HomeGuideFAQSearchMemberlistForumSupportStore
LD4all.com

Welcome to the archive! Log in
The truth behind 9/11? - Part II
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.     |##| -> |=|     LD4all archive Forum Index »Lucid LoungeGoto page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:38 pm    Post subject: The truth behind 9/11? - Part II Reply with quote

<mod>This is a continued discussion.

Part 1

</mod>


Really, REALLY big 9/11 news. The 9/11 conspiracy movement gains new ground with intellectuals:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4100

Quote:
BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11
By Elaine Jarvik – Deseret Morning News January 28, 2006

Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of “pre-positioned explosives”. Now other scholars and academics have joined him in raising the stakes

BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11
By Elaine Jarvik – Deseret Morning News January 28, 2006

Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante.

"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."

Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.

They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term. Most of the members are less well-known.

The group's Web site (www.ST911.org) includes an updated version of Jones's paper about the collapse of the Twin Towers and a paper by Fetzer that looks at conspiracy theories. The government's version of the events of 9/11 — that the plane's hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden — is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.

"Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers," charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.

"We have very limited resources and no subpoena powers," Fetzer said. "What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn't add up. We don't have a political ax to grind."

Fetzer has doctorates in the history and philosophy of science. "One of the roles I can play here," he said, "is to explain why a certain line of argument is correct or not."

In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of "potential terrorists."

The group's charges include:

• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.

• No Air Force or Air National Guard jets were sent to "scramble" the hijacked planes, which were clearly deviating from their flight plans, although jet fighters had been deployed for scramblings 67 times in the year prior to 9/11. The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.

• The video of Osama bin Laden found by American troops in Afghanistan in December 2001, in which bin Laden says he orchestrated the attacks, is not bin Laden. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.

The Scholars group hopes that media outlets around the world will ask experts in their areas to examine the group's findings and assertions. If this were done, they argue, "one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world."

The group also asks for an investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, following up on points made in Jones's paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" That paper, recently updated, has been posted on Jones's BYU Web site since last November.

Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he says, includes:

• Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

• Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."

• No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.

• Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."

Neither Jones nor other members of the Scholars group suggests who would have planted the explosives, but they argue that the devices could have been operated by remote control.

Jones says he has received thousands of e-mails from people around the world who either support his ideas or think he's "nutty," and he still gets about 30 e-mails a day on the topic.

He continues to do research on cold fusion, which he prefers to call metal-catalyzed fusion "to distinguish it from the claims" of former University of Utah chemistry professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, "which we do not accept as verified." He reports that his metal-catalyzed fusion work is going well, with three scientific papers published last year.

Jones will present a talk entitled "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions" at Utah Valley State College at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 1.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html

Also see:
Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3808

Watch your back, professor!
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3814

___________
Back to top
StEvE21
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 29
Posts: 536
Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Last Visit: 27 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Didn't we already know all of these arguments? ex. "No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse"

___________
Back to top
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, and they're still just as important and unaddressed as they first were. The main point of the article was the formation of the group of scholars.

___________
Back to top
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do check out their website: http://www.st911.org/

___________
Back to top
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Revelations from the oral reports recorded by news and fire crews on 9/11 that were only released during 2005. The reason it took so long for them to come out? The city of New York refused to release them and only did so when forced to, legally.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4131

___________
Back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
Dream Deity

Age: 32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
Location: Quebec, Canada
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recently watched 9/11 documentry called "Loose Change" (at least I tink that's what it was called...)
I thought it was an alright production. It raised some interesting point, mostly what we've already discussed here. I was really impressed with their coverage of the pentagon and the lack of evidence of an airplane hitting it, the size of the hole, etc.
I didn't really think to much of the parts about the planes actually hitting the towers. For those who have seen this film, they make a point about how just before the plane hits, a small flash is visible right where the plane is about to strike. To me, this flash looked more like the fuselage hitting the tower, the reason it looked like it was in fron of the plane was because of cloud of debris that blasted outward as the plane hit.
In a nutshell, the pentagon story was better done that the two towers part, but it's definitly made me want to research this a little more, and now I'm watching some of Alex Jones' stuff. So far I like what I see, he really get's into the politics of the whole situation, not just the mechanics of how and why the towers fell.

___________
Back to top
dsystemofadownz
Somniologist
Somniologist

Age: 29
Posts: 137
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Last Visit: 24 Dec 2006
Location: Florida
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we can all agree that America is just trying to look good and the effect of that was the death of many people. IM prettyy sure the gov knew it was the stupidity that brought it down not the planes! NEW INFO******** If u get the dvd called in plane site they prove that before the impact to the tower there was a breif explosion( The planes didnt even have contact with the building ) *** lol might be new info cuz i didnt read all of the topic anyways. ***** NEW FACT*****
George Bush was good friends with osamas brother . Reasearch it becuase it deffinetly has to do with the towers

___________
Back to top
LDgirl
Lucid Initiate
Lucid Initiate


Posts: 69
Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Last Visit: 10 Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dsystemofadownz wrote:
NEW INFO******** If u get the dvd called in plane site they prove that before the impact to the tower there was a breif explosion( The planes didnt even have contact with the building ) *** lol might be new info cuz i didnt read all of the topic anyways.


The buildings exploded WHEN the planes flew into the building. ^^ neutral BTW, don't believe everything you read....not trying to be mean, mind you. siiw

___________
Back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
Dream Deity

Age: 32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
Location: Quebec, Canada
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed, I've seen footage and the planes did hit the towers. What definitely is in dispute is whether the planes caused the towers to fall, or if the towers were brought down by other means, like explosives.
But it's true, the Bush family are business partners with the Bin Laden family, they are both huge stakeholders in the middle-eastern oil industry.

___________
Back to top
LDgirl
Lucid Initiate
Lucid Initiate


Posts: 69
Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Last Visit: 10 Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Josh Redstone wrote:
Agreed, I've seen footage and the planes did hit the towers. What definitely is in dispute is whether the planes caused the towers to fall, or if the towers were brought down by other means, like explosives.
But it's true, the Bush family are business partners with the Bin Laden family, they are both huge stakeholders in the middle-eastern oil industry.


RIGHT! Business partners, not the greatest friends in the world. neutral notify

___________
Back to top
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/010306gulagsforamericans.htm

I don't want to be an alarmist here but if there is another 9/11 you must realise who is doing it to you and why.

Josh: I've heard of 'Loose Change' but havent seen it and am a little dissapointed in where you say they chose to focus. Did they give the building 7 controversy a lot of time? I know I'm repeating myself here but it seems that newcomers here arent familiar with it.

If I made a 9/11 documentary I'd definately open with building 7 because it really is the key to this whole mess. Without footage the Pentagon stuff is difficult to analyse (although interestingly the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are currently petitioning Congress and the Senate to release more information regarding the pentagon, such as video footage of the impact. www.st911.org ) and as for all that stuff about flashes before the planes impact... well if that was the best evidence for conspiracy it'd be a waste of time.

LDgirl: Building 7 was not hit by a plane so its collapse was not caused by the impact of a plane or the resulting jet fuel fires. Something else made it collapse. The best bet appears to be a controlled demolition.

Then you work back to the main towers and look at the way they collapsed and figure it out from there.

___________


Last edited by Lebowsk1 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:54 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
Dream Deity

Age: 32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
Location: Quebec, Canada
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lebowsk1 wrote:

Josh: I've heard of 'Loose Change' but havent seen it and am a little dissappointed in where you say they chose to focus. Did they give the building 7 controversy a lot of time? I know I'm repeating myself here but it seems that newcomers here arent familiar with it.



Actually they did cover building 7, quite well by the way yes
One of the best things they said that really stuck with me was something like "If building 7 really did collapse because of a fire, it would be the third building in history....the first two would be the twin towers....", then they proceeded to list about 10 or so buildings which had survived long, high temperature fires without falling down.
They also talked about the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of kerosene, etc.
The video does a great job of showing how the buildings couldn't and shouldn't have fallen simply because of a fire, but they didn't seem to focus on the structural damage that the impact of the planes could have caused, which is what I was looking foward to.

___________
Back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
Dream Deity

Age: 37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is, you can't just say "this building in France survived a fire, so every other building should be able to as well." Doesn't that sound fallacious to anyone else? Sure, several buildings have burned at similar temperatures elsewhere, and have remained standing (their inner frames at least), but that doesn’t mean other buildings won’t have different outcomes. What if Building 7 was made differently (with more stress on each support), and couldn’t withstand as much heat-buckling as other towers elsewhere in the world?

Besides, that’s all irrelevant. I think WTC7 was demolished.

Buildings 1 and 2 didn’t collapse from fire. Didn’t anyone else notice the 80 ton chunk of metal slamming into the top half of both towers? Surely that caused significant structural damage to the steel supports. Besides, remember that video I posted a link to several pages ago? The one that shows the top portion of the south tower tilting to the side and not coming down straight at all? Unless all the explosives were planted on the same floors that were hit by the plane, that just wouldn’t happen. It clearly fell because the supports had been knocked out, and the top portion of the building was just too heavy.

Eh, it’s all been said before. The problem is that conspiracy theorists cannot ever be proven wrong. It’s a safe position to take, because it’s always possible to claim that official reports are wrong or full of lies. There’s no evidence we could ever find to prove that terrorists destroyed the towers (despite their confessions already).

___________
Back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
Dream Deity

Age: 32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
Location: Quebec, Canada
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atheist wrote:


Buildings 1 and 2 didn’t collapse from fire. Didn’t anyone else notice the 80 ton chunk of metal slamming into the top half of both towers?


I would've liked to have seen this in the video, but I wasn't surprised when it wasn't covered. WTC7 looked like it was imploded, but I don't think the twin towers fell the same way. Buildings which are employed collapse almost all at the same time because of how the explosions are executed. The twin towers seemed to fall from the top down. If I had to guess, I'd say the sections of the towers above where the planes hit fell because of the structural damage from the impact, and the explosion, and the fires. Once that massive section of building started to fall, it brought the rest of the tower down with it. This may be why the second tower hit was the first to fall. It was hit lower down, therefore there was more weight above the structural damage.

Anywho, it's a good video to see, regardless of whether or not you think it was terrorism or a conspiracy yes

___________
Back to top
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, so join me once again as we go for a walk through logic-ville. If you disagree with any of the following points then please say so:

1) If building 7 was demolished/imploded, then that means it had to have been rigged for it before 9/11.

2) Who could have access to the buildings for long enough to do this formidable task? The terrorists? There is no mention of this in even the official report and it does not seem to be a viable hypothesis.

3) Meanwhile the government continues not to mention the obvious: that the 6-second collapse of Building 7 was caused by demolition. This is cause for at least suspicion.

4) In addition, despite the fact that fire had never brought down a steel tower before, there is plenty of evidence that there was pre-knowledge of the collapse of building 7 on the day of 9/11 on the US side of things. Mayor Guliani and firefighter commanders made statements and orders on the day of 9/11 that show they knew the tower would come down.

5) Add to this the odd confession of Silverstein...

And the evidence is clearly in favour of someone on the US side of things being behind the rigging of Building 7 and the subsequent activation of the explosives on the day of 9/11.

I mean Atheist, I like the Scholars approach on this. They say the government's story is a "conspiracy theory" too, it is just talking about a different conspiracy. The question is which of the conspiracy theories do you feel the evidence best supports. I am very hesitant to argue for the London 7/7 attacks being some kind of MI5 conspiracy because there is much, much less evidence in favour of it (altho this makes sense in a twisted way because if it was a black op the British are much more experienced and expert at it). 9/11, however, has tons of evidence for it, INCLUDING a confession (the type of evidence you'd consider valid if I remember correctly?).

Incidentally, some of the best info out there on the collapses, including the main two towers, can be found here in this paper on 9/11 by Stephen Jones, the phycisist at the head of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html )

First of all you've got to remember the collapse of the two big towers was caused by fire, not the impacts. That's the official line. So the official commission limited their computer simulation of the event to what occured from the onset of collapse onwards. Now check this out: they found that the simulation did not support what actually happened on the day. So what did they do?

They *changed* the parameters of the sim so that the collapse would match what happened and then they refused to make public the changes they made!!!

So they went from an actual simulation, which didnt support the freefall speed, vertical, perfectly ordered collapse of the day and basically manufactured a special effects production!!!!

It's all there in the Jones paper, check it out. He also uses physics and mathematics to disprove the official "pancake" theory.

Josh: I have no broadband so no Loose Change for me just yet. Slightly off-topic but I've read somewhere about it having a hip hop theme... is this correct?

___________
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.     |##| -> |=|     LD4all archive Forum Index » Lucid Lounge All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 



© pasQuale - donations greatly appreciated
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group