9/11 CONSPIRACY - EVEN A CAVEMAN FIGURED IT OUT!

Bi-Polar, do you think there's reason to have new investigations? I'm fascinated by Steve Jones scientific evidence and would love to see him and the government's scientists challange each others theories on tv. Hopefully before a Congressional Committee. I'd love to hear direct from their mouths the testimony of eyewitnesses, firefighters, police, Port Authority workers, etc, whose testimony was swept aside by the 911 Commission.

Nope: CLICK HERE

"Gosh . . . you don't think the September 11th conspiracy boys and girls would lie to us do you ? ! ? ! ?" Well the government certainly wouldn't? That damn Steve Jones has some balls putting his science out there for all the world's scientists to see. I'll bet if he appeared on the View alongside the government's scientists they'd tear him up. That would surely kill the 911 Truth Movement. And the sucker is willing to appear, Rosie has invited him. Will ABC take a piece of the action? Will the government's scientists bring smoking guns or cower in fear?

Even layman can understand? OK. then blueflame. What happened to the concrete dust during the collapse? What color is concrete dust? With the tons of concrete dust created why would you be able to distinguish white smoke from thermite from that dust? Since you are layman tell me what happened to the concrete.

I do not, only because even if it was an inside job the chances of it

a: being proven beyond a doubt
b; ever being believed by enough citizens for it to matter

are basically nil.

parados, did you take time to checkout Steve Jones video I provided? As a layman I understand when he says sulpher found in the molten metal is highly unusual. It creates thermate that cuts through steel like a butter knife going through soft butter. Thermate is used in demolitions. I would like to see him discuss that issue with government scientists. As for your questions watch the video. Jonsey covers all the bases. I'm happy he's on my team that calls for new investigations. It's a reasonable request. We are not subversives as some Swift Boaters spin. We are real Americans with legit questions and we deserve to have our highly educated and respected scientists and our eyewitnesses heard. Some of our eyewitnesses were actually wounded by explosions in the basement of WTC. We should allow them to face the nation. It most certainly is in the best interests of national security.

Bi-Polar, you could be right. I think we're moving in the direction of new investigations though. Barring an invasion of Iran.

If this was simply steel beams then yes sulfur would be an odd substance but these were buildings of concrete and other building materials and filled with office equipment. Sulfur isn't that odd anymore when you examine all the other materials involved. Jones repeatedly says it wasn't aluminum yet aluminum is one of the prime ingredients of thermite. You didn't answer my questions and neither did Jones. He ignores things what doesn't fit his theory.

Eyewitnesses were injured by the explosions that brought down the building? How do you have eyewitnesses in the bottom of a building that is being collapsed? The explosions are what causes the collapse. They would not survive if close enough to the thermite to witness it.

parados, I'm still wondering if you watched that video. Jones is no dummy.

Were you aware that there were public hearings during the investigation?
Did anybody here go to them? There were 12 hearings open to the public.

2 were in NY, 1 was in NJ and the rest were in WA D.C.
I wish they would have held one here. I would have gone. I live in WA state.

I believe the commission report addresses the collapse of the buildings (as far as structure and how they collapsed). It is a thick book and the writing is real small. It is going to take me a while to get through it.

. No , hes the snake oil salesman. Those that buy his **** are the dummies.

I wanted to take pix of a recent fire in a steel framed (large girder) building. The fire was merely an office structure fire and was fed by plastics, wall panels, Aluminum hardwall frames etc . The fire, whipped by wind, had caused most of the beams to sag. The assertion that the cross members COULD NOT weaken from such a "cool fire" as a fuel loaded jet airplane, whose body was made by a flammable material like ALuminum, shows a complete lack of understanding of metallurgy. Thats what Steve Jones and his other dipshit "scholars" want you to believe.

You guys are fun to watch, you dont question or analyze any of the data for its own inconsistencies. So, just like Rosie, youre just demonstrating deep and pathological ignorance of the rules of te physicl world.

PS, the data bases of all material and analyses of the field data were catalogued , videod , and retained. The "beams" werent spirited off to China until the invetigations were done , mostly because they were sitting in barges and were at Freshkills landfill for over a year during which "Real" scientists from MIT through Lawrence Livermore walked all over them like cockroaches. They were reconstructed into a computer model that analyzed theier deformation characteristics (something that the "9/11" crew didnt do or attempt to do.

I wonder what was Jones original motivation? Was he saddened because his previous 15 minutes was an ill concieved adventure in the field of cold fusion? If the best science yove got is done by someone who first states emphatically what CANT HAPPEN, and then does nothing to test his own hypotheses, then you have trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with B and that stands for BULLSHIT

The video is poorly edited with Jones repeating the same thing over and over with no math or science given. He is speaking generalities.

I asked you 2 questions that came to mind from listening to it. You couldn't answer either of them yet you claim he lays it all out so a layman could understand it.

1. How do you see smoke from thermite in a building collapse through all the concrete dust created? What happened to that concrete dust that allowed you to see the smoke? Listen to when Jones says he sees the smoke. It appears you didn't.

2. How do you determine that sulfur came from thermite and not from office supplies if you test the results but don't consider any other sources for that sulfur? Sulfur is used in making paper. Did you stop to consider that an office building would have paper?

3. It is possible to melt iron using wood and a bellows providing air continuously. The Chinese did it 3000 years ago. What is paper made of? If you punch a hole through a building will wind blow through that hole and provide air? Keep in mind, you don't have to melt the steel to get a collapse. You only have to weaken it enough to no longer have the strength to support the load.

farmerman, a snake oil salesman? haha. You're projecting. Jones is highly educated and an award winning physicist.

Good find. Now you only have the problem that "911 Truth-dot-org" seriously mistated the poll questions and their results.



Now, the page which Blueflame linked writes:

Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure). . .

--but they fail to mention that in response to Zogby's statement "US government and 9/11 Commission are NOT covering up," 48% agreed. Seems 911 Truth-dot-org wasn't eager to point that out.

But it gets even worse. The 911 Truth-dot-org site writes:

"Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success", stating that 45% agreed and that 8% were unsure. That is a flat out lie. At the Zogby site which you linked, the Zogby poll statement was:



However, the poll choice which 45% of respondents chose was, simply, "Reinvestigate the attacks," which is not at all the same as saying that 45% believe that U.S. government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success [the attacks]. Once again, 911 Truth-dot-org fails to mention that 47% of respondents chose the statement: "The attacks were thoroughly investigated."

All you've got here is a case of preaching to the choir, and your boys and girls down at 911 Truth-dot-org are not at all above stretching the truth completely out of shape to suit their agenda.

But you want to believe it anyway, so i don't care how you respond. I would, however, like the casual reader to know that the folks at that web site are ready to lie, if necessary, to attempt to convince people of their crackpot conspiracy theory.

Steve Jones is an award winning scientist? I couldn't find any evidence of this, could you provide it?

Jones, the physicist, a proponent of cold fusion, who searches for carbon-dating evidence that horses were in central America in biblical times, pre-Columbian horses, in order to prop up the narrative in the Book of Mormon--is that your award-winning scientist?

Your award winning scientist, is that the one about whom Wikipedia writes:



Is that your boy?

Yeah, he's a reliable source . . .


. . . wanna buy a bridge?

Setanta, Jones is in the clear on that cold fusion thing as the New York Times pointed out.
"Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion, he said, although it is not likely to be useful as an energy source.

Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons."
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html I would say the the government 911 theory enthisiasts should welcome a debate between Jones and the government's scientists since they think Jones is off. But obviously that debate is feared by true believers in the covernment's 911 theories. They sure are working hard to keep it from happening. "Recognition and awards
1968, David O. McKay Scholarship at BYU; National Merit Scholar[39]
1973-1978 Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship at Vanderbilt University
1989 Outstanding Young Scholar Award (BYU); Best of What's New for 1989 (Popular Science); Creativity Prize (Japanese Creativity Society)
1990 BYU Young Scholar Award; Annual Lecturer, BYU Chapter of Sigma Xi" link

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Steven E. Jones
Excerpts "Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to my arguments:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse ["official theory"] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)"
link "I also agree with Kevin Ryan's objections regarding the NIST study. Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team… I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests… indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)

That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)

So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very "severe" cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.

Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached…(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is "poised for collapse", thus ignoring any data from that time on.

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. …(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)


What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were "poised for collapse." Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without computer simulations that are "adjusted," perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome.

13. Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan's analysis is that the probability that fires and damage (the "official theory") could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).

So where does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan,

This ["official"] story just does not add up…. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans…. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. (Ryan, 2004; emphasis added.)


14. The NIST team fairly admits that their report "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached." (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)"

Then why didn't you the attend the hearings open to the public?
They had eyewitnesses and the rest of who you listed there who gave their testimony.

blueflame-et al the conspiracy nuts. Getting degrees is easy. Ive got as many as Jones. The fact that theres a revisionist claim which is tring to "clean up" his sorry ass for being a "cold fusionist" is knid of funny. He has produced nothing of scientific substance on this entire issue. AND, his minions are responsible for about 3 outrigh lies about mis represented "evidence"


Lets back up to one of your posts What squibs, observed by whom? IIs this another lie were trying to cook up? Just because some asshole says something like that in a website, why dont you try to find out the circumstances and real facts? Ill bet you are a real pushover for Nigerian money transfers


Next thing well be hearing is that the planes that a gazillion people watched on tv, were actually CGI's cooked up in some garage in Nutley NJ.

PS, the entire issue of "cold fusion " and Jones /Flesichman /Pons was not whether "excess neutrons or ground state energy was measurable" . It was an issue that went to the very ethics of expewrimental science. THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED BY DISPASSIONATE RESEARCHERS WORKING ELSEWHERE. We usually call that fraud. but I see your Steve Jones "whitewash" article uses a gentler term. Just like Mike Behe is being marginalized by the bio department at LEhigh U, Jones has been eating his lunches alone lately(or else hes joined by other 9/11 conspiracists like Rosie Odonell or Eric Cartman)

.

. Hes been on the ART BELL show for Chrissakes. Thats like the ultimate moral sell-out . Its like hanging out with the "Daily Show" and making believe youre with newsmen.