6:10pm (est) C-SPAN tonight!!

In 2 hours turn on C-SPAN with a tape in your VCR ready to record the most historic national television event in modern times.

6:10pm (eastern time) presentation of last month's 9/11 Truth conference which took place at the Sheraton hotel in Los Angeles. 5 speakers (including host Alex Jones) then a question/answer session with the audience. Tell others to watch and tape it!

 

Oh, and...spread the word!!

 

I wish we had more a more serious truth movement for 911. There's plenty of open ground for honest criticism of the government incompetence surrounding that event and Bush's stone-walling of the investigation. However, the claims that the truth movements are making are so off the wall that they lose their credibility and short-circuit their cause right from the start. For example, claiming that molten aluminum from the aircraft flowing out the tower was thermite planted by the government right where the plane ended up that supposedly melted through the steel and brought down the towers. Only a few people in the world would believe such a scenario. Some of these groups are akin to the 'Swiftboat Veterans for Truth' campaign.

However, I do applaud C-SPAN for airing alternative viewpoints, which at least shows the frustration the public has with the government's handling of 911. C-SPAN seems to be coming out of its 911 protective political shell lately. I was quite upset when they refused to cover the 911 hearings in the Senate the summer of 2002 when the relatives testified about all of the government incompetence surrounding 911. What the relatives complained about that day was at least legitimate and rational compared with what is being purported by the 911 fringe movements that have developed in recent years.

.

 

I assure you, they're not "fringe" movements anymore, as the mainstream media would have you believe.

Read David Ray Griffin's book "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions".

 

I've read Griffin and Jones and others. Some sound good on the surface to the layman but they haven't put forth an argument based on any hard evidence. They try to use allegorical arguments and anecdotal accounts to support their claims. That's far short of proving an argument..

It would be better if we had a 911 movement comprised of the relatives of the victims. They expressed legitimate complaints during the Senate hearings the summer of 2002.

What we have now is basically a collection of retired people from the academic community who are making wild claims that often belittle 911 victims and their relatives. Most of them aren't trained in science but rather have backgrounds in law, philosophy, and religion. Their claims may sound good to people not trained in science but they don't hold any water when put up to the rigors of science. Most of the conspiracy advocates aren't relatives of victims. They are on an ideological campaign against the government and haven't considered how they are belittling the relatives.

Some of the relatives of the victims have become so frustrated at being belittled that they have formed their own groups to oppose the current 911 conspiracy groups. You can imagine the frustration when claims are being made that their relatives weren't involved in the Pentagon crash, in spite of a hundred witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon, because a few amateur 'scientists' who weren't there think the hole was too small.

.

 

A short article about the 911 conspiracy craze.

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=j1dxcwnt8x627gjyg5jn728rfkn21t9l

They haven't really made any progress on this movement in terms of a scientific endeavor. The movement tends to satisfy emotional needs of people more than anything else. It's more a symbol of people's frustration with the government. In that respect, I see some value in it.

.

 

We really need a separate conspiracy room on hipforums. The conspiracy thing creeps into many rooms on this forum.

.

 

You must be one of those conspiracy "things" then. You seem to creep in whenever the substantively evidenced truth of 911 (and the quite real and well documented PNAC agenda it was orchestrated to launch) threatens your populist bandwagon mantras.

For the record, the slag also clearly photgraphed at ground zero (along with the infernal temperatures persisting for weeks at ground zero are not remotely equatable to "aluminum" (molten or otherwise) but to purpose rigged and detonated steel (also repeatedly and susbtantively presented in these forums).

The fact that you simply cannot countenance the admission that our own MIC/intelligence system - and the rabid ideologues which hijacked it with clear intent for "a war which will not end in our lifetimes" - could possibly orchestrate such a treasonous crime against their own nation, is your problem and that of the other head in the sanders (and opportunistic status quo apologists), not that of the 911Truth movement or the evidence it has painstakingly compiled.

Keep believing in your arab hijacker w/boxcutters boogeymen and shadowy al qaeda fantasies whilst the real terrorists and brazenly obvious unilateralist war criminals in Washington continue to slaughter their way to greater riches and power at home and, by proxy, abroad.

 

I agree with Shaggie. There is some evidence that the government acted incompetently, and this should be explored.

Lick, Steel could easily burn for long periods of time if it was provided with fuel and oxygen to continue it's burning. Substantial fuel could come in the form of water, which was poured on the remains of the WTC.

Heres a chemistry lecture on the subject.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cach...m+generates+hydrogen&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

Moreover, thermite would be one of the least effiecient means of controlled demolition I can think of. It takes pounds of thermite to weld rail tracks. The amounts to bring down a building would be overbearing.

 

This sounds like complete disinformation to me. Belittleing the relatives?? Are you kidding?? Many of the relatives ARE part of the truth movement. The relatives are the ones who PUSHED for the investigation (which THEY feel was a sham and a whitewash).
As for "witnesses" who "saw the plane hit the Pentagon", there are ALSO witnesses who claim to have heard what sounded like a "cruise missile" headed toward the Pentagon. But that's not the issue. We don't even need to discuss the ambiguities of what happened at the Pentagon to understand that the 9/11 attacks were an operation orchestrated by inside elements of the U.S. government. Sorry Shags, but you don't have a case for your argument, despite your ardent attempts.

Lodui, what was found under the rubble at the WTC (including building 7 which I'd love to hear you talk about) was an element called "ThermAte", which is thermite coated with sulfer, to increase the exposive power of ThermIte. I suggest you do a little more research before clicking the "reply" button here.

 

Oh by the way Shaggie, Griffin's book doesn't put together an alternative theory. He simply puts to shame the official conspiracy theory put out by the government you seem to trust so much. He doesn't necessarily say "The U.S. government was behind the attack". He states that "The governments version simply cannot be accurate." Please explore that difference.

 

Expose, thermate is an industrial form of thermite with a nitrate and sulfur added. It's not an 'element'.

Adding sulfur and a nitrate makes it more useful as an incendiary because of the very high temperatures needed to ignite thermite.

This doesn't substantially reduce the very large amount of thermite needed to bring down a very large building, just makes it easier to ignite, which is something I never raised. What you posted was very common knowledge abstract to my post.

I could continue to debate, but you've already demonstrated a lack of understanding about chemisty and demolition.

If you'd like to talk about this reasonably, then feel free, but a few basic questions followed by condescending remarks aren't worth my time.

 

Lodui, like shaggie you miss the point entirely.

Firstly it has long been accurately argued by the legitimate 911Truth researchers that no hydrocarbon fire could nor did burn hot enough to so much as soften let alone melt the steel of the floor trusses. The "pancake", "zipper" and other "official" nonsense conspiracy postulates of the long exposed mouthpieces (academic collusionists more rightly) for this administration - like "Dr." Thomas Eager, who tellingly received his due appointment to a national commission for his laughable and quite unqualified theories previously named - have no precedence in the history of steel construction nor do they adequately explain the freefall collapse in demolition fashion of the entire non-burning majority of the buildings, nor that of WTC 7 which wasn't in conflagration whatsoever.

What the bandwagon so desperately wants to avoid is so glaringly obvious that even demolition experts noted the telling character of the collapses as the result of preset charges (whether thermite or normal cutter charges is beside the point). The fact that the steel beams recovered were all found to be sliced into symmetrical 30 foot lengths is further evidence of planted charges.

Moreover, the fact that Marvin Bush held the security contracts for both buildings and that weeks prior to 911 the buildings had undergond complete electrical shutdown for "maintenance", with teams of never investigated "workmen" crawling throughout adds to the "how" of the planned and necessary demolitions. This was the seminal act called for precisely in the PNAC's own brazenly open agenda for US unilateral perpetual war for empire and it was NOT going to be left to the coincidental chance posed by the "official" arab hijacker conspiracy theory.

Further still, additional testimony of the weeks prior to 911, the security dogs were removed from the buildings thus enhancing the argument that explosive charges were being set by said supposed "workmen".

When we hearken back to the public-psyche shaping "bombing" of 1993 (also notable for its timing just months after the defeat of Bush Sr and the frustration that posed to the PNAC brigade then forced to wait through the Clinton term to further their intentions) that too was shrouded in non-investigated but later revealed tie ins to our federal intelligence/MIC institutions. The pattern is so transparent to anyone who has any grasp of the will to power of the strausscons and the depth of their ideological disdain for the average citizenry.

Those who can but slavishly run to hide behind any "report" that will offer them a straw by which to continue believing in the myth of our "patriotic" government show themselves as ignorant of the countless well researched and exposed inconsistencies and utter physical implausibilities of the official conspiracy theory as they do of the political aspirations and agenda of those who called for just such a "traumatic and catalyzing event" as 911 surely was.

Live in denial or wake the hell up and smell the traitors and mass murdering terrorists that continue to laugh at the ease with which the US public has bought into the OSP-crafted myths and lies and spin from their comfy seats of power in our nation's capitol.

The only conspiracy "theory" is that which you and the likes of shaggie still tenaciously cling to.

 

I don't know what specifically you're talking about Lick, because you're not organising you're not organizing your beliefs very clearly.

If you're talking about the 'theory' that airplane fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel... that's not much of a challenge. Airplane fuel doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt steel to cause a steel rise building to colapse. It has to get hot enough to weaken the structual integrity of steel which is a very maliable compound. Around 600 degrees F steel loses much of it's structual integrity.

For the bomb dogs, bomb smelling dogs aren't trained to smell thermite, so that isn't a challenge either. If you were to suggest something other then thermite, it would be more of a challenge for dogs to be removed, although any other incendiary compund besides thermite (which only leaves behind aluminum and Iron oxide) would leave much more of a trace behind.

The political things I'm not so much interested in this discussion. I don't like George Bush, but I'd like you to leave any mention of politics aside in explaining this to me untill you've conected the logistical steps of this action you suggest was perpetrated by our government to me.

If you can convince me of this, and want to tie your political belifs to it after, I would like to hear them. Or if you'd like to tell me your beliefs without tying them to this conspiracy, thats fine, but I find the evidence behind the '9/11 truth movement' less then compelling so far.

 

I had the opportunity to watch the conference, and the most telling part of the testimony was why the planes weren't intercepted. I'd like an answer to that question. The US airpower is supposed to be one of the best? Where was our defensive airpower?

 

There is lots of confusion as to why the hijacked planes weren't intercepted. The most common logic would seem to point to NORAD being given a "Stand-down" order.
Check out www.911proof.com for more info on this.

Lodui, it's not my personal obligation to convince you of anything. There are experts out there who can much better clear up any questions you might have about what happened to the twin towers and building 7.

 

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "
document.writeln(AAMB6);



In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says. Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."
Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.

 

The collapse rate of both the towers and WTC7 are consistent with a gravity driven collapse. People can review Greening's paper regarding this issue. WTC7 collapsed at a faster rate because the collapse was from bottom to top. There was the weight of over 40 floors falling down on the bottom floor, which makes the collapse rate near that of free-fall because the effect of momentum transfer was negligible right from the start of the collapse.

The towers fell more slowly because there were less floors falling as a unit at the start and they fell from top to bottom. The effect of momentum transfer was more pronounced for the towers, especially near the beginning of the collapse where it took time for the kinetic energy to build up and become large enough to make the effect of momentum transfer negligible.

Someone like Jones should at least understand the physics of collapse mechanims before making claims of planted explosives.

The other problem Jones and others is that they don't seem to realize that to make a collapse intentionally faster using explosives requires explosives be planted on most of the floors. It's not going to fall any faster by putting explosives on one or two floors. None of the conspiracy advocates have attempted to explain this and many don't seem to be aware of the dilemma they've created for themselves. I'd like to hear the theory about how explosives could have been planted on most or all of the floors of the 208 foot wide quarter-mile high towers or WTC7 to make the collapse rate faster than what they claim should have been the gravity driven rate.

So then what? Only one floor was blown out by the government to start the collapse right where the aircraft and fire were? No one will believe that either since the damage done by the aircraft and fires was sufficient to start a collapse that propagated by gravity.

The gravity driven rate is consistent with what was observed anyway. So why all this fuss about planted explosives making the rate faster?

.

 

Then what exactly is he claiming? This is the problem with people like Griffin. They put forth something that is so murky that you can't really prove it one way or the other. I see similar behavior with the creationist movement. Evolution supposedly is a crock that somehow just isn't right, although the creationists never provide an alternative theory backed with evidence.

.

 

Regarding the 30-foot columns, Jones is wrong again on that one. The columns were spliced at 30-foot intervals with either bolts or shallow butt welds which had a very small fraction of the strength of the columns. You can even see the columns fracturing at the splices during the collapse. There was no evidence of explosive cutting action on the columns. Just broken bolts and broken welds.

And please, don't anyone start up the thermite claim with photos of melted/cut columns. Those cuts were done by torches during the cleanup.

.