what I see when I read the "refutation" of Dr. Jones' paper is someone who can't see outside their own "reality box".
That would be your filters at work then. All I see is an expert in their field refuting the claims of someone who isn't an expert in the same field (http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm).
I do not support the invasion of Iraq so I can see no point in responding to your comments except to say that I agree that they probably had no involvement in 9/11.
I'm pretty sure that you are not an explosives expert or you would have mentioned the fact, in which case I'm also confident that you would have no idea if and how thermite could have been useful, though this may help http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
This exchange has been fun & useful for me, but I think we've reached the conclusion of our little conversation. I'll check for a reply, but I'm disinclined to follow up, as the story is now 3 days old, and I do have other things to do, as you do, I assume.:)
Well here's somewhere that we agree! Though I would say that the story is close to 5 years old:-)
Thank you for an interesting debate!
I'm downloading the Professor Jones video file, I see it's around 2 hours but I'm doing nothing today so I will watch it.
I've got to be honest, I only manged about an hour before I gave up. I was expecting a little more than a plume of smoke below the point of disintegration for evidence. I suppose that the good professor should have considered the fact that tonnes of fine particulate debris is also falling inside the building, down stairwells, lift shafts and has exited the building through one of the many broken windows.
The professor has provided not one piece of evidence, all I saw was hearsay and supposition. A quick search of the web throws up many sites debunking Professor Jones's claims including this one: http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911de m.html which explains why thermite would have been useless in bringing down the wtc buildings.
Assuming the attack was staged, the stagers would've had to have triggered the detonators from/somewhere/. WTC7 floor 23 is as good a candidate as any.
As good a candidate as any means that it is just as likely NOT to be wtc7, so you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that it wasn't anything other than structural failure.
Electronics (and whatever else is used for controlled demolition) don't burn to well
They don't need to burn well, just enough to be unable to determine their original use. How large would a transmitter have to be to remotely detonate a bomb? Small enough to fit into a pocket I'd guess as the Madrid terrorists used mobile phones to detonate their bombs.
Did you mean "leave any evidence... lying around BEFORE the attack"? They'd have to keep it somewhere. If you meant AFTER the attack, of course not. And they didn't.
No I meant on the day of the attack. If there was any evidence that wasn't small enough for one person to carry away on the day of the attack that would show an idiotic lack of forethought in a group you believe was able to stage an attack that has evaded any credible detection for 5 years.
Because much of the physical evidence was willfully destroyed, supposition and logical conjecture will have to suffice.
But I have seen little in the way of logic in this conjecture. Not that I'm closed to the possibility, as I type this I'm downloading the Professor Jones video file, I see it's around 2 hours but I'm doing nothing today so I will watch it.
Independent researchers wouldn't be satisfied unless they got their own look at the material. Besides, I'm sure thermate leaves a pretty definite signature, and that would be difficult to cover up. Much easier to just melt the steel down and be done with it.
No it would be much easier to get some twisted up steel from somewhere else and tell the experts it came from the twin towers. Also why do you keep talking about thermate, do you have any evidence that this was present or is it more supposition?
presumably, the demolition of WTC 1&2 was overseen from the 23rd floor of wtc7. Destroying wtc7 was a convenient way to get rid of any evidence.
That is nothing more than supposition on a massive scale. Assuming the attack was staged, do you have any evidence that wtc7 would have over seen it? Why couldn't this evidence that you seem to think existed just be loaded into trucks and burned somewhere? If you were going to stage an attack like this would you leave any evidence in any form lying around on the day of the attack?
The SEC, with offices in WTC7, had several ongoing investigations into how investment banks dished out IPO shares during the tech bubble. Destorying wtc7 complicated those investigations (I don't know what ever happened to them, whether the SEC was able to recover, or whether they quietly closed the cases... ?)
So you have evidence of this? And you are sure that no data was backed up off site? If there was a fire raging across several floors why not just burn this evidence?
As for Silverstein getting an insurance payout, I'm getting confused. Who do you think staged this attack, Silverstein, Investment Banks or the Government, or perhaps a combination of the three?
There are a lot of 9/11 claims on the internet. I've recently decided that wtc7.net has limited itself to "just the facts" with the most support, and so I think them more credible than many other sites.
If they were "just the facts" then I wouldn't be such a sceptic, but there are no facts, just more supposition. I would love to see some factual evidence either supporting or against the conspiracy theory, but so far I've seen nothing that even starts to convince me that this had any kind of government support.
No one's responded to my statements that it would've been nice to have had an analysis performed on the WTC steel. Maybe you can tell me why such an analysis was unnecessary.
Yes it would have been very nice to have had an analysis of the WTC steel. I wouldn't say that it was unnecessary, but as I'm not a metallurgist I couldn't say whether it would have been useful or not.
OK, here is a question for you. If you believe that the government had the resources to stage an attack on the twin towers, why wouldn't they have the resources to produce a fake analysis of the steel and end the debate?
Also if the purpose of a staged attack was to create a perceived terror threat, why wouldn't it be enough just to crash two planes into the twin towers? What extra threat could possibly be created by demolishing a building (wtc7) that most people weren't even aware of?
If you start with a conclusion, it's trivial to find evidence to support your intended outcome. Then you simply have to ignore everything that doesn't fit.
Yes, but please remember that this applies to you as much as it applies to me. I have had this debate many times. When a link is presented to me I do take the trouble to look at it, and I am intelligent enough to form my own opinion. But because my opinion differs from yours you think you can just accuse me of ignoring the information presented to me? Why?
I am no fan of my government and I am far more concerned about clear erosions of my civil liberties with the baseless claim that it will protect me from terrorism than chasing some fanciful notion that the US government staged a terrorist attack. As far as I'm concerned the antics of the conspiracy theorists are diversionary from things that should be reported upon.
If you start with a conclusion, it's trivial to find evidence to support your intended outcome. Then you simply have to ignore everything that doesn't fit.
Yes and this applies to you as much as it does to me. I have had this debate many times and I have watched or read countless videos and web pages. I have the intelligence to form my own opinion, but because that opinion doesn't match yours you assume that I have just ignored the counter claims put forward by conspiracy theorists who treat supposition as fact.
You also need to explain the collapse of WTC7. No planes, minor debris (it was some distance away). There were some fires and, hours later, *pop*, it liquified too. See www.wtc7.net.
Some fires? Would that "some" include the fire raging across several floors for several hours that was pretty much unattended as the resources were stretched so thin?
Remember that we're searching for truth here. No point in believing falsehoods
If you're searching for the truth why would you accept the claim that there were only "some" fires when there is plenty of documentary evidence to the contrary? Could it be because it doesn't fit in with your world view and you are unwilling to accept anything that isn't spoon fed to you by the Alex Joneses of this world, who make quite a good living out of regurgitating this shit.
No doubt this is all false as it's a government body but why don't you read this and try to refute their claims: http://wtc.nist.gov/
They don't need to get the site shut down. If they can prove that the site is illegal in the UK then they can either go after people who use the site or force UK isp's to block access to the domain for their users.
Perhaps you should reload your cache and look for the banner
After all it appears that the person who doesn't believe that this is the place for questions about jazz does not fit in with your narrow view of the world.
Personally I dislike jazz, but I don't feel that my opinion is any more or less valid than those who love jazz.
While I would not suggest anyone try hard drugs I have to say one of the best nights I ever had was ripped off my tits on acid, lying on on the floor listening to the lighting rig of some piss poor band. This was followed by playing Shinobi laughing like a lunatic and I got a stiffy everytime someone got killed.
Happy days.
Drugs are bad mmmmkay
If I bought it I'd hover around Trafalgar Square in London and as soon a pigeon landed I'd crap on it's head.
Either that or I'd hover outside penthouse apartments playing drum and bass tracks* at night. If they call the police they will think they're nuts and hang up on them
* Kloaking Device by DJ Krust would be good; "Hello police? I live 15 storeys up in the air and there is a man outside my window laughing telling me to use my cloaking device... hello, you still there?".
I have a fully functioning time machine for sale, bidding starts at £2 million. The only catch you have to promise not to use it.
I also have a babe magnet but that's not for sale, but I may consider renting, usual conditions apply.
Why does every comany need some motivation for doing open source? 'cos the company has bills to pay? Like developer salaries, utility bills.
It sounds to me like this company would have been better off being closed source. No one is forced to use their product. If it were to remain closed source those who can read and understand would loose out.
Shit, that's like giving away the car and selling the keys for 20 grand. Yea, and if you know how to hot wire you've got a free car, if you don't you pay for the knowledge that some one has taken the time to acquire.
The guy just wanted some documentation, sounds resonable to me. And some other guy wants to make a living, is that unreasonable?
And worst of all he's not allowed to share this documentation? That's how the guy pays for the development work he gives away.
Is the document copyrighted? Of course it's copyrighted, as soon as it's written the company owns the copyright unless it has waived the rights to it.
To me this goes against the idea of what "Open Source" means. It means free information. If the source is available then isn't that free information?
Slashdot Mirror
"So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?" By looking at the Open Source Webkit that drives Safari.
Chrome is based on Webkit so the comparison would probably be a bit redundant.
That would be your filters at work then. All I see is an expert in their field refuting the claims of someone who isn't an expert in the same field (http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm).
I do not support the invasion of Iraq so I can see no point in responding to your comments except to say that I agree that they probably had no involvement in 9/11.
I'm pretty sure that you are not an explosives expert or you would have mentioned the fact, in which case I'm also confident that you would have no idea if and how thermite could have been useful, though this may help http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Well here's somewhere that we agree! Though I would say that the story is close to 5 years old :-)
Thank you for an interesting debate!
I've got to be honest, I only manged about an hour before I gave up. I was expecting a little more than a plume of smoke below the point of disintegration for evidence. I suppose that the good professor should have considered the fact that tonnes of fine particulate debris is also falling inside the building, down stairwells, lift shafts and has exited the building through one of the many broken windows.
The professor has provided not one piece of evidence, all I saw was hearsay and supposition. A quick search of the web throws up many sites debunking Professor Jones's claims including this one: http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911de m.html which explains why thermite would have been useless in bringing down the wtc buildings.
As good a candidate as any means that it is just as likely NOT to be wtc7, so you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that it wasn't anything other than structural failure.
They don't need to burn well, just enough to be unable to determine their original use. How large would a transmitter have to be to remotely detonate a bomb? Small enough to fit into a pocket I'd guess as the Madrid terrorists used mobile phones to detonate their bombs.
No I meant on the day of the attack. If there was any evidence that wasn't small enough for one person to carry away on the day of the attack that would show an idiotic lack of forethought in a group you believe was able to stage an attack that has evaded any credible detection for 5 years.
But I have seen little in the way of logic in this conjecture. Not that I'm closed to the possibility, as I type this I'm downloading the Professor Jones video file, I see it's around 2 hours but I'm doing nothing today so I will watch it.
No it would be much easier to get some twisted up steel from somewhere else and tell the experts it came from the twin towers. Also why do you keep talking about thermate, do you have any evidence that this was present or is it more supposition?
That is nothing more than supposition on a massive scale. Assuming the attack was staged, do you have any evidence that wtc7 would have over seen it? Why couldn't this evidence that you seem to think existed just be loaded into trucks and burned somewhere? If you were going to stage an attack like this would you leave any evidence in any form lying around on the day of the attack?
So you have evidence of this? And you are sure that no data was backed up off site? If there was a fire raging across several floors why not just burn this evidence?
As for Silverstein getting an insurance payout, I'm getting confused. Who do you think staged this attack, Silverstein, Investment Banks or the Government, or perhaps a combination of the three?
If they were "just the facts" then I wouldn't be such a sceptic, but there are no facts, just more supposition. I would love to see some factual evidence either supporting or against the conspiracy theory, but so far I've seen nothing that even starts to convince me that this had any kind of government support.
Yes it would have been very nice to have had an analysis of the WTC steel. I wouldn't say that it was unnecessary, but as I'm not a metallurgist I couldn't say whether it would have been useful or not.
OK, here is a question for you. If you believe that the government had the resources to stage an attack on the twin towers, why wouldn't they have the resources to produce a fake analysis of the steel and end the debate?
Also if the purpose of a staged attack was to create a perceived terror threat, why wouldn't it be enough just to crash two planes into the twin towers? What extra threat could possibly be created by demolishing a building (wtc7) that most people weren't even aware of?
In case you're wondering why I replied twice I thought this post was lost as I received an error message when posting.
Yes, but please remember that this applies to you as much as it applies to me. I have had this debate many times. When a link is presented to me I do take the trouble to look at it, and I am intelligent enough to form my own opinion. But because my opinion differs from yours you think you can just accuse me of ignoring the information presented to me? Why?
I am no fan of my government and I am far more concerned about clear erosions of my civil liberties with the baseless claim that it will protect me from terrorism than chasing some fanciful notion that the US government staged a terrorist attack. As far as I'm concerned the antics of the conspiracy theorists are diversionary from things that should be reported upon.
Yes and this applies to you as much as it does to me. I have had this debate many times and I have watched or read countless videos and web pages. I have the intelligence to form my own opinion, but because that opinion doesn't match yours you assume that I have just ignored the counter claims put forward by conspiracy theorists who treat supposition as fact.
Some fires? Would that "some" include the fire raging across several floors for several hours that was pretty much unattended as the resources were stretched so thin?
If you're searching for the truth why would you accept the claim that there were only "some" fires when there is plenty of documentary evidence to the contrary? Could it be because it doesn't fit in with your world view and you are unwilling to accept anything that isn't spoon fed to you by the Alex Joneses of this world, who make quite a good living out of regurgitating this shit.
No doubt this is all false as it's a government body but why don't you read this and try to refute their claims: http://wtc.nist.gov/
They don't need to get the site shut down. If they can prove that the site is illegal in the UK then they can either go after people who use the site or force UK isp's to block access to the domain for their users.
also as events in Iraq and London 7/7 shows there are more reliable methods of detonation that terrorists are prepared to use.
A bid request? Damn, are they outsourcing virus writing now? Is nothing sacred?
While I'd agree that the earlier ones are far better than the last two, I'd like to point out that this is a statement of opinion not fact.
Whatever the opinion it's certainly not worthy of being modded as a troll
Do the people who modded this as a troll not know who Derek and Clive are? Perhaps this may help Derek and Clive
Perhaps you should reload your cache and look for the banner
After all it appears that the person who doesn't believe that this is the place for questions about jazz does not fit in with your narrow view of the world.
Personally I dislike jazz, but I don't feel that my opinion is any more or less valid than those who love jazz.
While I would not suggest anyone try hard drugs I have to say one of the best nights I ever had was ripped off my tits on acid, lying on on the floor listening to the lighting rig of some piss poor band. This was followed by playing Shinobi laughing like a lunatic and I got a stiffy everytime someone got killed. Happy days. Drugs are bad mmmmkay
One thing that really bothers me is the usage of the word military. Military is an adjective but in this article it has no noun or pronoun to modify.
This is made worse by the phrase 'the military' two adjectives and no noun. Consider: 'The device was developed for the military.'.
GRRRRRR.The military what?
If I bought it I'd hover around Trafalgar Square in London and as soon a pigeon landed I'd crap on it's head.
Either that or I'd hover outside penthouse apartments playing drum and bass tracks* at night. If they call the police they will think they're nuts and hang up on them
* Kloaking Device by DJ Krust would be good; "Hello police? I live 15 storeys up in the air and there is a man outside my window laughing telling me to use my cloaking device... hello, you still there?".
I have a fully functioning time machine for sale, bidding starts at £2 million. The only catch you have to promise not to use it. I also have a babe magnet but that's not for sale, but I may consider renting, usual conditions apply.
What kind a crap is that?
The truth
Why does every comany need some motivation for doing open source?
'cos the company has bills to pay? Like developer salaries, utility bills.
It sounds to me like this company would have been better off being closed source.
No one is forced to use their product. If it were to remain closed source those who can read and understand would loose out.
Shit, that's like giving away the car and selling the keys for 20 grand.
Yea, and if you know how to hot wire you've got a free car, if you don't you pay for the knowledge that some one has taken the time to acquire.
The guy just wanted some documentation, sounds resonable to me.
And some other guy wants to make a living, is that unreasonable?
And worst of all he's not allowed to share this documentation?
That's how the guy pays for the development work he gives away.
Is the document copyrighted?
Of course it's copyrighted, as soon as it's written the company owns the copyright unless it has waived the rights to it.
To me this goes against the idea of what "Open Source" means. It means free information.
If the source is available then isn't that free information?