| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
JMO wrote:
| Quote: |
| But anyway, i would be interested in hearing an overview of your personal idea of what happened and how many people were involved. |
This article actually summarizes quite well the possibility of such a conspiracy plot. Although theory, it lends some insight as to how it could have been accomplished without thousands of people knowing.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-7-man-job.html
note: direct evidence of CD is not discussed but can be found at
ae911truth.org.
watch the lecture by architect richard gage at the university of manitoba for direct evidence of CD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
The only thing that matters to me, proof wise is peer reviewed literature.
That theory is beautifully designed I have to say but it relies on a lot of suppositions. If I understand it, he means that the terrorists attacked but they planted bombs to help them? Why plant the bombs if they are going to fly airplanes into the buildings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
The only thing that matters to me, proof wise is peer reviewed literature.
That theory is beautifully designed I have to say but it relies on a lot of suppositions. If I understand it, he means that the terrorists attacked but they planted bombs to help them? Why plant the bombs if they are going to fly airplanes into the buildings? |
You can find peer reviewed scientific articles at http://www.journalof911studies.com/
of course it isn't a mainstream publication but it is nonetheless peer reviewed. they also peer review mainstream articles.
the science stands up for controlled demolition thus far. if one wishes to challenge this assertion then they merely need to spend the time honestly reviewing the literature of both sides.
a lot of people will just trust the 'experts'. Which is fine. That is why the leading '911 truth' scientists are working hard to bring the conspiracy into the mainstream. again, after much review of both sides of the argument, i assert that the science stands up for controlled demolition and eventually it will make it to the mainstream via internal or external pressures.
_______________
About the theory.
Yes, terrorists flew planes into the WTC. However the fires and damage that resulted were not enough to bring the towers down. Demolition was planted prior to the event and was used to stage the collapse.
Why add the demolition?
Well, we'd have to ask the people who put it there. but one could imagine the collapses added a 'shock and awe' to the event.
It essentially became the "New Pearl Harbour', from which the neocon agenda could take form. I'm sure there are other agendas mixed in there too.
I don't really like to talk about the 'why', as it is all speculation right now.
The important part right now for the movement is making the public aware that a crime was committed. no one knows who did it yet so it is essential that a new investigation try to find these answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flying planes into the twin towers isn't shock and awe enough? that's ridiculous. Why would someone risk getting caught to add to an already historical event. It makes absoultely no sense, when simply letting the terrorists flying the planes into the building would have the same effect as pearl harbor.
The why is very important unless you are expecting me to believe that the conspirators have no sense at all whilst simutaneously being smart enough to pull it off.
Your correct in saying it's all speculation, speculation that doesn't add up to much apparently.
I've never heard of the Journal of 911 studies which is not a good sign. Why not publish in a mainstream journal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have wondered the same questions. Why not just fly the planes into the buildings? It is a fair question.
However, the physical evidence supporting a controlled demolition is very strong. Thus, one doesn't need to rely on speculation of motive to demonstrate that a crime was committed.
As for my personal opinion:
If those buildings didn't collapse it wouldn't have been on par with pearl harbor in terms of lost life. So perhaps one could argue that simply flying planes into buildings wouldn't have been enough to sway public opinion and support into 2, possibly 3 wars. Remember there are long term goals involved that go beyond just finding the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Why Iraq? Why Iran? One could argue, why afganistan even?
Why not pakistan (money trail leads there)? Why not S. Arabia (most terrorists came from there)? and why haven't they found OBL yet?
It seems an agenda beyond the scope of catching the 9-11 terrorists is being realized, and could have only been realized, if the public was scared enough to allow it to happen. The events of 9-11 have allowed such support.
You haven't heard of the Journal of 9-11 Studies because it isn't mainstream.
9-11 'truth' scientists are currently trying to get published in mainstream journals but anyone can imagine how difficult that might be.
I know one report by a 9-11 'truth' scientist has passed the first round of peer review for a mainstream journal. Time will tell if it gets published.
The movement is relatively new. Most new scientific theories take a few years to be published anyway.
If one is truly interested in knowing the truth, it is essential to evaluate 9-11 from the bottom up.
What happened would be the first question.
How did it happen would be next.
Why and who would follow.
Again, I assert that strong, direct evidence points to a controlled demolition for collapse, not fire and damage as a result of the plane crash.
I completely new investigation would need to occur to determine the 'who' and 'why'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If that strong and direct evidence is so strong then it will come into the science mainstream. i'm sorry but the story on it's own just does not stand up. Who knows what a plane crash into the buildings would entail and how many people would die?
Just because the movement is new doesn't mean it is right or wrong, but I will stay on the side of the overwhelming consensus for now. get back to me when that report gets published. If the evidence is as strong and direct as you suppose the science community will be swayed in no time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
If that strong and direct evidence is so strong then it will come into the science mainstream. i'm sorry but the story on it's own just does not stand up. Who knows what a plane crash into the buildings would entail and how many people would die?
Just because the movement is new doesn't mean it is right or wrong, but I will stay on the side of the overwhelming consensus for now. get back to me when that report gets published. If the evidence is as strong and direct as you suppose the science community will be swayed in no time. |
yes i agree.
however i think citizens around the world have a responsibility as well. 9-11 has essentially affected everyone.
even if one doesn't believe controlled demolition theories, the 'official' story still has many gaps and unanswered questions that need to answered for the sake of everyone.
americans are demanding answers, and support is growing. 9-11 is not a shut case. people are fighting for the truth everyday.
but you are right, good science always prevails over time. time is on the truth movements side for sure.
i'll let you know if i hear anything about that article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is interesting. I agree with Griscom
| Quote: |
| implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals |
As I said before when these guys start publishing in mainstream peer reviewed journals it will be interesting. I agree that an thorough investigation would be a good idea anyway..why not after all. These are after all only 7 guys. And that petition has only 230 names(at the time of the article). Testimonials such as these don't hold much weight, only the scientific literature can tell us that over time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
That is interesting. I agree with Griscom
| Quote: |
| implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals |
As I said before when these guys start publishing in mainstream peer reviewed journals it will be interesting. I agree that an thorough investigation would be a good idea anyway..why not after all. These are after all only 7 guys. And that petition has only 230 names(at the time of the article). Testimonials such as these don't hold much weight, only the scientific literature can tell us that over time. |
Lets not forget that no official report about WTC7 has come out yet. Thus there is no 'popular' scientific consensus on WTC7 yet.
Here is letter to NIST, reminding them of the mysteries surrounding WTC7.
Letter to NIST
| Quote: |
Quote:
I, together with two other individuals (a Doctor of Political Sciences and a Senior Engineer), yesterday submitted the following to a number of NIST personnel, including lead investigator S. Shyam Shunder, who in 2006 said to New York Magazine "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7". The contact information used can be found at the end.
The idea was mainly to remind them that there are people who will be looking at their report (if they come up with a report one day) with a critical eye.
* * * * * * * * * *
Dear NIST investigators,
we undersigned wish to pose a few questions and comments to NIST regarding the still ongoing WTC 7 investigation.
NIST has stated that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7". This is clearly not accurate. FEMA has noted, e.g., that a steel sample from WTC 7 had undergone thinning due to "high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation". FEMA continues: "Evidence of � oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure." Please see
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
The temperatures capable of creating such phenomena are above the maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires. We expect NIST to continue FEMA's work in finding the cause of these highly unusual phenomena.
We also expect NIST to account for the powerful explosion from WTC 7 that can be heard in the following excerpt from the recent documentary by Italian TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Finally, we expect NIST to explain how random fires and asymmetric damage could have caused all ~80 of WTC 7's steel supports to give in simultaneously, resulting in a sudden, near-vertical collapse. A recent experiment conducted at Northeastern University using a mock building showed that removing one "key column" does not cause a building collapse; the weight just shifts to the remaining columns, and the building holds. See
http://tinyurl.com/2jfbv7
After WTC 7's collapse began, the building's roofline fell down at an approximate speed of 7 floors per second. This leaves on average 0.14 seconds for the dropping *and* complete destruction of each floor and its support columns. This seems to violate the law of the conservation of momentum if the only force at work is gravity.
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
The question of how 80 support pillars can provide no more resistance to collapse than air is extremely important and needs to be fully and transparently addressed. We and many others expect NIST to analyze all the evidence with scientific rigor -- and without political considerations.
Yours sincerely, |
http://911blogger.com/node/12965 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
