9/11 Debate: Watch as Popular Mechanics debunk LooseChange in person

[LoneGunman]

its fair enough to say that things like this fall in the realm of scientists - however - there's a HUGE quantity of direct and circumstantial evidence that is NOT within the province of 'science' per se - thats more in the province of 'political' and 'reported information' ahead of 911 as covered in various Media, and/or by various intelligence agencies and ex government personnel.

So relying on the 'science' aspect of one tiny facet of a much larger framework of events, is not sufficient to get a sense of the big picture.
Thats like.. relying on the analysis of a leaf to determine whether or not its Spring, when the actual question, is 'whether or not you're standing in a forest', you know?

If the only question about 911 was an engineering/science question, then sure, your approach would be sufficient - however there are hundreds of anomalies, 'coincidences' and avoided questions surrounding 911, which - taken as a whole - suggest a much larger framework should be used to determine the 'truth' of 911.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/
Or get a sense of the larger layers of questions, at http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=38396

 

[icyrus]

its fair enough to say that things like this fall in the realm of scientists - however - there's a HUGE quantity of direct and circumstantial evidence that is NOT within the province of 'science' per se - thats more in the province of 'political' and 'reported information' ahead of 911 as covered in various Media, and/or by various intelligence agencies and ex government personnel.

So relying on the 'science' aspect of one tiny facet of a much larger framework of events, is not sufficient to get a sense of the big picture.
Thats like.. relying on the analysis of a leaf to determine whether or not its Spring, when the actual question, is 'whether or not you're standing in a forest', you know?

If the only question about 911 was an engineering/science question, then sure, your approach would be sufficient - however there are hundreds of anomalies, 'coincidences' and avoided questions surrounding 911, which - taken as a whole - suggest a much larger framework should be used to determine the 'truth' of 911.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/
Or get a sense of the larger layers of questions, at http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=38396

Sure there is more to it than science, but I'm not interested in that, yet. The prevailing idea of the conspiracy theories is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition rather than the damage sustained from the aircraft impacts. This falls entirely in the realm of science.

If there is a prevailing belief in the scientific community that the mechanics of the conspiracy theories are true, then its worth looking into the political aspects of it.

 

[kilo39]

Can you prove this or is this simply conjecture?

US State Department
Washington File
25 July 2003

Senators Spar Over Joint Committee's September 11 Report
Classified section says foreign officials aided terrorists, says Graham
The report makes it clear we should have known that potential terrorists were living among us. Indeed, two of the terrorist-turned-hijackers lived with an FBI informant in San Diego, CA, for 6 months or more in the year 2001. A resourceful FBI agent in Phoenix wanted to follow up on suspicions about foreign-born students who were honing their skills at American flight schools. Officials at FBI central headquarters shut him down.
-
The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled ``Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters.'' That section of the report contained 27 pages between pages 396 through 422. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured. This is the equivalent of ripping out a chapter in the middle of a history book before giving it to your child or grandchild and then telling her ``good luck on the test.''
-
The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed ``information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States.''

In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.
[source]

Congressional Record: June 27, 2005 (House)
But I learned something new, Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks
and months. I have talked to some of the military *intelligence* officers
who produced this document, who worked on this effort. And I found
something out very startling, Mr. Speaker. Not only did our military
identify the Mohammed Atta cell; our military made a recommendation in
September of 2000 to bring the FBI in to take out that cell, the cell
of Mohammed Atta. So now, Mr. Speaker, for the first time I can tell
our colleagues that one of our agencies not only identified the New
York cell of Mohammed Atta and two of the terrorists, but actually made
a recommendation to bring the FBI in to take out that cell. And they
made that recommendation because Madeleine Albright had declared that
al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization, and the military
units involved here felt they had jurisdiction to go to the FBI.
Why, then, did they not proceed?
[source]


Tenet Recalled Warning Rice Tuesday, October 3, 2006
Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had warned of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda in a July 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, adding that he believed Rice took the warning seriously, according to a transcript of the interview and the recollection of a commissioner who was there.

Agents: Clinton-Reno DOJ Nixed FBI Terrorist Probe
According to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross today, the two agents told him they were ordered to stop investigations into a suspected terror cell linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and the Sept. 11 attacks.

FBI special agents Robert Wright and John Vincent told Ross they were called off criminal investigations of suspected terrorists linked to the deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. U.S. officials say al-Qaeda was responsible for the embassy attacks and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.


... all of the above in respect of:

Rice: Does anyone really believe I'd ignore terror warning? Thurs Oct 12, 06
Early Thursday morning, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied that she gave the "brush-off" to an "impending terrorist attack" warning by former C.I.A. director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator in July of 2001 – two months before the September 11 attacks – as first reported by Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward in his latest book, State of Denial.

They knew about it - they squashed it.

 

[LoneGunman]

re "If there is a prevailing belief in the scientific community that the mechanics of the conspiracy theories are true, then its worth looking into the political aspects of it.
Reply With Quote"

okay, but the one does not link to the other, logically.

Just because X number of folks are suggesting that the WTC towers (including a 47 storey building that WASNT hit by an airplane) collapsed, despite being designed to withstand the impact of a similar weight/speed aircraft - does not mean that 'only if X is true/false' will Y be considered.

'Y' exists regardless of whether 'X' does or not.

If one adds to this collapse story,

a) the architect stating that this plane impact was catered for in engineering design.
b) no other steel structure has collapsed due to fire (especially not in 50 minutes or less)
c) an insurance underwriter who vetted the steel melting point of WTC, got fired for writing a letter pointing out that the 'official' story temperatures were utterly incorrect.
d) the NY fire department itself expressed outrage that (because of the bizarre and unexplainable event of 3 buildings collapsing absurdly) all evidence of what actually happened, was being removed from site..
e) the official NIST report weirdly 'forgetting' to detail an integral part of the building core, in its 'report' - in order to justify its version of why the collapse happened.

any discussion of purely 'the science' of the collapse, has to take into account these and many other related events, in determining the overall picture of the Event as such. That is Science. Its also simple deduction.

If you see a man threatening to kill someone, then display a gun., walk around a corner - and you hear a gunshot - and later a body is discovered around the corner, which 'everyone' begins to say is supposedly a suicide - to then waste energy on debating whether or not the person killed themselves, while ignoring the prior reality of the man seen ahead of time, is to be indulging in a strange form of selective reality. Rather one should be asking WHY is it being called a suicide, and who is bending reality to ignore the other indications of homicide that are evident. And if these people saying its a suicide, are benefitting in some way from this so-called suicide - its fairly obvious that it isnt what it seems at face value.

Again - it doesnt matter 'how' the building collapsed - even though it is (in conjunction with the other many coincidences) - proof poz of a larger plan of some kind - facts showing foreknowledge of the event, and the behaviour of those who knew in advance, speak for themselves.
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=38396

 

[icyrus]

okay, but the one does not link to the other, logically.

Just because X number of folks are suggesting that the WTC towers (including a 47 storey building that WASNT hit by an airplane) collapsed, despite being designed to withstand the impact of a similar weight/speed aircraft - does not mean that 'only if X is true/false' will Y be considered.

If one adds to this collapse story,

a) the architect stating that this plane impact was catered for in engineering design.
b) no other steel structure has collapsed due to fire (especially not in 50 minutes or less)
c) an insurance underwriter who vetted the steel melting point of WTC, got fired for writing a letter pointing out that the 'official' story temperatures were utterly incorrect.
d) the NY fire department itself expressed outrage that (because of the bizarre and unexplainable event of 3 buildings collapsing absurdly) all evidence of what actually happened, was being removed from site..
e) the official NIST report weirdly 'forgetting' to detail an integral part of the building core, in its 'report' - in order to justify its version of why the collapse happened.

any discussion of purely 'the science' of the collapse, has to take into account these and many other related events, in determining the overall picture of the Event as such. That is Science. Its also simple deduction.

If you see a man threatening to kill someone, then display a gun., walk around a corner - and you hear a gunshot - and later a body is discovered, which is supposedly a suicide - to then waste energy on debating whether or not the person killed themselves, while ignoring the prior reality of the man seen ahead of time, is to be indulging in a strange form of selective reality.

My point is that the reason for the buildings collapse should be scientifically determinable without considering any of those other related points. If it is scientifically proven that the buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition then it is time for further questions.

In my mind if science proves that the airplane impacts alone caused the respective collapses the related questions change a bit.

Until such time that it is proven and accepted across the scientific community that this is how it happened I, personally, will not entertain the other questions. Others are free to if they will.

 

[sparklehorse]

What a bunch of complete morons. I can't believe that people are still debating this. Scrap that, I can't believe they still think these half baked theories carry any weight whatsoever.

 

[LoneGunman]

okay, now 'pure science' doesnt really exist too much - science is almost always in the service of the prevailing authority.

Just as most science work is done either at Universities, who rely on State or Military funding - or Corporate, which in turn requires only answers that are profitable.
(Consider the many scientists who lined up to convince the public that smoking was healthy - or consider the many scientists who worked hard to make cigarettes more addictive)

'science' itself, is almost always predjudiced and beholden to whoever's paying for the work to be done - or paying for the place where the laboratory is set up.

Its not really in the interests of many scientists, to go against a prevailing viewpoint - especially not a politically charged one, like 911. To expect scientists working for one or another University or Institute, or Firm who in turn, rely on State funding, to put aside this consideration, and honestly evaluate something, which - if they find against the funders of their organisation, will have massive repercussions on their careers.

Like expecting scientists who rely on the Government for their paycheck, to find answers that implicate the Government - is like the local police force setting up a commission to investigate themselves. Its not really possible.

Thats why the scholars for 911 truth, are the few lone voices who have decided that - science - is more important than political/career security.

But again, you're relying on the idea that 'science' and truth will emerge regardless - as if scientists themselves are existing separate from vested interests. They arent.

Consistently throughout history, the true scientists are the ones who speak out and propose ideas that the mainstream consider absurd, bizarre, lunacy or dangerous.
Whether you're talking about earth revolving around the sun, flight, space travel - each of these ideas was dismissed by mainstream science - because it was politically and socially inconvenient.

911 itself, is the mother of all 'inconvenient' Events - because it forces the student to face the idea that Government will kill its citizens whenever it feels its convenient to do so - and few folks like this idea..

Is it good logic, or good scientific reasoning to look over the many 'coincidences' (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=38396 )and to keep saying its all coincidence? Or is it better science to say 'there're too many coincidences for the word to be even used anymore.'

 

[icyrus]

There are a lot of scientists in related fields that are not based in the US or funded by corporations with vested interests. There are also a lot of countries that are not friendly with the US and having such proof would be a massive advantage to them.

Be honest with me now, how many people in scholars for 911 truth are qualified in related fields?

 

[LoneGunman]

You mean 'lets ignore the architect of WTC' and 'lets ignore the New York Fire Department'? and see what academic qualifications these other authority figures appear to have?

Bear in mind, 'facts are facts' - it doesnt matter whether its a chimpanzee giving them to you or G0d himself - the facts are either 'correct' or 'incorrect' - no gray areas in Science.
So the melting points of steel, airplane jet fuel etc - are predetermined regardless of whether a chimp, or Britney Spears doesnt like them.

Because I'm a believer in trying to determine truth - here's an analysis of the scholars for 911 truth site, which suggests that its actually a disinformation site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html

that said 'Dr. Steven Jones, a Physicist and Archaeometrist'
still writes a mean paper-
"Why Indeed did the WTC buildings collapse"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
In the article Jones ennumerates thirteen reasons to challenge government reports and investigate the controlled-demolition hypothesis:
1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools
2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel
3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7
4. No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires
5. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7
6. Early Drop of North Tower Antenna
7. Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions
8. Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris – plumes from the Towers
9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy
10. Controlled Demolition “Implosions” Require Skill
11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800°C Needed: A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou
12. Problems in the NIST Report: Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models
13. NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations

as does David Ray Griffin Ph.D., theologian, author:
"The Destruction of the World Trade Center:Why the Official Account Cannot Be True"

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

The laws of physics are clearly defined. Read the two papers, and point out where their authors are wrong.
Asking 'what their qualifications are' - as if this will change the fundamental laws of physics and burning points of materials - as well as somehow explain the utterly suspicious behaviour of the US government in the months leading up to 911 - is to be being quite bizarre with reality.

 

[bwana]

They knew about it - they squashed it.

I missed the bits that proved that

this was financed and planned by the cia....

Money always leaves a trail.

 

[sparklehorse]

okay, now 'pure science' doesnt really exist too much - science is almost always in the service of the prevailing authority.

'science' itself, is almost always predjudiced and beholden to whoever's paying for the work to be done - or paying for the place where the laboratory is set up.

You have a great deal to learn about science then. The above is absolutely not true. Of course you get bad science and good science, but 'pure science' by definition does not give in to authority prejudice or who is paying the bills.

Thats why the scholars for 911 truth, are the few lone voices who have decided that - science - is more important than political/career security.

No, they are the lone voices because they have shoddy "evidence" and most people have a brain they know how to use properly.

 

[icyrus]

I will look over those articles and get back to you, in the meantime consider the following scenario (and then you might understand my thinking):

You have some ailment and intend to seek help. You have two options: a qualified doctor and a theologian that has an interest in the medical sciences. Who would you go to for a diagnosis?

 

[LoneGunman]

"pure science' by definition does not give in to authority prejudice or who is paying the bills."

oh and what will someone do when facing an unpalatable truth that infringes on both their worldview, AND the yearly funding from the same people who may have committed mass murder?

Seems like you have a lot to learn about human nature, and politics, and applied science - as opposed to having some etheral view of scientists sitting, rent free somewhere, carefully looking over facts in isolation from any constraints in the real world..

Rather than argue about 'what science is' - lets get back to the mass murder of citizens by a Government.

Unless of course its easier on the mind to argue about abstract 'science'

 

[LoneGunman]

icyrus - nicely put

well, given that its a disease, you obviously go towards a professional - UNLESS - (to stretch your analogy a bit) the Government of the day would appear to have some vested interest in making you think you have a disease, which doesnt actually exist - or which exists in a different form to the one you have.

'State' terrorism - versus the CIA-created thing called 'Al Qeada'.

 

[Claymore]

Claymore, have you watched the google video? If so what do you believe happened?

No, I haven't - I can't watch videos at work, and I don't have time or bandwidth to waste at home.

I'll go along with the official story - terrorists flew planes into the buildings. That satisfies both Occam's Razor as well as the physical evidence.

As to any political machinations behind that...I'm open to other ideas. I'm certainly no fan of Bush.

 

[bwana]

Rather than argue about 'what science is' - lets get back to the mass murder of citizens by a Government.

I guess its just me but if I believed that a government would commit such a heinous act I wouldn't be so quick to move there. That's just common sense where I come from.

 

[Claymore]

b) no other steel structure has collapsed due to fire (especially not in 50 minutes or less)
c) an insurance underwriter who vetted the steel melting point of WTC, got fired for writing a letter pointing out that the 'official' story temperatures were utterly incorrect.

b) Name other structures with the same basic design as WTC1 or 2 (or 7, for that matter). Now name those that have been exposed to fire.

c) An insurance underwriter experienced in the field of WATER, not steel. Credible expert, huh?

 

[Claymore]

that said 'Dr. Steven Jones, a Physicist and Archaeometrist'

A man not qualified in engineering (structural or civil), nor in steel; rather, he's into things like fusion and solar energy.

In the article Jones ennumerates thirteen reasons to challenge government reports and investigate the controlled-demolition hypothesis:
1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

Irrelevant. AFAIK, no analysis was done, so it could have been any metal, including aluminium (pretty likely).

3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7

Relevance?

4. No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires

No previous experience of skyscraper disasters like this.

His arguments have all been covered expensively, and refuted, by people far more qualified than he is.

as does David Ray Griffin Ph.D., theologian, author:

Theologian and author? This makes him qualified in structural engineering?

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

Until these two proffesors' papers are peer-reviewed then the papers cannot be considered factual.

 

[Claymore]

Grey = concrete dust produced by the collapse of WTC1 or 2.

Why on earth would dark grey "dust" from WTC 1 or 2 be billowing extensively from the windows of WTC7? Are you sure you're looking at the right picture?

Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
[source]

Oh, so Dr Jones is now a chemist too? Quite multitalented, that man. Pity this "finding" does not seem to have been documented anywhere except in someone's blog. That certainly makes it credible.