LDS Freedom Forum

[Robert Pritchett -- I appreciate your references regarding the eyewitness testimonies. I found a number of sites from your links that I had not seen before. Well done.
(You understand that my research focusses on "hard" physical evidence, using scientific instruments like the scanning electron microscope to examine WTC dust particles.)
OMD -- will you ever respond to me?]

I thought I did Dr.

OMD

Thank you!

If you watch the videos on Building 7, you will see who occupied it and what evidence was destroyed in it. CIA, Investigating arm for Wall Street activities, etc.

To have Building 6 evicerated from within and to realize the major occupant was US Customs should have set off all kinds of alarm bells in your head.

So yes, the planes were a distraction, just like a magician uses a beautiful assistant to help him or her do their tricks on stage. Sleight of hand.

Prior to this search, I had no idea about Building 6 either.

And no, the so-called Patriot Act would not have become law overnight without this false flag activity. Saner heads in Congress would have examined it more closely and realized it was unconstitutional. Presidential Orders that have eroded our Liberties also would not have been put in place as soon as they had been.

I'm sure that those who planted the explosive devices were eliminated to cover tracks. I doubt we will get any witnesses (installers) to come forth except perhaps in a Tom Clancy novel.

We do know that the buildings were evacuated a number of times in drills and during those drills "construction activities" occurred. Add it up and it does compute, Spock.

OMD:

May I ask you a few question, Dr Jones. I am just getting into this 9/11 theory and would like some info and your point of view.

1. Who were the piers who reviewed your paper.
2. Did the Engineering or Physics Dept agree with your findings?
3. Who flew the plans? Did they belong to a larger group?
4. Why bother setting demolition charges when the buildings were going to be attacked anyway? If all the planes had hit we would have had damage to the Pentagon, Twin Towers and the Capital with all of the lose of life and destruction.

1. The Fourteen Points paper was reviewed by three peer-reviewers, and as is the norm in science, these reviewers were not identified to the authors. I have written over 50 peer-reviewed papers, including publications in Nature and Scientific American -- and it is extremely rare for a reviewer to identify himself or herself. This system of ANONYMOUS peer review goes back about 300 years and allows the reviewer to speak freely.

2. The Fourteen Points paper was given to all members of the BYU Physics Dept, and I have rec'd only positive comments back from them -- if that helps. That does not mean that they all read it -- no one is forcing them.
3. We have evidence that hijackers flew the planes and there is reason to suppose that they belonged to a larger group.
4. You keep asking this question: "4. Why bother setting demolition charges when the buildings were going to be attacked anyway? "

Have you ever watched CSI? Do the scientists determine MOTIVE ("why bother") questions, or is that done by the criminal investigators? I think you can understand why we are asking for, demanding a criminal investigation following NFPA 921 and other standard procedures, to be applied at this crime scene. (Clearly it was a crime scene... The question remains, do we have ALL the perpetrators, or only some of them?)

Scientific methods can tell us whether or not energetic/explosive materials are present, and we have shown this. The paper on the red/gray chips is undergoing the peer-review process as I have already said -- meanwhile, you can get a decent introduction of the science from this video of a talk I gave in Boston:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

Now, it is not just the presence of aluminum and iron oxide that makes these chips thermitic -- we have, since that talk was given -- much additional data obtained by means of EXPERIMENTS, CSI-style. I hope you all realize that I am NOT talking here about SPECULATION, but rather about empirical data obtained by means of careful experiments.

My question is -- Why are people so afraid of doing an investigation of 9/11, with subpoena power to get testimony from witnesses? From Sec'y of Treasury (at the time) Norman Mineta? Certainly he had a whistleblower-testimony about the LACK OF AIR DEFENSES on 9/11. And Sibel Edmonds (who was with the FBI), and April Gallop (who was injured inside the Pentagon when it was hit) -- both of whom have been officially warned NOT to speak out about 9/11. And there are many more eye-witnesses, people with inside information. Such as those involved in the Able Danger probe. You can google on these and learn.

How about the insider trading, put options on UAL and American Air -- which made many millions for those so trading -- put options bought in the few days BEFORE 9/11?

How about the air controllers who were tracking the plane going towards the Pentagon -- and NOTHING was done to intercept it? Would you be willing to allow them to testify? How about the young man in the bunker below the White House, reporting to Dick Cheney the progress of the plane that was coming closer and closer to the Pentagon -- and who had the courage to ask Cheney "Do the orders still stand?" (Per testimony of Mineta who was present!) Would you allow him to testify?

How about Ellen Mariani, whose husband in the military was killed on 9/11 -- and she is now under gag order not to speak out about what she knows about 9/11. Would you let her speak before, say, a Congressional investigative body -- or an international tribune?

Would you support an investigation in which eye-witnesses were allowed to publicly testify what they know about 9/11, actually naming names, with immunity, OMD?

That is the only way that I know of, to answer your questions about "why bother" and who all was involved.

Like I said before I must be a masochist to get involved in this discussion. That goes doubly for the poor old man who stumbled into a hornets nest. Look guys I have been on this site for a couple years now. I know very well the mindset of most here. Pritchet kind of sums it up in his last post as follows:

And no, the so-called Patriot Act would not have become law overnight without this false flag activity. Saner heads in Congress would have examined it more closely and realized it was unconstitutional. Presidential Orders that have eroded our Liberties also would not have been put in place as soon as they had been.

I'm sure that those who planted the explosive devices were eliminated to cover tracks. I doubt we will get any witnesses (installers) to come forth except perhaps in a Tom Clancy novel.

I know that everything looked at when it comes to 9-11 is centered around this premise. That deeply held premise is that the LDG who have taken over our govt. are doing everything they can in their diabolical power which includes terror events like 9-11 and OKC to enslave us. I get it. Therefore you all are not interested in any kind of discussion or thought process that says outside influences are responsible for planning and carrying out 9-11 unless those outside influences were being directed and orchestrated by the LDG who are running our govt.

This has been the case when we have discussed the plans of communist regimes like China and Russia as well in the past. Everytime I bring up that these regimes are planning to pulverize the west with grey terror and red terror events Lundbaek and BG and others immediately jump in and remind everyone that the west funded and created these regimes in the first place. I guess my paradigm will always differ than those here because I think evil and conspiring men can act independently of other evil and designing men to perpetrate acts of violence and destruction on a dumbed down people.

I have said many times ad naseum that China and Russia are using surrogates like radical Islam and many others to inflict grey terror on the west so as to weaken us in preparation for the events that would accompany red terror in hopes of finally destroying and conquering our lands and govt. My premise has been that They are acting independently of any who financed them those many decades ago. I believe they have their own agenda and it includes ruling the world with no sharing of power. Therefore when I allude to things like Al Zawahiri being KGB trained and schooled it is significant in the overall plan for the demise of the west because it coincides with these grey terror events we are being hit with like 9-11 and OKC.

You guys have a paradigm that everything bad happening is being orchestrated by internal LDG like Cheney and CIA and various other internal shadow govt players. Therefore when 9-11 comes up there is no question in your minds that this was all orchestrated and planned by the LDG internal bunch. You would not even begin to entertain the notion that outside influences like the communists and radical Islamists would pull this off independently of these internal LDG players.

So when Dalton comes on here and starts asking questions about why the need for the explosives beforehand and who was flying the planes etc etc you can't understand why someone would question that deeply held paradigm you all have that this was done by internal LDG to seize more of our freedoms away from us. I do not think Daltons questions and logic have been outragious or illogical but because many here have a very well defined paradigm of conspiracy related events they think he is just being an illogical pain in the butt. How dare he question what you all have already decided is gospel truth when it comes to the working of the LDG's. He must be a complete idiot to not see what you all see so clearly. Hence those like Pritchet and the Dr. are losing patience with his alternative explanations involving 9-11. How could he be so stupid to even question this basic premise. I can read it all over your responses back to him.

Therefore I don't think any amount of discussion will make one iota of difference because minds are already made up and nothing will change those solidly held paradigms. He could site 1000 different papers that give alternative explanations or contradict the accepted premise here that explosives were used and that internal LDG were responsible for this and it wouldn't mean a thing to those who have already arrived at this conclusion. This is a dead end street so I am officially checking out. However this does not mean I love you all any less. You are like the sons I never had.

PS This may have to be my last post here because I know that I am dangerously close to reaching illuminated status and all my buddies here think I am just an idiot with absolutely no illumination in my persona. Please make an exception for me here admins so I can remain in my state of idiocy. Otherwise I may just have to join the Roger K Young bunch and be a pain in their butts for a while until they bannish me to tent hell.

LOL, I don't think anyone here cares much or pays any attention to the so called status posted by their avatars. I believe that is simply info that is part of most forum software.

We are all welcome to disagree Mark. Yes you did know that many here have a different mindset re: 9/11 but that isnt suggesting you arent welcome in anyway.

If you bug the people at RKY AVOW let us know how that goes. You never know who you might enlighten.
-Paul

Of course evil and conspiring men can act independently of other evil and designing men to perpetrate acts of violence and destruction on a dumbed down people. But when one group of evil and conspiring men continually supports, encourages, and covers up for the evil acts of other evil and conspiring groups that they helped create with political, economic and technical assistance, then it's time to go after the group that is behind the evil, the group that supports, encourages, and covers up for the evil committed by its beneficiaries. I prefer to focus on the LDGs that are still supporting, encouraging, and covering up for Russia and China. I have all along had the impression that Mark would have us ignore them.

Mark wrote: Therefore I don't think any amount of discussion will make one iota of difference because minds are already made up and nothing will change those solidly held paradigms. He could site 1000 different papers that give alternative explanations or contradict the accepted premise here that explosives were used and that internal LDG were responsible for this and it wouldn't mean a thing to those who have already arrived at this conclusion. This is a dead end street so I am officially checking out. However this does not mean I love you all any less. You are like the sons I never had.

Mark,

I felt the same way about a dead end earlier in this post. But, Dr. Jones has offered a brilliant alternative to this horn-locking, "he said/she said" discussion.

He has proposed to debate it scientifically. With some ground rules to keep it on track. Imagine that! Surely you have seen his new thread "9/11 Evidence: starting with peer-reviewed "Fourteen Points".

Dr. Jones has issued a simple question to you and Dalton:

"OK -- now take off the kid gloves and tell me why NIST is right about WTC 7, that it fell completely and rapidly, straight down, due to office-material fires -- can anyone do it? Can anyone even give me a precedent for such a complete collapse due to fire?

C'mon!"

How conveint of you to bow out when a real scientific exchange can begin to take place. I see that Dalton has chosen to change his current focus on who and why, both of which involves obvious speculation. Hopeless distraction.

Both of you have an obligation here. This is the chance that you have been waiting for. If you have valid scientific points behind your arguments everyone here and especially Dr. Jones will hear you out.

Do you believe in your arguments or not?

Answer Dr. Jones' question, and let the debate begin!!!

Oldemandalton wrote: During my 20 years of construction I have witnessed the application of the insulation you speak of. It is sprayed on to the beams and columns several inches thick. It dries to a consistency of
Paper mache. When the planes crashed into the towers, the wreckage stripped the columns of their insulation and thus exposed them to the heat. As the building collapsed the rest of the beams and columns were exposed from the wreckage.

The engineer spoke directly of the flame retardant. They did tests on what it would take to dislodge it. The only thing that would do it consistently was a shotgun blast. It was simple to calculate the amount of energy based on those tests. Transferring that to a plane striking the building, while it could've generated that amount of energy on various specific points, it was impossible for the plane to do it uniformly enough to dislodge enough coating on enough girders for them to be subject to enough heat to cause the failure necessary to topple the towers.

OMD wrote:This doesn’t make sense to me.

Why weaken the foundation before the collapse when it would be better to do it AS it collapsed?

If they went off before the collapsed wouldn’t there have been a risk that someone would seen or hear it? Knowing this then why not wait until the collapse?

I am sorry but logic tells me that a lot of this stuff is silly and doesn’t make sense.

You tell me. The FACT is that a large, sudden seismic release happened shortly before the planes struck. Multiple witnesses reported hearing explosions at that time in the sub-basement of the towers. What does it add up to?

OMD wrote:Gruden, may I ask you a question?

Who did fly those plans then?

OMD

Does it make a difference? Maybe you could ask Cheney.

BTW, OMD, could you please use quotes bbcode when quoting other posters? I know it takes more effort, but makes it MUCH easier to read your posts.

Mark wrote:PS This may have to be my last post here because I know that I am dangerously close to reaching illuminated status and all my buddies here think I am just an idiot with absolutely no illumination in my persona. Please make an exception for me here admins so I can remain in my state of idiocy.

Weenie!

Seriously, the Patriot Act was a very complex piece of legislation, yet it suddenly popped up days after the attack. How could such a thing be written so quickly, especially given that it modified so many laws already on the books?

NORAD has done many training tests over the years simulating rogue planes and NEVER ONCE failed to take down a commandeered plane. Yet we are to believe four planes were allowed to fly loose over the skies, taking down 3 buildings with only one having been brought down by brave passengers.

WTC 7 was demolished when it was never struck. This building contained vast files for ongoing, high-profile investigations to cases like worldcom and Enron. If an outside entity did it, why would they be interested in bringing down a building that had never been struck and only sustained minor damage?

Mark, I know you don't want to think badly of anyone, and that serves you well in many cases. However, I believe a polyannah mindset does not serve anyone in this situation, especially in the latter days which we see the apex of evil, which is what this is. It's part of people's mindset to believe the best, as I see in you, and these LDG take advantage of that to prey upon us.

[quote="Oldemandalton"][Flagg and others have given darn good answers as to 'why']


If I have your “why” correct it was to cause Bush/Chaney to take our freedoms from us, to feed the industrial war complex, and to save money.
Actually I have punched holes into all of the above reasons.
Everything that our government did to react to this terrorist attack would have been accomplished by the four planes hitting their targets if not more. (please read my above post for more elaboration)
The Port Authority would have got their wish without the collapse. The building would have been condemned, insurance cashed in on, plus some more moola from the City, State, and Federal Government.
I don't buy any of these reasons, they are silly.
Did I miss any other “whys”? Yes, actually, quite a few. In fact the main ones, vis.: 1) pretext for smashing countries in the Middle East, partial prelude to bringing them into the 'democratic' (read NWO) fold, Moslem countries are a major stumbling block; they need softening up, re-arranging, re-alligning; made dependent on western capital infusions (loans, etc.; 2) control of oil resources and pipeline routes; 3) flanking Russia, etc., (read the Grand Chessboard, Brzezinsky); above all, getting people on-board with the perpetual 'war on terror', the kind of thing that can be kept going for decades w/little maintenance and input, meanwhile providing all sorts of pretexts for greater global control mechanisms, etc., etc. Bringing down the buildings was SOOOOO much more dramatic, greatly deepened the trance state of the hundreds of millions who saw the events repeated and repeated and repeated on TV. Shortly thereafter, we saw commentary after commentary, two of which on about the 2nd day were high-level CFR officials who came on TV to basically tell us how to think about the events. If you've ever heard some of these early talks redacted where everything was cut out except references to 'terror', 'war on terror', you would hear something like: terrror, terror, terror, terror, war on terror, terror, war on terror, terror, terror, terror . . . . . . ad an almost infinitum. Excellent repetitive propaganda technique, especially when viewers have been lulled into deep trance states from viewing actual 'terror' on their TV's again, and again. Enough??
[. But what you are up against Oldeman, are real scientific problems, some of which are very well synopsized by Truthseeds. Unfortunately for your position, the questions of 'why' and 'who' do not trump the question of how, especially if your 'why/who' is mixed up with a 'how' that could not possibly happen. Sherlock Holmes has something to say about this in his famous dictum about eliminating the impossible and what is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.]

Well, larsenb (you are welcome too in the Old Man Pile On ), I have not seen any compelling science that has not been explained.

[I have been waiting a very long time to see refutations of these scientific problems from the 'tons of scientists and engineers' you mention, and please show me the peer reviewed journals where they do it, not Popular Mechanics, thank you.]

I did that before and was accused of delivering "FIRE HOSE" posts. It is easy to find the scientific articles. Just Google it, I did.

[ The very few attempts at a plausible refutation I've seen that try to account for the free-fall to near free-fall collapse times, etc., etc., don't cut the scientific mustard and drastically fail to address the issues that Truthseed has raised.]

You would be surprised what you can find, larsned. Of course you need an open mind first. See;
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

[There really isn't 'my science', 'your science' and then many other sciences regarding a single problem amenable to scientific study, especially if some of these 'sciences' keep ignoring fundamental laws of physics, such as conservation of energy and momentum (and angular momentum), etc.]

All ready answered this WITH science. See my above posts.

OMD, do me a favor. Please show me your rebuttals by cutting and pasting from your posts (keep it short and sucinct, please) the arguments you think refute my contentions. I've been through myriad long articles purporting to prove this and that, and they mostly boil down to conjecture, ignore pertinent issues, side step or obfuscate others, use straw man arguments. They are not experimental/observational science. I've wasted months doing this kind of thing, including visiting the sites you mention.
[Regarding your presentation of some of the claims of the latest NIST go-around at the collapse of Building 7. Most of what they say about damage to this and damage to that is not supported by direct evidence. They are mostly unsubstantiated assertions and claims. Assertions and claims are simply starting points for scientific investigation. You need to develop evidence and experiments to back them up. The latest NIST report is very short on these niggling little items and very long on claims that could be better described as conjecture.]

Arent your claims of "thermite explosives" just educated guesses and” unsubstantiated assertions and claims’?
No they're not. Dr. Jones will get into that.
[I for one, won't have to wait for the millenium to make up my mind. Others, including Dr. Jones, HAVE developed and collected not only smoking gun evidence but remnants of some of the actual 'bullets'.]

All this “evidence” has been refuted by others. Don’t be afraid and Goggle the info.

Sorry OMD, what you think is refutation is mostly not, and is also not science or it is not good science (ref. NIST tweaking heat transfer coefficients to zero to get column 79 in Bldg7 to fail in their computer modelling efforts, and not even allowing the public to see their modelling program). It is mainly conjecture waiting for the science to prove it. As for 'being afraid', I have to laugh. Been at this game for quite a while.
OMD, do yourself a favor and visit Dr. Jones' new thread and see if you can martial some scientific evidence that you can think of or you get from your links, that refute any of Dr. Jones points in his 14 point paper. If you can't do this, you haven't made a dent in his aguments about the deficiency of the official fire/damage hypothesis. Do it. Otherwise all your firehose stuff is smoke and mirrors.

OK Gruden the weenie is back. I guess I'll just have to live with this silly illuminated crap. Now let me say first and foremost that I do not look at anything from a polyanna approach. I do not trust govt. as far as I can throw them. I am not naive Bro. I understand that evil exists in the world in many forms. I also understand that idiocy exists in the world in many forms as well.

I am not going to start accusing individuals in this govt. of murdering thousands of innocents to fulfill an agenda unless I can see empirical proof that these individuals were in fact involved in these crimes. If I start throwing out suppositions and deductions based on my world views and hunches and those turn out to be false and wrong then I feel like I have done whats called bearing false witness of my Brethren. Heck I think Aussie has warped world views of reality but I have not yet called him a raving lunatic.

To me it is important to look at all possibilities and then make the best possible conclusions based on reason and fact. That is what I have tried to do on 9-11. To go into this with biased foregone conclusions based on my own dislike for govt. is not fair imo. Many smart people have looked at 9-11 and the collapse of these towers. Some of those people are 180 degrees different from each other as to their conclusions of what brought down those towers. I think Dr. Jones and his bunch have some very compelling arguments in certain areas. I also think that others who have given other potential possibilities have compelling arguments to back up their assertions. I am interested in looking at this objectively and weighing out the evidences both pro and con. Can you and the others here who have made accusations of this being an inside job planned by our own officials say the same thing?

[And no, the so-called Patriot Act would not have become law overnight without this false flag activity]
Robert, are you telling me that if 4 planes crashing in to the, Pentagon, The Towers and Capital Building causing great damage and death would not bring about the Patriot Act? I disagree strongly with you. The several hundred dead Senators and Congressmen and aids would have caused your conditions we see today IF NOT MORE. That was the plan.

How better to take over, without the Legislative Branch of government.

OMD

Mark wrote:OK Gruden the weenie is back. . . . . . Many smart people have looked at 9-11 and the collapse of these towers. Some of those people are 180 degrees different from each other as to their conclusions of what brought down those towers. I think Dr. Jones and his bunch have some very compelling arguments in certain areas.

Marc, it would be very enlightening for you to spend a 'few moments' collecting arguments from some of those smart people that rebut any of the 14 points in Dr. Jones' paper, as he envited you to do in his new thread. I would be genuinely interested in what you can come up with.

[1) Brainwashed and conditioned Idiots. Verified.]

True.

[2) The CIA trained them. Al Qaeda (The Network) was trained by our forces. Verified.]

Wrongo. The Cia involvement ended in the 80s when we useded them to defeat the Russians. Now they are returning the favor against us.
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_ ... e_cia.html
http://www.debunking911.com/osama.htm


[3) A Larger Group. That is why many other planes were grounded. Verified.
4) The Islamic Radicals located here are a danger to the US and the church. They keep being interdicted by intelligence groups. They keep the FBI very busy. When it is time for establishing Martial Law, they will be allowed to do furtherdamage.]

I also believe that a new 9/11 will bring stricter laws.

[Just remember that the planes were a diversion to direct our attention away from the real purpose destroying damning evidence located in buildings 6 and 7.]

Evidence of what, Robert? What proof do you have to substantiate these claims?

OMD

[They probably weren't too concerned with the risk. If their people were caught, they would just do like they seem to have done with JFK's assassin]

Gunner, still seems like a waste of ordnance to me with no additional return.

OMD

[1. The Fourteen Points paper was reviewed by three peer-reviewers, and as is the norm in science, these reviewers were not identified to the authors. I have written over 50 peer-reviewed papers, including publications in Nature and Scientific American -- and it is extremely rare for a reviewer to identify himself or herself. This system of ANONYMOUS peer review goes back about 300 years and allows the reviewer to speak freely.
2. The Fourteen Points paper was given to all members of the BYU Physics Dept, and I have rec'd only positive comments back from them -- if that helps. That does not mean that they all read it -- no one is forcing them.
3. We have evidence that hijackers flew the planes and there is reason to suppose that they belonged to a larger group.
4. You keep asking this question: "4. Why bother setting demolition charges when the buildings were going to be attacked anyway? "
Have you ever watched CSI? Do the scientists determine MOTIVE ("why bother") questions, or is that done by the criminal investigators? I think you can understand why we are asking for, demanding a criminal investigation following NFPA 921 and other standard procedures, to be applied at this crime scene. (Clearly it was a crime scene... The question remains, do we have ALL the perpetrators, or only some of them?)]

I understand that you are doing CSI like research. I on the other hand am looking at it as a juror would. Without a motive, there will be no conviction.

I am sure over the past few years you have contemplated the Whys. So again I ask you; Why bother setting demolition charges when the buildings were going to be attacked anyway?

[Scientific methods can tell us whether or not energetic/explosive materials are present, and we have shown this. The paper on the red/gray chips is undergoing the peer-review process as I have already said -- meanwhile, you can get a decent introduction of the science from this video of a talk I gave in Boston:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4
Now, it is not just the presence of aluminum and iron oxide that makes these chips thermitic -- we have, since that talk was given -- much additional data obtained by means of EXPERIMENTS, CSI-style. I hope you all realize that I am NOT talking here about SPECULATION, but rather about empirical data obtained by means of careful experiments]

I would assume that the same chemicals found in “thermitic explosives” would be found in the dust of any building that has suffered a catastrophic; plane crash, fire and collapse.
.

[My question is -- Why are people so afraid of doing an investigation of 9/11, with subpoena power to get testimony from witnesses? From Sec'y of Treasury (at the time) Norman Mineta? Certainly he had a whistleblower-testimony about the LACK OF AIR DEFENSES on 9/11. And Sibel Edmonds (who was with the FBI), and April Gallop (who was injured inside the Pentagon when it was hit) -- both of whom have been officially warned NOT to speak out about 9/11. And there are many more eye-witnesses, people with inside information. Such as those involved in the Able Danger probe. You can google on these and learn.]

Probably because they see it as silly as I do. I know it is hard for you folks to see our side but it just makes no sense. The motive that is. The science can be compelling but so is the PIER REVIEWED PAPERS PROVING GLOBAL WARMING. I DON’T BUY THEM EITHER.


[How about the insider trading, put options on UAL and American Air -- which made many millions for those so trading -- put options bought in the few days BEFORE 9/11?]

They may have had prior knowledge of the attacks. This does not prove that explosives were used.

How about the air controllers who were tracking the plane going towards the Pentagon -- and NOTHING was done to intercept it? Would you be willing to allow them to testify? How about the young man in the bunker below the White House, reporting to Dick Cheney the progress of the plane that was coming closer and closer to the Pentagon -- and who had the courage to ask Cheney "Do the orders still stand?" (Per testimony of Mineta who was present!) Would you allow him to testify?]

This was a new type of attack never before seen. I know I would have been hesitant to shoot down an airliner with 100s of passengers over a populated area. These folks have families and consciences too.

[How about Ellen Mariani, whose husband in the military was killed on 9/11 -- and she is now under gag order not to speak out about what she knows about 9/11. Would you let her speak before, say, a Congressional investigative body -- or an international tribune?
Would you support an investigation in which eye-witnesses were allowed to publicly testify what they know about 9/11, actually naming names, with immunity, OMD?]

Yes I would. Prior knowledge does not prove demolitions.

[That is the only way that I know of, to answer your questions about "why bother" and who all was involved.]

Come now Dr Jones,I am sure you have made some guesses over the years. Lets hear them please. Thank You.

OMD

Thanks, Mark, my Brother. I pretty much see how the LDGs are working as you do, Mark. It all started with me reading “The Naked Communist” and “…Capitalist” back in the 70s.

We have Evil and Satan in our Government but just not to the degree as the 9/11 Mytholigists do. To the extant they believe it now, may not be too far away though. A huge storm is coming, Mark, keep your powder dry and your knees callused.

OMD

[Mark,
I felt the same way about a dead end earlier in this post. But, Dr. Jones has offered a brilliant alternative to this horn-locking, "he said/she said" discussion.
He has proposed to debate it scientifically. With some ground rules to keep it on track. Imagine that! Surely you have seen his new thread "9/11 Evidence: starting with peer-reviewed "Fourteen Points".
Dr. Jones has issued a simple question to you and Dalton:
"OK -- now take off the kid gloves and tell me why NIST is right about WTC 7, that it fell completely and rapidly, straight down, due to office-material fires -- can anyone do it? Can anyone even give me a precedent for such a complete collapse due to fire? ]

Is this in the other thread? It has taken me hours just to answer here, how do I find time to debate the same things in 2 threads vs several folks at the same time? My two finger pecking is not fast enough.

[C'mon!"
How conveint of you to bow out when a real scientific exchange can begin to take place. I see that Dalton has chosen to change his current focus on who and why, both of which involves obvious speculation. Hopeless distraction.]

This has always been my focus. See how all this started, 7 pages ago! I am not a scientist. So how do I go about debating with a scientist? You’ll need to find someone else for that.

[Both of you have an obligation here. This is the chance that you have been waiting for. If you have valid scientific points behind your arguments everyone here and especially Dr. Jones will hear you out. Do you believe in your arguments or not? Answer Dr. Jones' question, and let the debate begin!!!]

Sorry to disappoint. Meaning no disrespect to Dr Jones’ credentials and PHDs, but I don’t trust scientists. They have been wrong before. I do trust my instincts though and the Why doesn’t ring true to me. As I said above, without a motive, I as a Juror would not convict with the pitiful explanations I have gotten so for the planting of demolitions. The 4 planes would have done enough damage themselves without the need for explosives.

OMD

[Oldemandalton wrote:
During my 20 years of construction I have witnessed the application of the insulation you speak of. It is sprayed on to the beams and columns several inches thick. It dries to a consistency of
Paper mache. When the planes crashed into the towers, the wreckage stripped the columns of their insulation and thus exposed them to the heat. As the building collapsed the rest of the beams and columns were exposed from the wreckage.
The engineer spoke directly of the flame retardant. They did tests on what it would take to dislodge it. The only thing that would do it consistently was a shotgun blast. It was simple to calculate the amount of energy based on those tests. Transferring that to a plane striking the building, while it could've generated that amount of energy on various specific points, it was impossible for the plane to do it uniformly enough to dislodge enough coating on enough girders for them to be subject to enough heat to cause the failure necessary to topple the towers.]

I don’t know who this “engineer” is but I have been feet away when the insulation is being applied. After its dry you can easily remove it with a hammer witch I had to do thousands of times to weld metal studs on the beams and columns to encase them in dry wall. This guy is either lying or is an office type who knows not what he speaks.

[OMD wrote:
This doesn’t make sense to me.
Why weaken the foundation before the collapse when it would be better to do it AS it collapsed?
If they went off before the collapsed wouldn’t there have been a risk that someone would seen or hear it? Knowing this then why not wait until the collapse?
I am sorry but logic tells me that a lot of this stuff is silly and doesn’t make sense.]

Good quote, who is the brilliant Thinker here?

OMD

[You tell me. The FACT is that a large, sudden seismic release happened shortly before the planes struck. Multiple witnesses reported hearing explosions at that time in the sub-basement of the towers. What does it add up to?]

Not necessarily. It is illogical to “weaken the foundations” Berfore the collapse instead of during. See
http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_proof_.html

[OMD wrote:
Gruden, may I ask you a question?
Who did fly those plans then?
OMD
Does it make a difference? Maybe you could ask Cheney.]

I don’t know your view, Gruden, that’s why I asked. I have heard from others who believe in the 9/11 myth who said that there were no passengers on the planes and that they were remote controlled. I just wanted your perspective which it appears everyone assumes I know.

[BTW, OMD, could you please use quotes bbcode when quoting other posters? I know it takes more effort, but makes it MUCH easier to read your posts.]

How do you do that?

OLD, Computer Illiterate, Man

Oldemandalton wrote:Sorry to disappoint. Meaning no disrespect to Dr Jones’ credentials and PHDs, but I don’t trust scientists. They have been wrong before. I do trust my instincts though and the Why doesn’t ring true to me. As I said above, without a motive, I as a Juror would not convict with the pitiful explanations I have gotten so for the planting of demolitions. The 4 planes would have done enough damage themselves without the need for explosives. OMD

Oh give me a break. You are incredibly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You have been quoting YOUR scientists ad-nauseam. Now that you are in a corner and have to deliver the goods, you claim you do not trust scientists. Either you do or you don't Dalton. Your going to have to do better than "my instincts" to pass the smell test.

You have avoided Dr. Jones' initial question for over 24 hours now.

Numerous folks have given you plenty of motive answer; you ignore them all. Better to distract than deal with the real issue, eh OMD.

Step up to the plate and answer Dr. Jones' question. Be a man, Dalton, and debate this scientifically; or admit what is obvious to anyone (except Mark) who is following this thread.

[Larsenb;
Yes, actually, quite a few. In fact the main ones, vis.: 1) pretext for smashing countries in the Middle East, partial prelude to bringing them into the 'democratic' (read NWO) fold, Moslem countries are a major stumbling block; they need softening up, re-arranging, re-alligning; made dependent on western capital infusions (loans, etc.; 2) control of oil resources and pipeline routes; 3) flanking Russia, etc., (read the Grand Chessboard, Brzezinsky); above all, getting people on-board with the perpetual 'war on terror', the kind of thing that can be kept going for decades w/little maintenance and input, meanwhile providing all sorts of pretexts for greater global control mechanisms, etc., etc. Bringing down the buildings was SOOOOO much more dramatic, greatly deepened the trance state of the hundreds of millions who saw the events repeated and repeated and repeated on TV. Shortly thereafter, we saw commentary after commentary, two of which on about the 2nd day were high-level CFR officials who came on TV to basically tell us how to think about the events. If you've ever heard some of these early talks redacted where everything was cut out except references to 'terror', 'war on terror', you would hear something like: terrror, terror, terror, terror, war on terror, terror, war on terror, terror, terror, terror . . . . . . ad an almost infinitum. Excellent repetitive propaganda technique, especially when viewers have been lulled into deep trance states from viewing actual 'terror' on their TV's again, and again. Enough??]

Lets look at the plan the terrorists had and then you try and tell me, if the maximum damage would have occurred, that the above results would not occurred OR WORSE.

1. Hijack 4 planes and ram them into the highest priority targets they could conceive of.
2. Choose these targets. These would include an attack on our Military, Finance, and Government itself.
3. What better Targets, than the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and the Capital.
4. Maximum Damage;
Create havock in the airline industry.
Twin Towers; Damage a major portion of the towers through the impact and fire. Burn it to the ground.

Pentagon; Kill as many of the hated US Military leaders as possible and cause terrible damage.

Capital Building; Kill or maim as many of the Senators, Congressmen and their aids and other leaders present as possible and destroy the building with its contents of historical documents and art work.

The Capital building would have been the icing on the cake. Could you, Larsenb, imagine the horror and anger across this country if the above maximum damage would have occurred? Think of the disruption in Government this would have caused. What better way to “take over” this government without the Legislative Branch? How much could you do with only the Courts and the Presidency? It wasn’t the Towers falling they wanted it was the Capital. I believe that God had a hand in that plane going down in that pasture. We should all thank those brave people on that plane who saved us from that calamity.


[MD, do me a favor. Please show me your rebuttals by cutting and pasting from your posts (keep it short and sucinct, please) the arguments you think refute my contentions. I've been through myriad long articles purporting to prove this and that, and they mostly boil down to conjecture, ignore pertinent issues, side step or obfuscate others, use straw man arguments. They are not experimental/observational science. I've wasted months doing this kind of thing, including visiting the sites you mention]

Stop wasting your and my time then, Larsenb. As I mentioned in my above posts, I don’t trust scientists. I have seen where they have been wrong before. We are being distracted by chasing windmills when the true LDGs go about doing their work and laughing at us as we debate the 9/11 myth. It is 1/2/09 and we should look at what is in front of us. I feel we are very close to the Coming Perfect Storm. It will soon be upon us. Look ahead, see the storm? Lets defeat that one,the storm that is emanate, not the one which has past.

[No
they're not. Dr. Jones will get into that.]

All he has proven is that the same chemicals in thermite was found at ground zero, which wouldn’t surprise me in the least. These are common chemicals. I am not a scientist so what can I say about the 14 points being a layman? That would be someone elses job not mine. I just go by what I see, hear and have experienced.

[Sorry OMD, what you think is refutation is mostly not, and is also not science or it is not good science (ref. NIST tweaking heat transfer coefficients to zero to get column 79 in Bldg7 to fail in their computer modelling efforts, and not even allowing the public to see their modelling program). It is mainly conjecture waiting for the science to prove it. As for 'being afraid', I have to laugh. Been at this game for quite a while.
OMD, do yourself a favor and visit Dr. Jones' new thread and see if you can martial some scientific evidence that you can think of or you get from your links, that refute any of Dr. Jones points in his 14 point paper. If you can't do this, you haven't made a dent in his aguments about the deficiency of the official fire/damage hypothesis. Do it. Otherwise all your firehose stuff is smoke and mirrors.]

I consider my self a jurist. So far there has been no compelling evidence to convince me especially when the reasons for why are pretty weak. See above.

If answering my critiques is “fire hosing” then should I just shut up, put my tin foil hat on and wait for the black helicopters to come and get me and accept whatever I hear as fact without using my own judgment?



OMD

The Red Pill wrote:

Oldemandalton wrote:Sorry to disappoint. Meaning no disrespect to Dr Jones’ credentials and PHDs, but I don’t trust scientists. They have been wrong before. I do trust my instincts though and the Why doesn’t ring true to me. As I said above, without a motive, I as a Juror would not convict with the pitiful explanations I have gotten so for the planting of demolitions. The 4 planes would have done enough damage themselves without the need for explosives. OMD

Oh give me a break. You are incredibly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You have been quoting YOUR scientists ad-nauseam. Now that you are in a corner and have to deliver the goods, you claim you do not trust scientists. Either you do or you don't Dalton. Your going to have to do better than "my instincts" to pass the smell test.

You have avoided Dr. Jones' initial question for over 24 hours now.

Numerous folks have given you plenty of motive answer; you ignore them all. Better to distract than deal with the real issue, eh OMD.

Step up to the plate and answer Dr. Jones' question. Be a man, Dalton, and debate this scientifically; or admit what is obvious to anyone (except Mark) who is following this thread.

Agreed.

Dalton, you've shown quite the reluctance to get involved scientifically in the 9/11 debate. I also think what Red Pill said is spot on... you're being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest with not only us, but yourself. It is as though you are dedicated to simply 'ruffling feathers' instead of indulging yourself in 9/11 truth. It's hard to understand why you keep asking the question "why demolish the buildings when planes were going to do a lot of damage anyway"? This indicates you either haven't read the information I've provided you with during our debate or you suffer from amnesia? Your rebuttals have been pretty weak and it is becoming more and more apparent that your motive is to simply bash. Many of us (myself, Spence, Red Pill, Dr. Jones, etc.) have already provided you with plenty of information and evidence as to the why, how, what, etc., but you seem to not want to educate yourself, but rather dwell on the straw man arguments that fit your belief system. If you truly want to know the truth about 9/11, do some research... we've already provided you with plenty of links. This back and forth stuff has become pointless. We've pointed you in the direction... go out and learn the truth.

[Oh give me a break. You are incredibly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You have been quoting YOUR scientists ad-nauseam. Now that you are in a corner and have to deliver the goods, you claim you do not trust scientists. Either you do or you don't Dalton. Your going to have to do better than "my instincts" to pass the smell test.]

Red Pill, I am not a scientist. I am seeing scientists debate the 9/11 Myth. So whom do I believe? I have not found a valid motive yet so I choose to believe one side, which happens to be different than yours. So, Red Pill, are you saying that the scientists that oppose your theory are all wrong. I thought that all scientists are right? Or is it just your scientists that are right?

[You have avoided Dr. Jones' initial question for over 24 hours now.]

Is that in the other thread? I do have a life, but this is taking me from it.

[Numerous folks have given you plenty of motive answer; you ignore them all. Better to distract than deal with the real issue, eh OMD.]

I have not ignored them but have answered each one without a counter response. Is there one that I have left out?

[Step up to the plate and answer Dr. Jones' question. Be a man, Dalton, and debate this scientifically; or admit what is obvious to anyone (except Mark) who is following this thread.]

You sound like a kid on the play ground, Red Pill. Will you double dare me?

Which question did I not answer?

Have you noticed he has ignored mine?

OMD

[2) The CIA trained them. Al Qaeda (The Network) was trained by our forces. Verified.]

Wrongo. The Cia involvement ended in the 80s when we useded them to defeat the Russians. Now they are returning the favor against us.
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_ ... e_cia.html
http://www.debunking911.com/osama.htm

Here is a perfect example of why I am skeptical of some of the "verified" conspiracy claims that have been coming from those like the Col. and others here. You guys talk as though this is just a given that Bin Laden and the CIA were in cahoots to commit acts of terror against this country and this involvement created a front to bring about 9-11 so as to scare us into accepting things like the Patriot Act leading up to martial law.

Yet the first 911myths article posted by Dalton here leaves all kinds of doubts as to whether or not this alledged meeting even took place in the alledged timeframes and locations. When you guys read something that has been alledged which backs your accusations and summations that US authorities were involved in false flag terrorist events that info is accepted as gospel truth right off the bat. It is not questioned and dissected to see if the info is empirical or if it could possibly be just rumor or disinformation that has not been substanciated and verified used only to harm this country internationally.

I see this done all the time to support someones view of a particular govt. conspiracy theory. The radical leftist elements in our country love to operate in this manner. Information that comes out publicly to back that particular view of internal conspiracy and govt. involvement in terrorist activities is readily accepted and embraced without really questioning the sources of that info or the veracity of said information. We should be better than that.

The notion and evidence that Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists are actively working with enemies of the United States like Russia and its surrogates is ignored or downplayed in favor of just pursuing the internal LDG conspirators who are always the real culprits in bringing us down. Yet when Dalton or myself bring up these other feasible possibilities we are just naive intellectually dishonest idiots who just don't "get it".

Those like Red pill continue to sling condescending remarks at us because we dare question the accepted notions of conspiracy that most on this board carry. Like I said before the search for truth seems to only be of interest if it coincides with accepted and preconceived notions of conspiracy as espoused by those like Alex Jones and Info wars. Anything else is heresy and unwelcome stupidity. Seems pretty one sided to me but what do I know. I am no illuminated soul..