Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: sandycoosworth on January 11, 2007, 09:54:06 AM
-
witin the first 3 seconds of the video ...
-
not as clear but still evident
-
note this one has flashes as well as upward debris (how can hundreds of pounds of steel be thrown upwards ?
-
this one shows the flashes during the north tower collapse more clearly ... also a great shot of how the north tower core fell ... you can see that columns are falling from the core in several hundred foot chunks, as if they were cut half way down ...
-
I wish they would take all you conspiracy theory folks and lock you up in the mental institutes where you belong!
-
charges going off in north tower as plane hits south tower
-
very strange, flashes comingfrom helicopter before south tower collapse
&mode=related&search=
-
bravo, sandy.
Science is what is going to wake people up. When you involve politics, people close you out. When you involve terrorists, people's hatred and ingrained prejuidices show through. When you mention "inside job" peolpe feel so betrayed and helpless that they deny the possibility of such a horrid thing.
It's hard to look at these videos and deny there were explosions going off in the towers, in organized fashion, in both buildings in a similar fashion.
-
I'm having trouble seening what your talking about :-\
-
i dont expect to or want to change anyone minds... im posting this shit for those that are open minded and interested
it is interesting to look at the 911 CT talk as a litmus test; you can tell who actually thinks about facts/searches for truth and who just wants to reinforce their ingrained beliefs(ie intenseone, old rooster, joker) ... 911 happened because 95% of the world is absolutely brainless :(
-
i dont expect to or want to change anyone minds... im posting this shit for those that are open minded and interested
it is interesting to look at the 911 CT talk as a litmus test; you can tell who actually thinks about facts/searches for truth and who just wants to reinforce their ingrained beliefs(ie intenseone, old rooster, joker) ... 911 happened because 95% of the world is absolutely brainless :(
I watched it too, what was i looking for?
-
Ok, I see it now, two distinct flashes just above the center of that dark band around the building in the first seconds. That is a good find, I doubt there is a good explanation for that.
-
witin the first 3 seconds of the video ...
"it ws a military plane"
my couzin in law is a captain for PIA..he flies trans atlantic...anyhow..his words to me " yaar (friend) give me 10 tries with a commercial jet and i wont be able to hit a target like that at that speed..you just cant bank like that"
-
he said to hit a target that small like that....you HAVE to plot in the course before you take off...otherwise its impossible..
and this ws said to me before i had gotton into watching these vids..this ws 2 yrs ago..
-
its possible the planes were on autopilot, no?
-
i dont expect to or want to change anyone minds... im posting this shit for those that are open minded and interested
it is interesting to look at the 911 CT talk as a litmus test; you can tell who actually thinks about facts/searches for truth and who just wants to reinforce their ingrained beliefs(ie intenseone, old rooster, joker) ... 911 happened because 95% of the world is absolutely brainless :(
These post are filler,
There is no substance since any explanation other than your belief in explosions is ignored.
You posted a bunch of stuff before about how the NIST tests were rigged, yet Mr. Ryan didn't perform any tests himself and infact these test followed the proper test procedures as document in 1-5 and 1-6 of the report.
The fact that you want to trust in observations is good, just don't forget Aristotle was wrong doing the same thing.
Actual study in labs with testing is required and the only people that are qualified to do this side with NIST.
When the scholars for truth have one peer reviewed report put forward they might gain a shed of credibility.
Until then they are this is conjecture based on no proof and with no real lab testing to back it up.
Don't post that Jones crap either, he had a chance for BYU to test his sample and go over his thesis, he declined and quit (retired) instead.
-
watch ryans video and youll see the NIST tests were bullshit :)
-
I wish they would take all you conspiracy theory folks and lock you up in the mental institutes where you belong!
You never got a proper education. Human stupidity.
-
I wish they would take all you conspiracy theory folks and lock you up in the mental institutes where you belong!
i concur
-
These post are filler,
There is no substance since any explanation other than your belief in explosions is ignored.
You posted a bunch of stuff before about how the NIST tests were rigged, yet Mr. Ryan didn't perform any tests himself and infact these test followed the proper test procedures as document in 1-5 and 1-6 of the report.
The fact that you want to trust in observations is good, just don't forget Aristotle was wrong doing the same thing.
Actual study in labs with testing is required and the only people that are qualified to do this side with NIST.
When the scholars for truth have one peer reviewed report put forward they might gain a shed of credibility.
Until then they are this is conjecture based on no proof and with no real lab testing to back it up.
Don't post that Jones crap either, he had a chance for BYU to test his sample and go over his thesis, he declined and quit (retired) instead.
This thread isn't about Kevin Ryan.
Did you try to make it about Kevin Ryan so that people wouldn't think about the flashes they just saw on the World Trade Center?
-
its possible the planes were on autopilot, no?
thats what he said to me with a laugh...and when i countered he looked at me and said something along the lines of " you r a former pakistani yaar..you should know better about how corruption works"..then we just dropped it..
i mean he told me in later conversations that these planes pretty much fly themselves..
-
I wish they would take all you conspiracy theory folks and lock you up in the mental institutes where you belong!
you must hate this country for telling us to give up our first amendment right...what kinda person r you?
-
Are we saying these flashes are proof of something?
-
Are we saying these flashes are proof of something?
ok i'm gonna listen..we all are..
tell me what they are...
inquiring minds..
-
you must hate this country for telling us to give up our first amendment right...what kinda person r you?
Rooster just said someone should be imprisoned for utilizing their First Amendment right?
Sounds like he's disparaging the Constitution of the United States of America.
Terry, why do you hate America?
-
Are we saying these flashes are proof of something?
The general consensus is that they are explosions weaking the central support columns for the final demolition sequence.
Considering the distance and the brightness, I think we all have to admit that it's a very sudden, bright, and large occurance, taking place in an organized/parallel manner. It does match firefighter statements of explosions all over the building. Firefighter and witness statements make it very clear there was no fire anywhere near that level in the tower.
If there is an alternative hypothesis, I am very interested in hearing it.
-
Kevin Ryan
Some simple responses to the transcript.
(http://www.911blogger.com/guy.com/node/4324[/url)Predetermined Conclusion
To make a predetermined conclusion is to accept a theory without examining all of the relevant evidence. I, like most had a predetermined conclusion about 9/11: fires and damage from the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse. Many thought that this was the most obvious explanation. The problem is that we were not aware of all of the evidence, therefore our conclusions were predetermined.
His opening thought is that the outcome was predetermined. This is false since the pancake theory was first conclusion. Progressive collapse was not part of the theory until near the end and was validated with the model.
Models are often used for recreation of events and also for design. They also used video evidence to check to the outcome of the model.
Sap 2000 and other modeling software is used for complexing loads and structures during building design. My wife uses it at work.
The report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began. Essentially, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not what happened after it started. More amazingly, NIST can’t even prove how the collapse started. NIST abandoned the pancake theory40 so they have no collapse theory—only a vague statement for why the towers completely collapsed.
The model proved that the collapse started by progressive collapse instigated by high heat and the yield failure of beams. He must have missed it.
Molten pools of steel are seen in the rubble of the WTC buildings, including WTC 7.43 Jet fuel and normal fires are incapable of melting steel.44 NIST claims that “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."45 Therefore, logic dictates that something else melted the steel. NIST ignores this evidence.46
I’m not a structural engineer, but if the steel supporting a building melts47 wouldn’t you think that it is worth mentioning somewhere in a 10,00048 page, 43 volume investigation?49 NIST doesn’t think so—they call this evidence “irrelevant to the investigation!”50 Bush science ignores relevant evidence of which this an outrageous
Obviously and he obviously didn't ask any either. There is also an explaniation for the melted steel in Oct 8 FAQ. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
Contradictory Evidence Ignored
Look at references, they aren't referncing the NIST report yet they claim to. Strange
Laws of Physics Contradicted
The two people Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones are comparing the Pancaking of a building versus a progressive collapse. They don't understand the difference.
Deceptive Experiments
The shot gun blast was to mimic small part of the plan impact the beams at a high rate of speed. This test was not deceptive unless you already have your own theory.
Conclusions Contradicted by All or Most of the Evidence
The NIST report in summary:
Predetermined conclusion contradicted by building designer claims, unreleased computer simulations, exaggerated computer data, contradictory steel testing results, contradicted laws of physics, contradicting fireproofing tests, contradicting eye-witness testimony, deceptive experiments, relevant evidence ignored, destruction of relevant evidence, fabricated evidence, and the essential point of the investigation left unanswered—why did the World Trade Center towers completely collapse? Does the NIST study prove anything besides the fact that there was fire and relatively minor structural damage86 in the WTC twin towers?
This statement is patently false. Including the fact that Kevin Ryan ignores the whole progressive collapse theory and other data.
BTW transcripts are great.
-
Rooster just said someone should be imprisoned for utilizing their First Amendment right?
Sounds like he's disparaging the Constitution of the United States of America.
Terry, why do you hate America?
people like him should be put on a watch...
cutting out our first amendment rights is EXACTLY the kid of stuff al-queda wants
think about it....
-
joker,
what caused the patterns of flashes which many people believe are explosions?
3 sentences in your own words would be fine, thanks.
-
people like him should be put on a watch...
cutting out our first amendment rights is EXACTLY the kid of stuff al-queda wants
think about it....
A great man once said "You're either WITH US, or you're AGAINST US".
It sounds to me like Terry isn't WITH US. If he disrespects the First Amendment like this, I wonder how he treats other great American institutions?
-
Are we saying these flashes are proof of something?
not proof, but a piece of the puzzle .. taken in the context of the first steel framed buildings to collapse from fire i would say its somewhat damning
-
The general consensus is that they are explosions weaking the central support columns for the final demolition sequence.
Considering the distance and the brightness, I think we all have to admit that it's a very sudden, bright, and large occurance, taking place in an organized/parallel manner. It does match firefighter statements of explosions all over the building. Firefighter and witness statements make it very clear there was no fire anywhere near that level in the tower.
If there is an alternative hypothesis, I am very interested in hearing it.
Okay, taking it from a investagative stand point using as much objectivity as i can considering my opinion on the matter i would say:
- Is there anyway of telling if the flashes match the times the firefighters heard the explosions?
- If the steel collums are heating up as they say they are then are there tanks of liquid, airconditioners, boilers etc... that could have exploded.
- If the firefighters and witnesses said there wasn't any fire near location....how could they make a satement like that unless they were there in those rooms?
- We are making conjecture based on anotehr grainy video. Hardly conclusive.
Don;t get me woring i'm not trying to explain the explosions. (i'm not an engineer or chemist, etc...Although A-Joker actually is and his wife is also, so i'm much more likely to trust and make credibile their opinions in this matter becasue they know more about what they are talking about much more then you, sandy or myself)
I'm only pointing out that we don;t have enough evidence to say either way and anything we say on it is PURE conjecture.
-
in case any of you think the explosions are just an optical illusion, check this vid out
at 17 seconds look at the north tower (foreground) and you will see a bright flash followed by debris being shot out of the building ....
but that was from all the potential energy in the building right joker ;D
-
Okay, taking it from a investagative stand point using as much objectivity as i can considering my opinion on the matter i would say:
- Is there anyway of telling if the flashes match the times the firefighters heard the explosions?
- If the steel collums are heating up as they say they are then are there tanks of liquid, airconditioners, boilers etc... that could have exploded.
- If the firefighters and witnesses said there wasn't any fire near location....how could they make a satement like that unless they were there in those rooms?
- We are making conjecture based on anotehr grainy video. Hardly conclusive.
Don;t get me woring i'm not trying to explain the explosions. (i'm not an engineer or chemist, etc...Although A-Joker actually is and his wife is also, so i'm much more likely to trust and make credibile their opinions in this matter becasue they know more about what they are talking about much more then you, sandy or myself)
I'm only pointing out that we don;t have enough evidence to say either way and anything we say on it is PURE conjecture.
this is what you should be doing ...dont blindly assume they are bombs
as i said in my second last post however, taken in the context of the first steel framed buildings to collapse from fire and the eye witness testimony this footage is somewhat damning
-
Like Ozmo said
If the steel collums are heating up as they say they are then are there tanks of liquid, airconditioners, boilers etc... that could have exploded.
This could easily be gas services in some of those locations. But I would bet that it more likely exploding lighting ballasts and the reflections of windows as they were blown out from over pressurization in the building.
-
I'm only pointing out that we don;t have enough evidence to say either way and anything we say on it is PURE conjecture.
Given the firefighter statements, videotapes which you can hear massive blasts, the fact the firefighters were on the south tower, two floors below the fire, saying the fire was down to 2 small pockets and would be out shortly with only two lines...
I think it's more than enough to warrant testing the scrap metal from the building for explosives residue.
Some people ignore this evidence and discount the need for such an explosion, when that test would be run if a one-bedroom trailer suddenly exploded. Those people know that if the chem findings match bomb suspicions, then 19 arabs alone didn't do it.
-
this is what you should be doing ...dont blindly assume they are bombs
as i said in my second last post however, taken in the context of the first steel framed buildings to collapse from fire and the eye witness testimony this footage is somewhat damning
Well it is something, i wouldn't call it daming however. Look at this way for sec. Do you think a prosecutor could get a conviction from this? NO WAY in hell. There's just not enough evidence to truely say either way.
I'm not blindly assuming they are anything other then a jet full of fuel crashed into a 110 story building at 500 mph. there arebound to be all sorts of crazy shit going on that can;t be explained because of lack of avialable evidence due to the collapse. That in itself doesn't mean there were bombs there.
-
Given the firefighter statements, videotapes which you can hear massive blasts, the fact the firefighters were on the south tower, two floors below the fire, saying the fire was down to 2 small pockets and would be out shortly with only two lines...
I think it's more than enough to warrant testing the scrap metal from the building for explosives residue.
Some people ignore this evidence and discount the need for such an explosion, when that test would be run if a one-bedroom trailer suddenly exploded. Those people know that if the chem findings match bomb suspicions, then 19 arabs alone didn't do it.
Waste money on inconclusive test when none of other evidence supports bombs and not one structural engineer or society is disputing the NIST report or methodology.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
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.
-
Well it is something, i wouldn't call it daming however. Look at this way for sec. Do you think a prosecutor could get a conviction from this? NO WAY in hell. There's just not enough evidence to truely say either way.
I'm not blindly assuming they are anything other then a jet full of fuel crashed into a 110 story building at 500 mph. there arebound to be all sorts of crazy shit going on that can;t be explained because of lack of avialable evidence due to the collapse. That in itself doesn't mean there were bombs there.
i very specifically said "somewhat damning" ;)
i wouldnt bet my life on them being bombs, but i would be very surprised if they werent
-
Given the firefighter statements, videotapes which you can hear massive blasts, the fact the firefighters were on the south tower, two floors below the fire, saying the fire was down to 2 small pockets and would be out shortly with only two lines...
People makes all sorts of statements in the eat of battle. to take one that supports a theory and run with it, isn't in itself conclusive. (for example: the Orsen Wells Broadcast)
If in fact the fire was down to 2 small pockets you still have a very weaken structure where the plane hit with many floors of wieght above it. To me that means a good possiblity for a collapse at the plane impact part then the resulting preassure casued the rest of the building to collapse. this si entirely possbile
I think it's more than enough to warrant testing the scrap metal from the building for explosives residue.
Some people ignore this evidence and discount the need for such an explosion, when that test would be run if a one-bedroom trailer suddenly exploded. Those people know that if the chem findings match bomb suspicions, then 19 arabs alone didn't do it.
Your point about why they haven't did a test has been one you have stuck with for many months. As an uneducated person int he fireld of chemistry and physics i would aks the same thing.
But it's been explained that the testing would be inconclusive dude to the magnitude of varibles and large volume of invovled materials from a 110 story building.
Being that my florensic back ground is limited to CSI Las Vegas seasons 2000-2006 :), i can see why poeple with a related background would say that.
What i don't see is a large group of scientists calling for it.
-
i very specifically said "somewhat damning" ;)
i wouldnt bet my life on them being bombs, but i would be very surprised if they werent
Fair enough :)
-
Waste money on inconclusive test when none of other evidence supports bombs and not one structural engineer or society is disputing the NIST report or methodology.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
The White House commissioned two scientific reports after 9/11, didn't they?
EPA (Environmental effects) and NIST (Collapse causes).
Now, EPA whistleblowers have come forward and said that the White House CHANGED their report, actually risking lives by sending people back to work without EPA precautions.
So why do you completely and blindly trust 50% of WH 911 reports, when the other 50% has been proven to be falsified to benefit the Bush Admin?
Anyway, it's a wasted discussion. When you say "cost", those requesting explosives tests have repeatedly offered to pay any price just to know if explosives killed their 3000 fellow Americans. I guess you can't justify letting them pay for it though, huh?
-
This your debate all the time.
Linking to things that nearly the same but not.
The NIST reports have the backing of the entire scientific community, have been peer reviewed and have been offered to the public for scrutiny. The original report is still on line and can be accessed through the WTC site, feel free to comment on it.
The EPA reports didn't follow this method and were in fact sent to the white house for changes.
-
Your point about why they haven't did a test has been one you have stuck with for many months. As an uneducated person int he fireld of chemistry and physics i would aks the same thing.
But it's been explained that the testing would be inconclusive dude to the magnitude of varibles and large volume of invovled materials from a 110 story building.
Dr Jones contends the samples he obtained from a cleanup worked contained NANOTHERMITE and would very clearly show military grade explosives use. The sulfur and other issues wouldn't apply - molecularly, nano thermite isn't caused when buildings fall.
joker will call him a nut. But Jones has offered to pay for the one-day, low cost test on the FBI's debris to verify or disprove.
If his test did take place, and they did find it, it would be VERY easy to trace it back to teh original batch/company/nation/date when it was produced. If it found zero, then he would be disgraced and the 911 movement would certainly lose its legs. I wonder why they wouldn't run an essentially free test, on something the victims' families begged for from day one as the metal was carted off? So easy to prove no explosives were used. yet they won't.
Your point about why
What i don't see is a large group of scientists calling for it.
That's still career suicide. They benefit nothing rom it and only incur risk.
-
This your debate all the time.
Linking to things that nearly the same but not.
The NIST reports have the backing of the entire scientific community, have been peer reviewed and have been offered to the public for scrutiny. The original report is still on line and can be accessed through the WTC site, feel free to comment on it.
The EPA reports didn't follow this method and were in fact sent to the white house for changes.
Entire scientific community? What a foolish statement. 100% of scientists have publicly backed the statement?
come on, this is a very simple lie here.
-
If it found zero, then he would be disgraced and the 911 movement would certainly lose its legs. I
not necessarily, the towers being brought down by bombs is only part of the puzzle ... even if the towers fell on their own there that whole mess about norad standing down and the ISI organizing this little party ... both those speak just as loud to an inside job as controlled demolition
-
Entire scientific community? What a foolish statement. 100% of scientists have publicly backed the statement?
come on, this is a very simple lie here.
Lets see the groups ASCE, the new york proffesional engineers and all other professional bodies, all major universities. These bodies represent almost all of the structural engineering community. So if I am wrong it is not by much.
How many structural engineers and material scientist believe enough to support 9-11 scholars. Maybe 1.
How many of these people have written papers challenging the NIST report. None.
Seems pretty close to 100% of structural engineering community doesn't it.
not necessarily, the towers being brought down by bombs is only part of the puzzle ... even if the towers fell on their own there that whole mess about norad standing down and the ISI organizing this little party ... both those speak just as loud to an inside job as controlled demolition
Inside knowledge would be easier to believe then the bombs.
-
Dr Jones contends the samples he obtained from a cleanup worked contained NANOTHERMITE and would very clearly show military grade explosives use. The sulfur and other issues wouldn't apply - molecularly, nano thermite isn't caused when buildings fall.
joker will call him a nut. But Jones has offered to pay for the one-day, low cost test on the FBI's debris to verify or disprove.
If his test did take place, and they did find it, it would be VERY easy to trace it back to teh original batch/company/nation/date when it was produced. If it found zero, then he would be disgraced and the 911 movement would certainly lose its legs. I wonder why they wouldn't run an essentially free test, on something the victims' families begged for from day one as the metal was carted off? So easy to prove no explosives were used. yet they won't.
That's still career suicide. They benefit nothing rom it and only incur risk.
[/quote]
Not at all. Remember scientist are interested int he truth. For them to say they think 9/11 was an inside job would be career suicide. BUT for them to say the fidings are way wrong wouldn't. And yet ..............
-
That's still career suicide. They benefit nothing rom it and only incur risk.
Not at all. Remember scientist are interested int he truth. For them to say they think 9/11 was an inside job would be career suicide. BUT for them to say the fidings are way wrong wouldn't. And yet ..............
And yet Dr. Jones will not let his sample be tested by another university and quit instead of letting his research be peer reviewed.
Dr. Jones is making a lot of money on the speaking tour and I am sure he doesn't want to give up that gig.
-
And yet Dr. Jones will not let his sample be tested by another university and quit instead of letting his research be peer reviewed.
Dr. Jones is making a lot of money on the speaking tour and I am sure he doesn't want to give up that gig.
He won't allow another university to test or review his findings?
That speaks volumes. :P
-
He won't allow another university to test or review his findings?
That speaks volumes. :P
yeah, because he currently holds something which COULD be objectively tested and prove an inside job, and who made the explosives.
But if he turns it over to a univ lab to check it, do you seriously believe there is a zero percent chance there wouldn't be an "accident" of some kind? I wouldn't give it to some stranger with a mortgage to pay either.
-
yeah, because he currently holds something which COULD be objectively tested and prove an inside job, and who made the explosives.
But if he turns it over to a univ lab to check it, do you seriously believe there is a zero percent chance there wouldn't be an "accident" of some kind? I wouldn't give it to some stranger with a mortgage to pay either.
He wouldn't even let BYU review it. The people that were paying him and giving him the lab space where he performed his tests. He quit before he would even let them to a peer review of his report.
-
yeah, because he currently holds something which COULD be objectively tested and prove an inside job, and who made the explosives.
But if he turns it over to a univ lab to check it, do you seriously believe there is a zero percent chance there wouldn't be an "accident" of some kind? I wouldn't give it to some stranger with a mortgage to pay either.
He could do a bunch of stuff to insure that wouldn't happen:
- split the sample
- Live broad cast (local or network news)
- Be present at the testing
- 3rd and 4th party obsevers to insure no funny biz
etc....
Another question he might be afraid to answer is: how did he come into possesion fo military grade thermite?
-
NIST has lost all credibility dude. Have you seen the background of the guy who was appointed to hear the NIST investigation right aftr 9/11? LMAO...
The position of NIST director is a presidential appointment. Bement, 69, was nominated by President Bush on Oct. 23, 2001, to be the 12th director of the agency. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n01-06.htm
LOL @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arden_L._Bement_Jr.
Guy worked for Deprt of Defense/DARPA, then went into pvt sector for a defense contractor TRW til 92.
He completely fell off the map for a few years (planning something big, eh? ;) )
Returned to be Bush's personal choice for NIST director, following 9/11.
yeah, I think he's not the guy who would be the most willing to blow the whistle on Bush and the military spenders, seeing as he spent his life working for them. What a f'king sham.
LOL - TRW Inc. was active in the early development of missile systems and spacecraft.
yeah, i totally wouldn't be surprised if the missile which hit the pentagon then was carried off had a nice TRW stamp on it's ass.
-
You know 240,
this guy is looking more and more like a crack pot who whoring himself for $10,000 a speaking engagement.
You have 1000's of scientists and this is the most credibile guy the "movement" has come up with?
This is among many of the reasons i wasn't convienced of a 9/11 inside job theory.
-
He could do a bunch of stuff to insure that wouldn't happen:
- split the sample
- Live broad cast (local or network news)
- Be present at the testing
- 3rd and 4th party obsevers to insure no funny biz
etc....
Another question he might be afraid to answer is: how did he come into possesion fo military grade thermite?
u can get thermite on ebay ... dont know if it would be military grade
-
NIST has lost all credibility dude. Have you seen the background of the guy who was appointed to hear the NIST investigation right aftr 9/11? LMAO...
The position of NIST director is a presidential appointment. Bement, 69, was nominated by President Bush on Oct. 23, 2001, to be the 12th director of the agency. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n01-06.htm
LOL @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arden_L._Bement_Jr.
Guy worked for Deprt of Defense/DARPA, then went into pvt sector for a defense contractor TRW til 92.
He completely fell off the map for a few years (planning something big, eh? ;) )
Returned to be Bush's personal choice for NIST director, following 9/11.
yeah, I think he's not the guy who would be the most willing to blow the whistle on Bush and the military spenders, seeing as he spent his life working for them. What a f'king sham.
LOL - TRW Inc. was active in the early development of missile systems and spacecraft.
yeah, i totally wouldn't be surprised if the missile which hit the pentagon then was carried off had a nice TRW stamp on it's ass.
This ALL might be true and your conclusions of his potential bias might even be true.
But it's A_jokers statement about the scientific community reviewing the NIST report and no one having a problem with it. (or very few)
Bement credibility isn't a issue here becuase of that. But Dr. Jones, credibility is becuase of his actions.
-
joker - Do you see any conflict of interest with this man leading the investigation?
-
u can get thermite on ebay ... dont know if it would be military grade
Hmmm, might be fun.
-
This ALL might be true and your conclusions of his potential bias might even be true.
But it's A_jokers statement about the scientific community reviewing the NIST report and no one having a problem with it. (or very few)
Bement credibility isn't a issue here becuase of that. But Dr. Jones, credibility is becuase of his actions.
check out the scholars for truth page ... there are hundreds who have a problem with it!
-
check out the scholars for truth page ... there are hundreds who have a problem with it!
Scholars or engineers and scientists?
-
check out the scholars for truth page ... there are hundreds who have a problem with it!
100's of people that don't have a background in structural engineering.
http://www.scholarsfortruth.org/ (http://www.scholarsfortruth.org/)
-
Scholars or engineers and scientists?
many many many engineers including structural:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
(do a "ctrl F" and search for "engineers")
-
100's of people that don't have a background in structural engineering.
http://www.scholarsfortruth.org/ (http://www.scholarsfortruth.org/)
speaking out of your ass again
"Joseph M. Phelps (FM)
MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers"
-
Grant Williams (FM)
Commercial construction with emphasis on seismic and structural engineering
Paul Landis (AM)
Industrial engineering, Author of "A Real 9/11 Commission"
Michael Lovingier (AM)
Information technology manager , Structural/Environmental Engineering
Ted Muga (AM)
Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering
-
Grant Williams (FM)
Commercial construction with emphasis on seismic and structural engineering
Paul Landis (AM)
Industrial engineering, Author of "A Real 9/11 Commission"
Michael Lovingier (AM)
Information technology manager , Structural/Environmental Engineering
Ted Muga (AM)
Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering
That's only 4.
Wouldn;t something so "against the laws of physics" have more than 4 people saying "hey that's not possible, it must have been something else"
-
That's only 4.
Wouldn;t something so "against the laws of physics" have more than 4 people saying "hey that's not possible, it must have been something else"
those were just the structural engineers, there were probably about 100 other engineers
to be honest i doubt most people have even looked at this issue, and they dont exactly get a warm reception anywhere when they say there are problems with the official version
anywhoo the point is joker was talking outta his ass :)
-
speaking out of your ass again
"Joseph M. Phelps (FM)
MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers"
4 out of the 100's of "Experts" on their site.
We already had this debate.
Check their research.
-
But it's A_jokers statement about the scientific community reviewing the NIST report and no one having a problem with it. (or very few)
When it comes to alternative hypotheses, NIST had none. When challenged on the work of BYU Professor Steven Jones and the preliminary analysis of steel debris from ground zero indicating incendiary devices, with the release of the conclusive evidence imminent, Newman said, “NIST respects the opinions of others who do not agree with the findings in its report on the collapses of WTC-1 and WTC-2.” To translate this government rhetoric: Even if Jesus Christ descended from heaven, walked into NIST headquarters holding a piece of molten steel from ground zero along with unequivocal evidence of incendiary device compounds and chemicals found on the steel, substances such as Thermate, would respect the opinion of the Lord, but it wouldn’t change their report. And make no mistake about it – the NIST report on probable collapse sequence of the twin towers is a blind and baseless opinion, a complete waste of taxpayer dollars, and one of the most atrocious lies every told to the American people!
-
Waste money on inconclusive test when none of other evidence supports bombs
You seriously see nothing odd with 3 buildings turning into powder on the same day, do you?
You don't see firefighter reports or even videotape as evidence?
Man, you're a blind one.
-
those firefighters were reeling from all the potential energy they experienced ;D
-
When it comes to alternative hypotheses, NIST had none. When challenged on the work of BYU Professor Steven Jones and the preliminary analysis of steel debris from ground zero indicating incendiary devices, with the release of the conclusive evidence imminent, Newman said, “NIST respects the opinions of others who do not agree with the findings in its report on the collapses of WTC-1 and WTC-2.” To translate this government rhetoric: Even if Jesus Christ descended from heaven, walked into NIST headquarters holding a piece of molten steel from ground zero along with unequivocal evidence of incendiary device compounds and chemicals found on the steel, substances such as Thermate, would respect the opinion of the Lord, but it wouldn’t change their report. And make no mistake about it – the NIST report on probable collapse sequence of the twin towers is a blind and baseless opinion, a complete waste of taxpayer dollars, and one of the most atrocious lies every told to the American people!
Lets see NIST changes their whole report after finding out that pancaking theory was wrong, and NIST now says the buildings fell from progressive collapse. Seems to me that they are willing to change.
Steve Jones never offered up his research for peer review, if had done this he would have been more likely to be listened to.
-
When it comes to alternative hypotheses, NIST had none. When challenged on the work of BYU Professor Steven Jones and the preliminary analysis of steel debris from ground zero indicating incendiary devices, with the release of the conclusive evidence imminent, Newman said, “NIST respects the opinions of others who do not agree with the findings in its report on the collapses of WTC-1 and WTC-2.” To translate this government rhetoric: Even if Jesus Christ descended from heaven, walked into NIST headquarters holding a piece of molten steel from ground zero along with unequivocal evidence of incendiary device compounds and chemicals found on the steel, substances such as Thermate, would respect the opinion of the Lord, but it wouldn’t change their report. And make no mistake about it – the NIST report on probable collapse sequence of the twin towers is a blind and baseless opinion, a complete waste of taxpayer dollars, and one of the most atrocious lies every told to the American people!
If that was the case, soo many more credibile people would speaking out. But very very very few people with related backgrounds have ahd a problem with the NIST findings.
the Jesus thing. That's a political statement. Don't read too much into it. However i do respect your opinion even though you do not agree with my findings regarding the potential CT. (this is not meant as an insult, i'm just joking around, i get paid to be sarcastic)
-
Lets see NIST changes their whole report after finding out that pancaking theory was wrong, and NIST now says the buildings fell from progressive collapse. Seems to me that they are willing to change.
and they could still be wrong ... but aside from that you cannot trust a single word from a non impartial organization, do you think a bank would give someone a loan if their auditor wasnt at arms length ::)
-
You seriously see nothing odd with 3 buildings turning into powder on the same day, do you?
You don't see firefighter reports or even videotape as evidence?
Man, you're a blind one.
Careful now, we've all be very civil up to this point ;D We should be proud of ourselves!
-
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely
I am not blind anymore I got that fixed.
-
joker didn't answer, did he? (or did i miss it?)
joker - Do you see any conflict of interest with this man leading the investigation?
-
joker didn't answer, did he? (or did i miss it?)
I took the liberty of answering the moot question.
-
joker didn't answer, did he? (or did i miss it?)
I answered it in your other tread.
Why, because he had defense contracting job.?
No.
The reports aren't about him anyway. It is about the universities and engineering organizations that support the report and the reports were peer reviewed.
-
See the problem with anwering a quesiton like that is we could draw the same conclusion with anyone assiciated with BUSH.
Now that's as far out as we could get.
Guilt by association.
Guilt by connection.
the point is: Bement, wasn't the only investagating, and it's the scientific communities opinion of the NIST report that matters
-
The reports aren't about him anyway. It is about the universities and engineering organizations that support the report and the reports were peer reviewed.
HE was personally appointed right after 9/11.
If you don't believe he helped choose the flavor, you're nuts.
-
HE was personally appointed right after 9/11.
If you don't believe he helped choose the flavor, you're nuts.
Guilt by circumstance?
Com on. that doesn;t even qualify as circumstancial evidence. It's pure conjecture.
Why would the president appoint someone he has had experiences with? Perfectly reasonable. plus whether he is or isn't is besides the point.
the Dr. Jones thing............ i never knew about him not letting his findings be peer reviewed. That's major.
-
witin the first 3 seconds of the video ...
''it was a military plane''
- they were too far away to identify the plane
- would this be your first reaction when you saw the plane hit?
- notice its just a voice over
ive seen hundreds of pictures of the planes hitting the buildings,, they were american airlines planes,, therefore your being played by conspericy theorists and their editing equipment
-
I think you guys are missing something here, we are looking at videos, and those can easily be manipulated. Yeah, I see little explosions, that doesnt mean they weren't later added. Believe half of what you hear, none of what you see.