Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 02:15am PT
|
I watched Steven Jones video and looked at some of the other videos.
Ever play with plastic at the end of stick around the campfire? That "burning thermite" and "molten steel" looks pretty similar to dripping, burning plastic to me.
Here is what Glacier Point looked like after being attacked with thermite (or thermate or super thermate or nano thermate or whatever) in the 1960s. There is proof this was an "inside job" sanctioned by the U.S.government. Immediately prior to flow, Mr.Silverstein was overheard radioing to a National Park employee to "pull it." Note that the molten flow is clearly YELLOW. This PROVES that it is molten steel, not aluminum. :-)
(This is actually the fire fall from Glacier Point)
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 02:24am PT
|
Karl,
To answer your question, it is not unthinkable.
Your comments (and the old post you link to) are thoughtful and intelligent, in sharp contrast to most of what is out there on the "9/11 Truth" sites.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 05:42pm PT
|
Chuckcar and Graniteclimber,
You see science is based on evidence, experiments, and observations that are repeatable. The results of the experiment either validate or invalidate the hypothesis. And accordingly, hypotheses are adjusted or abandoned altogether, and a new one is derived.
NIST says it was molten aluminum with organic debri, and that is why it glows orange. So let's do an experiment. Oh, wait Dr. Jones has already done that. But hey, the power of real science is that it is repeatable and can be validated time and time again by any of us. This one happens to be a very easy experiment to repeat. And when you do, you’ll see molten Aluminum with as much organic debri in it as you want to mix in is always silver, indoors, or outdoors in broad daylight.
(I wouldn't try this off of Glacier Point however. The “Fire-fall” is now illegal.)
Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
by Steven E. Jones, August 31, 2006:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glow-hypothesis.html
By the way, you can't be serious when you compare a still photo image that has streaking fire-fall because the shutter was left open for a period of time to properly expose the image for dramatic effect, and then try to compare that to motion video? The two are very different. And what is falling is also very different.
All of the tell-tale signs of Thermite/Thermate are there in the video of the dripping molten steel coming out of the corner of the South WTC Tower along with the characteristic smoke of a thermite reaction which is Aluminum Oxide trailing up into the air.
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?
(With plenty of rebuttals to the NIST report)
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
It's called science. Learn about it sometime. Unfortunately NIST is a very biased government agency in this regard concerning 9-11. Think about it. The government is going to investigate itself completely, fairly, and without bias.
ROLFLMAO
That is why we need truly independant investigations into 9-11. The Bush Administration didn't even want to investigate in the first place, it was the surviving family members that forced the government's hand. And then Bush et al., hand selected the 9-11 Commission, many of whom had serious conflicts of interests. Now it has come out even by 9-11 Commission members that the military was less than honest in their testimonies before the Commission. Surprise, surprise (as Gomer Pyle would say).
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 05:58pm PT
|
The innanity of it all is breathtaking. And please, don't slander science in such a way. Jones and company are starting with a "fact" and working backwards using what may pass for "scientific" experiments. And in fact, an individual tests may be well designed and executed - it's the context of the "investigation" that ranks this as pseudo-scientific theatre on par with UFO "research".
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 06:12pm PT
|
HJ,
Huh? Are you drunk? What in the h*ll are you trying to say? You are making no sense to me.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 08:20pm PT
|
Well, if you can't understand clear language explaining that conspiracy "theorists" working backwards from their conviction the government executed this event isn't science then it simply verifies the fact that is exactly what is happening. None of it is science regardless of how well conceived and executed any given test is.
Again, no one planted explosives in the buildings because they couldn't install that quantity of explosives on that number of columns without literally dozens of people building personnel and network administrators being on them in a flash, let alone tear the whole floors up to do it. It ridiculous in every measure.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 08:37pm PT
|
And you've never been wrong?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 08:42pm PT
|
Oh, I've been wrong about a lot of things, but I've also done enough carpentry, steel framing, sheetrocking, trimwork, and painting to know no one tore the interior of the building up to install explosives without lots of folks immediately asking what the hell was going on.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 08:48pm PT
|
healyje
hahaha .... you are a riot.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006 - 09:36pm PT
|
Chuckcar
If you for once believe that my previous post was name calling then you are seriously wrong.
I have the greatest respect for Joesph Healy. I just thought his reply was funny.
Now as for you Chuckcar ...... oh never mind, your not worth it.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2006 - 12:15am PT
|
To me that video proves that a helicopter hovering in the vicinity of the building caused it to fall down. I mean, you know--that's what is plainly shown.
Curt
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2006 - 10:06am PT
|
Graniteclimber, HJ, and Chuckcar,
As I said before . . .
“You will never come to this frame of mind unless you can come to the point of saying, no matter what I want to know the truth. I want to see all the evidence, and using the scientific method through thought experiments allow the falsified hypotheses to fall away and hang onto the supported hypotheses.
There are some very erroneous hypotheses out-there that are floating around in the 9-11 truth movement, but many are very valid, supported, and not "invalidated." You have to know how to work your way through those land-mines and obvious attempts to paint the movement as nuts. A critical thinking mind can do so.”
Yes, there are some truly nutty hypotheses out there concerning what happened on 9-11. And you are bringing up dirty laundry within the 9-11 Truth Movement. I don’t really see it as such though. Throughout history there has always been disagreement within the scientific community. For good reason, that is the way it is supposed to work. Truth will out and move forward through the debate and the scientific method. What is bad is when it gets personal and nasty.
Dr. Jones and Dr. Woodward agree that 9-11 was an inside job, but on the specifics of how it was done they are very much in dispute. I’m on the side of reason, evidence, and the outcomes of experiments, the scientific method --- I’m on Dr. Jones side at this time. And he has stayed a gentleman throughout. Yes, he happens to be shy and doesn’t really like people making a big fuss over him. I met him in Hollywood, at the convention this past summer. Very nice man and very humble. He is thrilled by doing science research. Most people would consider that pretty geeky. His credentials are impeccable. Please don’t try to paint him as some wacko who is Morman. Hey, Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton were also very devout but did very good science. Well, at least Aristotle got us thinking that way and asking questions about nature even though he didn’t really do science. He is also incredibly brave for speaking out and suffering the ignorant ridicule and letting science prove his points with fact, evidence, and reproduceable experiments.
Dr. Woodward has some interesting ideas, and when she first started doing studies, some of her results I agree with. But I don’t agree with no planes hit the WTC towers. She is also looking into new EM weapons that may have been used on 9-11 that instantly vaporized WTC steel as the buildings collapsed??? Ok, but I don’t agree. I don’t agree with her findings regarding the witnessed color of molten Aluminum heated up to extreme temperatures and always looking yellow or orange. How about when poured through the atmosphere a short distance in direct sunlight? She didn’t carry the experiments far enough. Yes, when heated way beyond it’s melting point (approx. 660 C) Aluminum can and does glow orange and even yellow, however something else happens when you pour it through the atmosphere a short distance and in direct sunlight. See you have to recreate the conditions of the original observations as close as you possibly can. That is what we do in real science. Their experiment heating Aluminum on Tungsten did not. Even Dr. Jones admits that Aluminum looks orange-yellow but then continues the experiment . . .
Experiments with Molten Aluminum
by Steven E. Jones, with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch (word.doc)
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc
Reply to Reynolds and Wood – Part I (word.doc) (pdf)
Steven E. Jones
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.doc
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.pdf
A response to Reynolds and Wood (Word Document)
Frank Legge
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Response_to_Reynolds_and_Wood2.doc
Here is the other article on Nanothermite I was looking for earlier . . .
Superthermite: Military Reloads with Nanotech
by John Gartner
http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/14105/
Ok, next arguement that I need to rebut?
Time for me to go get a latte . . .
On edit here is more:
Molten Steel at WTC 1, 2, 7. How? 9/11 Truth. Forensic Evidence of Incediaries:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7865672648051631094&q=911+molten&hl=en
BYU Physics Prof. Steven Jones Video Evidence of Thermite Use on 9/11:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2251334470336206811&q=911+molten&hl=en
911 Mysteries – Demolitions (Part 2 of 3):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&q=911+molten&hl=en
Kevin Ryan, UL whistleblower lectures on 9/11 (a Chemist and formerly of UL). Very good. If you haven't watched this you must:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2240960989290438907&q=911+molten&hl=en
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2006 - 12:00pm PT
|
Chuckcar,
I don't doubt it. What's your point? "Pull-it" in the demo world can mean by explosives or by cables or by other means. But in CD, it means bringing it down with explosives.
Try responding without using . . .
Ad Hominen, ridicule, slander etc. Let's try to keep it civil. Let's keep it fact and evidence based. Or can you not respond that way?
I would love nothing more than for you all to prove me wrong. I don't like knowing that my government can murder many, many Americans or anyone for that matter for personal or collective Neo-con gain. But the facts speak for themselves.
Try reading the NSA document that has been declassified at the NSA official Archive at GWU, that another posted upstream, on Operation "Northwoods". Check-out pg. 13 of the pdf or pg. 10 of the original document. I suggest reading the entire document. Let your eyes open to how unbelievably evil our government can be. Thank God JFK put a stop to the Joint Chiefs of Staffs' plans. JFK made no friends among the Bush Crime Family (BCF) and those who would want to do something so diabolical. He paid with his life.
From the official archives of the NSA at George Washington University --- Operation Northwoods (actual copy of the original document in pdf format):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
See page 13 of the pdf, or page 10 org. document.
On edit: The National Security Archive Homepage . . .
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/the_archive.html
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2006 - 12:19pm PT
|
"...I would love nothing more than for you all to prove me wrong. I don't like knowing that my government can murder many, many Americans or anyone for that matter for personal or collective Neo-con gain. But the facts speak for themselves..."
As others have said (quite accurately) the burden of proof is on you to prove your position--not on us to disprove you. Proving a negative is a non-starter. I can claim that I took a trip to the moon and back last night--and it's quite impossible for you to prove that I didn't.
Curt
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2006 - 01:51pm PT
|
Klimmer: "try responding without using . . .Ad Hominen, ridicule, slander etc. Let's try to keep it civil. Let's keep it fact and evidence based. Or can you not respond that way?"
-Maybe, if you cut the condescending bullsh#t, conspiracy boy.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2006 - 02:51pm PT
|
Well, I will make this quick since there are things to do today . . . and climbing and flying my paraglider this week of vacation is a high priority.
Curt,
Actually the burden of proof is on our government to prove the OCT or hypothesis as published in the "9-11 Commission Report." The 9-11 Truth movement has brought forth countless examples of evidence and proof that completely invalidates the official theory or hypothesis. Therefore, it is invalid and must be rejected. That is how science works. The 9-11 Commission Report does however, make a nice door-stop. We have large amounts of evidence now that will make anyone who truly thinks about it take great pause: we have the motive, means, opportunity, physical evidence, and countless eyewitness testimonies that support what was seen, heard, and felt on 9-11-01.
We are even starting to get those with accidental yet specific views of the plans for 9-11 to come forth. And if there are specific typed-up written plans labeled "Top Secret" for 9-11 as it unfolded, then it is MIHOP all the way. No way around that. And someone who has seen those very plans has come forth. I know there are more. There were many other soldiers in CENTCOM with Sgt. LJ that day. Let's hope they have a conscience and love their country as much as Sgt. Lauro Chevez does.
This is why we are calling for new investigations by completely independant parties (I would prefer a study team created through the UN) to re-investigate 9-11.
Stevep,
I will read the article when I have the chance. But my immediate response is then why do so many use the phrase "Pull it" in the demolition/CD world? The article is not being honest.
Once again . . .
The 9-11 Truther “Sure” calls a CD company (Controlled Demolition, Inc.) and gets clarification for the phrase “Pull it.” What does “Pull-it” mean in the CD world?:
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pull_it_mix.mp3
Cintune,
You have proven my point. Good one.
On edit:
LEB,
I can try to pull all the links and summarize the CTers arguements here in this long thread, but I'm on vacation this week and I want to play. I will try to do something to that effect. Good idea.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2006 - 03:04pm PT
|
Ho ho ho. Sanctimony gets you nowhere, but believe whatever you want.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2006 - 05:20pm PT
|
"...Curt,
Actually the burden of proof is on our government to prove the OCT or hypothesis as published in the "9-11 Commission Report." The 9-11 Truth movement has brought forth countless examples of evidence and proof that completely invalidates the official theory or hypothesis. Therefore, it is invalid and must be rejected. That is how science works..."
The "9-11 Commission Report" represents the most simple explanation of the events in question that is consistent with all of the observable data. Therefore, ala Occam's razor, this explanation is more believable than the various host of bullshit conspiracy theories. That, my somewhat confused friend, is "how science works."
Curt
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 01:19am PT
|
Chuckar,
Why the discussion of pulling WTC 7 down with cables? I never suggested anything other than CD for WTC 7. And that is exactly what the very symetrical fall along with explosives zippering up the face and side of WTC tower 7 clearly demostrate. Classic CD. By the way, WTC 7 wasn't just pulled down for insurance purposes. Do you know who all the tenants of WTC 7 were? WTC 7 and the floor with the retrofitted blast resistant windows and the government tenants on that floor were major players in the scene of the crime.
WTC 6 during the clean-up someone suggested was pulled with cables. I concede "Pull it" for a demo company can also mean pull it down with cables, but it is also used in CD. To say it is not is a flat-out lie.
That phone call wasn't to just any demo company, but to Controlled Demolition, Inc., whom were involved and worked for the Oklahoma City bombing and the WTC towers clean-up, as mentioned by Alex Jones.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!