911 Pentagon Video Released

[ignacio]

No - it is germane. This thread (without looking at the beginning) is about the authenticity of the evidence. It is germane insofar as considering the possibilities for one conspiracy - gives some credence to considering the possibilities of another.

LOL - not at all. Both could have happened or not happened independently of the other. But really - this from someone who says that two planes crashing into 2 buildings gives no credence to the fact that a third plane crashed into another building.... you somehow see a direct and necessary connection between JFK and 911 and none whatsover between 2 hijacked planes and a 3rd hijacked plane. Simply wow.

I did not say that my theory (or musings) couldn't stand on their own - you jumping to conclusions again - based on vapour. So - from your post I gather that JFK died from the magic bullet. ??? Or - shall we just skip over that one (the assassination - on American soil - of a president) - and move onto the rest - that firm territory of your experts, my experts. The difference between you and I - is I get some comprehension from the words - instead of just blabbering like a blind mouse. The Party Line.

Again, I have nothing to say about JFK - totally irrelevant sidetrack on your part.

 

[ignacio]

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

This is what the scientists you are using for your "primary debunk" have to say:

"We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

hmmm... so nothing about nuclear weapons, eh? Not much of a debunk, is it now?

And we haven't even begun to get to the meat. But I constantly have ignacio - genius that he is - calling kook - and how he is debunking. Then - to top it all - I have your scoreline - Uum, excuse me, are you paying attention at all?

He has not been paying attention, based on that WPI link, it is sane people 1, conspiracy kooks 0....

 

[kilo39]

Again, I have nothing to say about JFK - totally irrelevant sidetrack on your part.

That's a good one ignacio. Well we'll move on some shall we - some review...

 

[Prometheus]

Regarding JFK - no- it is not irrelevant to this discussion. It is germane. Are you prepared to continuance the possibility at all? It goes to credibility (of your perspective.)

Forget it. He doesn't understand how JFK being a conspiracy is relavant to this discussion. Possibly because he doesn't believe that it is a conspiracy even though an inquiry concluded that it is in all likelyhood a conspiracy.

Kilo, stop taking this personally mate! We're on a forum, this flaming is all part of the good fun! Instead of complaining about it like a wet bag get your hands dirty!

Is that an open invitation to flame? Once I hear it from the horses mouth I'll start flaming him then.

 

[ignacio]

That's a good one ignacio. Well we'll move on some shall we - some review...

Good - are you suggesting that you won't be using JFK as the cornerstone to your theory any more? I can only applaud that.

 

[Prometheus]

Prometheus, do you go to the same cocaine dealer as Kilo39? It seems like you guys have a good thing going here!

me wonders who is the kooK of the cocaine

 

[ignacio]

Forget it. He doesn't understand how JFK being a conspiracy is relavant to this discussion. Possibly because he doesn't believe that it is a conspiracy even though an inquiry concluded that it is in all likelyhood a conspiracy.

Even it it was a true conspiracy - what is the connection to 911? Here is a conspiracy: Zuma was set up by the rape accuser. Is that conspiracy now linked to 911 because they are both conspiracies?

Yes - so I am simply saying that the JFK conspiracy, true or not - has no bearing on 911, so why do you guys insist on bringing it up?

 

[ignacio]

me wonders wonders who is the kooK of the cocaine

Maybe you two are connected by cocaine... but it could be any of these drugs as well.

 

[Prometheus]

Again, I have nothing to say about JFK - totally irrelevant sidetrack on your part.

Just as irrelevant as the twin towers. Completely different issue from the Pentagon "crash"

He has not being paying attention, based on that WPI link, it is sane people 1, conspiracy kooks 0....

Actually it's thread derailers 1:everyone else 0

Maybe you two are connected by cocaine... but it could be any of these drugs as well.

Talk about thread derailing

 

[kilo39]

I rest my case. No interest in the truth. Just another drone. Oh dear.

 

[ignacio]

Just as irrelevant as the twin towers. Completely different issue from the Pentagon "crash"

Actually it's thread derailers 1:everyone else 0

Talk about thread derailing

hmmmm - who derailed this thread? Who on Earth started going on about the WTC.... for the life of me, I really can't pinpoint it. One of you two maybe? Nah - not you two honorable and exceedingly rational gentlemen. I really can't figure it out....

I saw the clip on the bbc last night (it had just been released to the public?) - The first time I saw the clip it was a full video, all the frames were included (and that definitely was no 757 - not moving at that speed and that angle and height - and size!!) - there is no way it is a 757. Then the subsequent reports were the 3 or 4 frame 'video' - where you can't see the plane strike at all, just the explosion. Me thinks conspiracy right there. Show the full video - then within an hour it is "pulled"??!... And some dweeb professional opinion... uum, well its not the best but quite clear etc... Wish people would believe their eyes!! (Does help to see the full thing.)

Also came across these - a finnish military expert: WTC was brought down by small hydrogen bombs (no radiation) - which would give the same smoke, dust, collapse signature - (also the pools of metal and the heat and fires in the basement that burnt for weeks) http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

And newly released witness (including cops, fireman) reports: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

Above links came off: http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm

And - just to say - the most amazing video I've seen was the Witness to 911 - and the study video of a body freefalling in comparison to the towers.

I was never a believer - except the evidence before my eyes (even on the day it happened) -. After sitting through Oliver Stones movie JFK got to agree high probability of conspiracy (no ways was JFK shot by Lee Harvey - with one magic bullet.)

Look at the photos, the clips and the transcripts of 911 - There is a force in the world bigger than governments(?) - maybe George Bush doesn't know, was never part of the loop.

Wait! I finally have a theory who derailed the thread..... it was JFK!!!

 

[Prometheus]

By Prof. Steven E. Jones from the Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

 

[Prometheus]

Wait! I finally have a theory who derailed the thread..... it was JFK!!!

Boy, you really are a clown.

...and who said he wanted to talk about the twin towers

 

[ignacio]

By Prof. Steven E. Jones from the Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

Quite the guy... his own university doesn't support him:

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The Fulton College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

So - there you have it - CONSENSUS scientific opinion still doesn't agree with you.

Edit: Another cool theory by this "non-kook" professor: Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America . Yup - he is precisely the scientist I would want backing up my theory... it is all gold, I told yah... he even quotes the Book of Mormon, which makes him the least kooky prof I know.

 

[ignacio]

Boy, you really are a clown.

...and who said he wanted to talk about the twin towers

bwhahaha - so he is the first one to derail the thread... and your defense is that I am meant to somehow work out his motivation for posting that before I reply to it? Please, tell me you are not being serious...

 

[kilo39]

So - there you have it - CONSENSUS scientific opinion still doesn't agree with you.

Poor old ignacio doesn't quite know what/or which he is debunking anymore - frantically putting out fires - excuse me while I laugh hysterically.

 

[ignacio]

Poor old ignacio doesn't quite know what/or which he is debunking anymore - frantically putting out fires - excuse me while I laugh hysterically.

ok - you stick with the kook, and I will stick with respectable professors

 

[Prometheus]

Quite the guy... his own university doesn't support him:

And what makes him different from your "experts" again? In case you don't know if you support someones statement you can be considered liable for any action which follows from it. Therefore universities rarely support their professors when they come up with something new. From your interpretation we should call Albert Einstein a kook because he was kicked out of high school. LOL. You really take the cake and with it the table as well.

So - there you have it - CONSENSUS scientific opinion still doesn't agree with you.

Excuse me, but if you were listening you would have noticed that not everyone who is a scientist agrees with your theory either. So we have a consensus that scientific opinion still doesn't agree with you.

bwhahaha - so he is the first one to derail the thread... and your defense is that I am meant to somehow work out his motivation for posting that before I reply to it? Please, tell me you are not being serious...

You don't seem to realise that YOU are the one who told HF that you wanted to talk about it.

 

[kilo39]

mooK
On the subject of wanting more frames, come on, the plane was going so fast it's a miracle that camera even got a glimpse of it. It's only like 25fps or whatever, and that plane went past the viewing area in a split second. so it makes sense that there is only one frame of it. They'd have needed one of the those slow-mo high fps cameras they use for some sports to have gotten a decent shot.

Note: I started this thread - because I couldn't believe my eyes in terms of the video released on the bbc. In my very first post I made the link and connection to LG's great posts on the conspiracy theory. And in relation to this first post I'll say it again: the video I saw initially released on the bbc is not the same video they showed an hour later on their next broadcast. I saw a full motion video where the outline - a very fast moving pole like object angled at about 40 degrees - could be clearly seen - it was quick - but clearly outlined - and the next second there is the impact. Missile strike - cruise missile or similar - very similar to the famous shot of the missile going past the window in baghdad. Which is why I posted the thread. The very next video I saw was the stop frame version - a long way from what I had seen originally. I questioned the authenticity - showing me one video - then within the hour showing me another. On my very next post - I opened the whole subject of 911. State again: I was never a believer - but LG's great posts lead me down the road of looking at 'the evidence' so to speak. With an open mind and an open agenda - from my own perspective. I have seen and read some of LG's info - much of which is bone chilling if you bother to spend any time with it and give it the respect it deserves. A cameraman with free-rolling tripod cameras - who has no agenda - and nothing to gain - posts his knowledge and his information. A firemans transcript - doing their professional jobs, calling it as they see it. Numerable people from all walks of life, professors and academics have posted their view - and somehow out there - there is this element - that no matter what is posted it is nonsense and not to be believed. Yes, the conspiracists would have you believe that america perpetrated 911 (or on its most simplistic level: allowed it to happen.) The whole scenario - brought to the fore by me - due to the broadcast of the video.

 

[Prometheus]

Oh Goodies!
ignacio: "And while in a hurry to grab at straws during a hurricane I didn't bother to read any further from my link"

In April 2006, BYU removed those statements from their website following a letter saying that Jones' paper was, indeed, peer reviewed. The letter, written by linguistics professor Richard McGinn to Alan Parkinson, Dean of the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology, also says that McGinn is entitled to file an ethics complaint with the American Society of Civil Engineers against Parkinson for continuing to run those statements. An excerpt from the letter follows:

"...no dean has the right to represent individual faculty, much less the entire faculty of BYU’s Engineering College, on the issue of whether they do (or do not) “support” a colleague’s research, whether published or in-progress. The offending statement is a breach of collegiality, and seems as well to infringe upon Professor Jones’ academic freedom.

Most poignantly, it is inconsistent with the code of ethics of the American Society of Civil Engineers, by which you, as dean of the Engineering College, are bound, given that your web site claims to represent the opinions of an entire faculty of BYU engineers. The ASCR Code states in part:

"CANON 5.

g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work."​

If members of the College disagree with Dr. Jones' assertions in his paper that the official FEMA and NIST reports are inadequate as they stand, then they should be specific in their reasons for supporting those reports, neither of which provides (routine) visualizations for finite element analyses..."​