US questions 9/11

This forum is a community resource for the people of St Davids and those in the wider world with an interest in the city. Please respect your fellow users and refrain from posting anything that could be considered offensive by the community.
This forum is intended for non commercial use if you wish to promote your goods or services please contact the Webjanitor.
Mae'r bwrdd neges hwn yn modd i bobl Tyddewi ac i'r rhai hynny sydd a ddiddordeb yn y ddinas. Byddwch yn barchus i'ch cyd-defnyddwyr a pheidiwch postio unrhyw beth a fydd yn atgasu'r cymdeithas.
Open forum
Register to become a Member and gain extra options.
Post Reply
User avatar
prancer
Site Admin
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:14 pm
Contact:

US questions 9/11

Post by prancer » Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:38 pm

As reported:
Wed, Feb. 01, 2006
9/11 ATTACKS
Avoiding the hard questions

ROBERT STEINBACK - Miami Herald

I was 8 years old when President John Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas in 1963. If grace favors me, I'll be 62 when documents related to the assassination are released to the public, and 84 when the Warren Commission's investigative files into the tragedy are finally opened.

That's a long time to wait for a chance to evaluate the purported truth.

It's a blot on the presumed sophistication of the people of the United States that any aspect of an event so dramatic and shocking should be kept from us. Perhaps it's true, to abuse the line from A Few Good Men yet again, that we can't handle the truth. But there cannot be genuine resolution as long as such critical information remains concealed.

Transformed by 9/11

Since Kennedy's assassination, Americans have lurched between demanding to know and plugging their ears: The Pentagon Papers, My Lai, the King assassination, Watergate, Iran-contra, the savings-and-loan debacle, Monicagate. Lately, however, it would seem the public's verdict is in: Don't tell us. Keep us in the dark. We don't want to know.

This is the worst possible time for probe-ophobia to grip us. Our nation was irretrievably transformed by 9/11 -- and yet there remain troubling questions about what really happened before, during and after that day. Rather than demanding a full and fearless vetting to hone in on the truth and silence the conjecture about 9/11, many Americans remain unwilling to peer into the microscope.

An online cottage industry of theorists, theory debunkers and debunker debunkers has flourished since 9/11. Sometimes the flimsy theories are easy to spot -- come on, if the four passenger jets didn't crash where it appears they did, where did they go? More often, though, the cases aren't so obvious.

A group of experts and academicians 'devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, `letting the chips fall where they may,' '' last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website, http://www.st911.org.

Unanswered questions

The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present.

''I am a professional philosopher who has spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,'' group co-founder and University of Minnesota professor James H. Fetzer told me. ``When I come to 9/11, it's not hard for me to determine what is going on. This is a scientific question. And it is so elementary that I don't think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.''

The group asks, for example,

• How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

Our current probe-ophobia is due in part to the political landscape: When one party holds all the cards, any call to investigate an alleged abuse of power or cover-up -- no matter how valid -- will look like a partisan vendetta. Those in power never want to investigate themselves.
Prancing is for dancers, masking is for liars.

thebigcheese
adlam
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:54 pm
Contact:

Post by thebigcheese » Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:17 pm

What complete and utter nonsense, which site did you copy and paste that from.

How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees?

You dont have to melt stuff to make it weak. The fire softened the steel and caused it to warp

How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

Most of it did not flare off in the fireball. The majority of the fuel entered the building and down the lift shafts, causing fires in the basements. It collapsed due to the gradual warping of the steel, which IMO would take about an hour.

Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

Because it's displacement to the aircraft was close, causing the building to be set on fire. You are right, firel alone has never, but the gradual warping did.

Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

Because they started collapsing mainly from the top. Skyscrapers have to put up with immense pressures what with wind etc, sideways. But the weight downwards should never significantly change, which is why the buildings went straight down.

Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

This was due to poor preparation and lack of organisation from the government. Also exampled in the recent huricane in New Orleans

Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

Because they were no such reports. Find the so called reports and I will give you a large sum of money.

Those in power never want to investigate themselves.

False, If only they could be got rid of, in lets say an election. They do investigate themselves, only you just dont want to see it.

Since Kennedy's assassination, Americans have lurched between demanding to know and plugging their ears
no


I agree that there is something fishy about the circumstances regarding 9/11. But the evidence you have provided has been dismissed ages ago.

User avatar
webjanitor
Site Admin
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:25 am
Contact:

Post by webjanitor » Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:40 pm


User avatar
webjanitor
Site Admin
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:25 am
Contact:

Post by webjanitor » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:33 pm

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.

Prof. Steven Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyised materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate, used for "cutting" the steel support columns, as evident in the photo below.

Dr. Jones is a co-founder of Scholars for 911 Truth.

Dr. Jones in earlier work pointed to thermate as the likely explosive that brought down the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 skyscrapers. But only recently was physical material analysed in the lab and the presense of thermate announced. The samples were provided Dr. Jones team from redundant sourses.

Both BYU and Prof. Jones have been offered additional grants if he would "change the direction" of his research. In addition, there have been threats made by an individual who "is taking action" to stop Steven Jones' research, specifically his experiment with thermites (aluminothermics), on the grounds his work may be helpful to "terrorists". Jones notes that much more detailed information on both thermite and thermate is readily available on the internet.

Bobby
doeth
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:32 pm
Contact:

Post by Bobby » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:32 pm

There was a programme on TV, a satellite channel I think, a while ago that claimd 9/11 was an American plot.

I f it was a plot though, do you think Elvis was involved?

User avatar
webjanitor
Site Admin
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:25 am
Contact:

Post by webjanitor » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:21 pm

It is true that the conspiracy tag discredits everything.
See how it is used in the following article dealing with Prof. Steven Jones conclusions.

http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm

Even so I would submit that the conspiracy as 'joke' refutation has to deal with the evidence m'lord.

the beast
doeth
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: Northern Spain ( Girona )
Contact:

Post by the beast » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:54 pm

Prancer, i admire your efforts to instigate discussion but can we have subjects closer to home?

Be safe!

Bobby
doeth
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:32 pm
Contact:

Post by Bobby » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:33 pm

webjanitor, can you tell me how you put up the blue words to give direct access to another site please?

User avatar
webjanitor
Site Admin
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:25 am
Contact:

Post by webjanitor » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:38 pm

copy & paste the site address
highlight it
then click the URL button in the toolbar above the message writing box

http://www.stdavids.co.uk

Bobby
doeth
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:32 pm
Contact:

Post by Bobby » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:48 am

[url]http://www.stdavids.co.uk I must be doing something wrong, its turned out black!
[/url][url]javascript:bbstyle(-1)[/url]
No, its not working, perhaps its my computer?

User avatar
webjanitor
Site Admin
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:25 am
Contact:

Post by webjanitor » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:37 am

step1
type the address
Image

step2
highlight the address
Image

step3
click the url button, notice that the url tags are either side of the address
Image

Bobby
doeth
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:32 pm
Contact:

Post by Bobby » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:44 pm

[url]http://.stdavids.co.uk[/url] See if this works.

it didn't work because of the .(dot) in the wrong place before stdavids


http://www.stdavids.co.uk

or (if the webhost knows their business)

http://stdavids.co.uk

computers are pernickety things
(webjanitor edit)

Bobby
doeth
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:32 pm
Contact:

Post by Bobby » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:46 pm

Thanks Web Janitor,it worked that time,but I am sure i did that before. This time though I typed in the www. Last time I cut and pasted,should that have made any difference?

User avatar
prancer
Site Admin
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:14 pm
Contact:

Post by prancer » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:59 am

Bobby, what could be "closer to home" than your freedom?
Prancing is for dancers, masking is for liars.

Bobby
doeth
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:32 pm
Contact:

Post by Bobby » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:06 pm

Prancer, I think you have mixed me up with the beast! But do you really think there is a conspiracy around 9/11. I have seen a programme on satellite TV about it , but I didnt really believe it.
There are theories these days, about just about anything,including one I had never heard of until a very short while ago,and that was it wasnt the Titanic that sank, but her sister ship the Olympic. Theory has it that management sent the workers home on a long weekend,and swapped them over!The Olympic had been badly damaged accidentally by a Royal Navy battleship,and they thought it would have to be wriiten off,and the navy wouldnt pay,so they swapped them,and planned to sink the ship,on the way. Fate stepped in and sank it too early,so the ship that had been sent behind to rescue people wasnt there.
But I dont believe that either.

User avatar
prancer
Site Admin
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:14 pm
Contact:

Post by prancer » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:13 am

Sorry about the mix up.
Thanks for the info on the Titanic, I hadn't heard that before, of course I'm shocked, but not surprised at the greed of these companies.
The moon may be hollow, a hollow space ship if you will! I kid you not.
Think about it _
1 The two theories for its orbit of the earth don't add up - it didn't want leave the earth because rocks there predate the earth by millions of years. It wasn't drwan into orbit because the earth is too small in comparison with the moon (check out the relative sizes of the other moons in the solar sytem).
2 There are numerous astronaut conversations describing (in code) strange structures on the moon which the US admin refuses to explain. It sounds far fetched, but I have read a book on the subject (not a TV documentary I'll admit, but still good).
3 There are no reasonable explanations for its prtesence, its relative distance, size and hidden face.
4 Early moon landings described an echo or boom heard through the moon's surface which was not compatable with a solid object.
5 Its gravitational pull is not consistant with a solid object of its size.
6 Scans of the moon are unable to penetrate further than a mile, at which distnce they hit a solid belt of something that is uniformly spread over the moon under the surface.
7 There are ancient Asian stories of a moonless sky, and some religions have descriptions of the moons's appearance in the sky for the first time.
8 The age of rocks on the moon's surface indicate that it definately originated outside our solar sytem.
9 Numerous astronauts and cosmonauts have described seeing flashes of lights on particular areas of the moon's surface that governmemts can't or won't explain.
Even if you don't swallow the spaceship moon theory, you must accept that we have no idea what the hell the moon is doing there or where exactly it came from. Deliberate sinking of a ship indeed.
Prancing is for dancers, masking is for liars.

the beast
doeth
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: Northern Spain ( Girona )
Contact:

theories and conspiracies

Post by the beast » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:32 pm

Hi Prancer et al!

Don't have much course to chump on about conspiracy theories as i find it hard enough to wade through the mish mass of mumble that is supposed to be our daily lives as it is.

Do you have any knowledge on the one i remember about the '69' moon landing?
Hadn't the russians already been there, or was it supposed to have taken place in a converted film studio in Montana or somewhere likewise?

Why do we pay line rental on land-line telephone communications?

Why is it on internet betting sites you don't get your initial stake paid back when you win?

Why do we all sit back and allow processive governments take the mumble, election, after election, after election?


Why have we got a mad mumble-taking swede in charge of the England football team?

Why?, Why? Why?

Be safe!

User avatar
webjanitor
Site Admin
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:25 am
Contact:

Post by webjanitor » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:34 pm

it's all because of THEM
or IT
but certainly nothing to do with me
at all
or was it
is it
what?

I give up
I'm going to play in the surf while I can
until the climate changes
and the lizards bite my ankles
:wink:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests