what did or did not happen on 9/11, but you have no idea what it is?

JonnyFive

13th June 2007, 05:33 AM

Now please cite a verifiable source for this purported David Rockefeller quote.

I'll bet you can't.

I predict he will tell us to "use Google" or drop the issue entirely.