LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **January 5th, 2009, 5:58 pm**

Mark wrote:I was looking at some of Daltons debunking911 articles and would be interested in you guys response to this one about the alledged thermite accustions Dr. Jones is making. There are some very direct accusations from this group that are made here that are, shall we say, not to flattering about the research done by the Scholars group and Dr. Jones particularly. Just throwing out any biases or world views do these people have any merit in what they are saying. Did the Scholars group and Dr. Jones manipulate and twist the facts concerning the usage of thermite?

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Mark, you've known Dr. Jones as a member of this forum as long as all of us... is there anything about his character as a man, Physicist and/or Latter Day Saint that would lead you to believe he is anything but honest and sincere in his findings and analysis RE 9/11? He's certainly no crack-pot and the man did teach physics at BYU for 25 years. IMO, there are very few people with the courage to stand up for truth in the face of mockery and condemnation... Dr. Jones is one of them.

Posted: **January 5th, 2009, 7:16 pm**

I am not accusing Dr. Jones of anything Col. I am referring to the piece on Debunking911 and those accusations and findings from that group regarding thermite or lack thereof. Lets not make this a personal thing here. I like the good Dr. I am asking if there are any merits to the arguments that these debunkers bring up concerning the use of thermite in these buildings. They alledge among other things that necessary properties of thermite were not found in the samples. Stick with the questions about thermite use.

Posted: **January 5th, 2009, 9:51 pm**

The surviving eyewitnesses and earwitnesses saw destruction, cars exploding, buildings collapsing, because of explosions. And we are straining at the gnat of "was there thermite involved"? Do we continue as a people to "miss the mark"?

We have given you the links to the archives relating to the witnessed events already of both those still somehow living and of those who were terminated, after they bore witness of such events. Did you watch and listen to the unedited versions?

Do we look at blood spatter on walls at a grisly crime scene, with lots of bullet holes in the walls and then ask if there is gun powder residue somewhere? Do we ask to prove the gun powder was used in making the bullet holes? Do we ignore the bullet holes themselves and then proceed to propose the blood splatter was done with a knife after viewing the scene? Wait! We look next door to watch a rerun of a soap opera being played out, over and over again and blame the damage in the crime scene "over there" on the soap opera and then argue if the scene was caused either by the soap opera or the knife as the holes are filled, the walls repainted and the crime scene is no longer being looked at - because it too has been eliminated.

Please get real!

Watch. The next crime scene is about to unfold. You may very well be in it this time. It won't be guns or planes, but it too will be explained away and the perps will have escaped justice. They got away with it before. They know they will get away with it again - if we let them.

I am so tired of nonsense.

Posted: **January 5th, 2009, 10:08 pm**

So in other words pritchet you do not want to address the issues brought forward in the debunking911 piece that was posted. Fair enough. Anyone else want to give it a whirl? If you are sure that explosives planted by our govt. were used to fell these towers then it should be no problem at all in discrediting the specifics addressed in the piece. I am interested if someone can do so. If it is all nonsense then show me why.

Posted: **January 5th, 2009, 10:10 pm**

Robert, did you ever play "Clue" as a kid? It was one of my favorite games. The movie version wasn't bad either.

OMD

Posted: **January 5th, 2009, 10:41 pm**

Mark wrote: I am asking if there are any merits to the arguments that these debunkers bring up concerning the use of thermite in these buildings. They alledge among other things that necessary properties of thermite were not found in the samples. Stick with the questions about thermite use.

Mark, do us a favor and very succinctly quote their arguments. I mean, don't just post the entire article. Select out what you think is pertinent to their contention about thermite. This is the norm in any scientific discussion, which not only requires stating the premise/hypothesis, but demands the arguments supporting same, whether they include logic, facts, evidence, work of other people. I'm sure Dr. Jones would love to comment on what you find.

I'm not in Dr. Jones' league, but in answer to OMD, I've worked in the research arena for about 28 years of my working career (USGS 10 years: Branch of Astrogeology, Office of Marine Geology; Oil and Gas exploration, gold exploration: mineralogy, field work, core analysis; archaeology: field and lab work; MS Geology UofU). I was present during the first 3 hour-plus, off-campus presentation on WTC 9/11 events given by Dr. Jones in Cleon Skousen's basement. I've also sat through many, many scientific presentations and have been involved in a few myself, and from my experience, what Dr. Jones had to say, concentrating mainly on the low probability of each of the elements that would have to be involved in a fire/damage collapse of the WTC buildings, including Bldg 7, made a LOT of sense.

The previous week or so, he had given his first presentation to a rather hostile audience at BYU consisting of about 55, mainly PhD professors, some of whom were from the hard sciences. At the end of his presentation, when polled, all but one thought his arguments warranted a new independent investigation. The next day, the hold-out changed his mind to agree with the rest.

This later event should raise the eyebrows and get the attention of most reasonable, neutral or even antagonistic people. Dr. Jones, in my view, just from his first presentation, stated a very strong case for the impossibility of fire/damage bringing down all 3 WTC buildings.

Based on his premise, it was perfectly natural that he would want to proceed in looking for explosive/cutting charge residues/remnants in the dust samples he could get a-hold of; mainly because NIST/FEMA, etc., neglected do it, something they are actually supposed to do by mandate, in investigating events such as 9/11.

And guess what? He's found them.

Posted: **January 5th, 2009, 10:59 pm**

Arguing about whether or not thermite was used to down the buildings and destroy the people and evidence in them is more of the blind men describing the elephant. One who is sighted can see what the blind men cannot.

Apparently, you have been blinded. Are you also deaf?

I can see and hear clearly for the unedited testimonies and on-sight videos of what happened. I can see the unedited and unPhotoShopped pictures of what occurred and the aftermath.

I do not need to play "Clue" to see what happened. I have more important and more pending things to do at the moment, than waste my time blathering about what a sighted and hearing person can see and hear.

Move beyond the moment. Get unstuck from the corner. For God's Sake, go outside and look around. The Signs of the Times are all around us. Stop mumbeldypegging something that happened nearly a decade ago.

Arguing about who killed JFK and why is not going to bring him back either. Arguing about whether or not the buildings were downed by explosives is not going to bring back the nearly 3,000 souls who met a premature death. Or extend the lives of those who are suffering from diseases relating to the air pollution that occurred immediately afterwards from the destruction of at least 5 buildings.

If the purpose of this so-called effort to get at the truth is going to produce results positive to our own lives, then go for it. Otherwise it is a waste of time and God doesn't like us wasting our time when we have healthier pursuits to go after.

This is not a game.

Be anxiously engaged in a "good" cause. Straining at a gnat is not a good cause.

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 7:30 am**

It was Miss Scarlet, with a knife, in the Library.

OMD

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 8:33 am**

Mark says:

So in other words pritchet you do not want to address the issues brought forward in the debunking911 piece that was posted. Fair enough. Anyone else want to give it a whirl? If you are sure that explosives planted by our govt. were used to fell these towers then it should be no problem at all in discrediting the specifics addressed in the piece. I am interested if someone can do so. If it is all nonsense then show me why.

So I went to the debunking911 piece cited by Mark. I have research scheduled today, so I will make a few observations first taking some time that would be used for research.

1. The article says I/we are claiming "yellow residue", but gives no reference for this. Mark, defender of the debunkers it seems, can you fill in the missing reference? I cannot. It seems to be a "strawman" argument.

2. Unignited thermite is reddish in color, and when ignited, the residue is gray, with shiny grayish spheroids also seen in the residue. Not much yellow that I know of, and I've done numerous experiments. So where do they say we say "yellow residue"?

2b. And do the debunkers talk about our findings of iron + ALUMINUM spheroids found Both in the WTC dust and in (grayish) thermite residues? (Not just iron, important because the residue of thermite in general contains both iron AND aluminum as an important tracer.) Please tell me you/they are not avoiding these discoveries which point to the use of thermite inside the WTC Towers... Mark, can you do it?

3. The debunking911 piece contains ad hominem attacks, unworthy of serious or technical literature. Of course, this piece makes no claim of peer review and it is NOT published in an established Journal, unlike our Fourteen Points paper or our paper on energetic material found in the WTC residue (pub'd in the Environmentalist). The debunking piece does not reference these papers, at all. Again, not good science.

Links to our published peer-reviewed papers: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conte ... TOCIEJ.SGM

4. The debunking piece makes no mention of my discovery of red/gray (not yellow!) chips found in several samples of the WTC dust, although I have been reporting our findings as they proceed on this energetic material for OVER A YEAR. Yes, this material we conclude to be nano-thermite, with properties useful for demolitions as reported in the PUBLISHED literature, if people would only look. It does seem to me that the debunnkers are shying away from discussion of the red/gray chips or nano-thermite, but perhaps you will address the issue, Mark?

Red/gray chip discovery and commentary, discussed by me at a conference in Boston: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3147&hl=en
I discussed more recent results at UVU last September, with several from this forum in attendance who can attest.

Where are the debunkers when it comes to nano-thermite and the red/gray chips observed by more than one lab now, in the WTC dust?

Now I have addressed the debunker piece -- Mark, you raised these guys up and pointed to their piece -- will you have the courtesy to address my points and comments? I'm waiting.

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 9:14 am**

Mark, defender of the debunkers it seems, can you fill in the missing reference? I cannot. It seems to be a "strawman" argument.

I appreciate you taking some time to address these particular issues Dr. but let me make something clear here. I am not out to get you or to ruin your reputation or make you look bad. I am not the defender of the debunkers. I am just interested in hearing both sides of this argument so I can best come to some conclusions as to what really happened on 9-11 with these towers.

As I have said before I do not want to accuse govt. officials or anyone else falsely or without merit in this horrible crime without sufficient evidences and fact-finding to back up those accusations. Just because I question or ask for clarification on your studies and conclusions does not mean I am out to get you. I am trying to question the evidences and "facts" of the debunkers as well and that is why I bring them up here. If they are full of it I want to know that and understand the holes in their arguments.

Many here seem to deeply resent any questioning whatsoever to the established conclusions here that these towers were felled with explosives in a plot orchestrated by govt insiders. I just don't understand that line of thinking if in fact we are all trying to find the truth about this issue. Should I just put blinders on and ignore any contrary information that comes forward questioning the govt. conspiracy theorists? What kind of truth discovery would that be? Yet those like Pritchet take this "how dare you" approach to anyone asking for any specific clarifications or daring to bring up other alternative thoughts like those from the debunkers to the overwhelming accepted mindset of this board. Why is that?

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 10:26 am**

Mark wrote:I am not accusing Dr. Jones of anything Col. I am referring to the piece on Debunking911 and those accusations and findings from that group regarding thermite or lack thereof. Lets not make this a personal thing here. I like the good Dr. I am asking if there are any merits to the arguments that these debunkers bring up concerning the use of thermite in these buildings. They alledge among other things that necessary properties of thermite were not found in the samples. Stick with the questions about thermite use.

Mark, you said

"alledged thermite accustions Dr. Jones is making" and "did the Scholars group and Dr. Jones manipulate and twist the facts concerning the usage of thermite"?

That sounds like you're questioning his character to me. I've no interest in making this a personal issue here... I just wanted to point out your comment was in fact questioning his character. When using the terms 'manipulate' and 'twist the facts', you are denoting dishonesty.

As for the use of thermite... I'm no scientist when it comes to analyzing chemical properties, however, all I need to know to realize foul play was involved in the destruction of the buildings was that glowing yellow and orange pieces of metal were discovered and pulled out of the rubble by construction equipment and that molten metal was found in the basements of all three buildings and in some cases, flowing like lava which firefighters said they could not extinguish with water (thermite exhibits both characteristics). How would you get something like that in a natural building collapse? You wouldn't... it defies common sense, logic and science.

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 10:50 am**

Mark, you did NOT address any of the points I raised in my response to the debunker911 article! Wow, can you pls stick to the science, and not wander off into things like

any here seem to deeply resent any questioning whatsoever to the established conclusions here that these towers were felled with explosives in a plot orchestrated by govt insiders. I just don't understand that line of thinking if in fact we are all trying to find the truth about this issue. Should I just put blinders on and ignore any contrary information that comes forward questioning the govt. conspiracy theorists? What kind of truth discovery would that be?

I welcome such questioning, as long as you respond to me/my questions and not divert and say someone is "resenting" your asking questions. I answered, no expression of resenting the questions
AT ALL

I don't resent questions, I resent what appears to be AVOIDING my specific comments which I spent some time providing.

One additional comment on the 911debunking piece -- they spend a lot of space on a photo of about half-a-dozen men peering into a hole down in the WTC debris pile. That PHOTO DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE TWO PUBLISHED AND PEER-REVIEWED VERSIONS OF MY (FIRST) PAPER, NOR IN ANY OF MY PUBLISHED WORKS. The debunkers IMO are not being fair here, because while that photo was in one earlier DRAFT of the paper, it is NOT in the final and published versions. (If you find me wrong on THAT, let me know!)

Further, in the DRAFT, I clearly added a caveat to the photo -- that it MAY be a glow from molten metal. That photo has long since been replaced by photos which CLEARLY show the glowing hot metal from the WTC debris pile. Here is the published and peer-reviewed final version of my paper: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 ... Center.pdf

The photo the debunkers spend so much time on, is not there! I "repented" of that photo long ago, because I found much better photographic evidence for molten metal at the WTC site.

Mark -- Can you pls respond to the science here?

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 12:09 pm**

[From Dr Jones;
So I went to the debunking911 piece cited by Mark. I have research scheduled today, so I will make a few observations first taking some time that would be used for research.
1. The article says I/we are claiming "yellow residue", but gives no reference for this. Mark, defender of the debunkers it seems, can you fill in the missing reference? I cannot. It seems to be a "strawman" argument.
2. Unignited thermite is reddish in color, and when ignited, the residue is gray, with shiny grayish spheroids also seen in the residue. Not much yellow that I know of, and I've done numerous experiments. So where do they say we say "yellow residue"? ]

I am not sure about the “yellow residue” either, maybe they were citing another 9/11 theorist other than yourself Dr.
I have cut steel beams with an acetylene torch which leaves a reddish brown residue. Welding and cutting steel also produces tiny gray spheroids. I would be surprised if these were not found before or during the clean up.

[2b. And do the debunkers talk about our findings of iron + ALUMINUM spheroids found Both in the WTC dust and in (grayish) thermite residues? (Not just iron, important because the residue of thermite in general contains both iron AND aluminum as an important tracer.) Please tell me you/they are not avoiding these discoveries which point to the use of thermite inside the WTC Towers... Mark, can you do it?]

Why would anyone be surprised to find steel and aluminum spheroids in a building, constructed with steel columns and trusses, that was subjected to an impact of a plane made mostly of aluminum? Also the exterior columns were covered by aluminum cladding. That’s a lot of aluminum and steel!

[3. The debunking911 piece contains ad hominem attacks, unworthy of serious or technical literature. Of course, this piece makes no claim of peer review and it is NOT published in an established Journal, unlike our Fourteen Points paper or our paper on energetic material found in the WTC residue (pub'd in the Environmentalist). The debunking piece does not reference these papers, at all. Again, not good science.
Links to our published peer-reviewed papers: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conte ... TOCIEJ.SGM]

Yes I did find the attacks self serving and distracting form the evidence offered.

[4. The debunking piece makes no mention of my discovery of red/gray (not yellow!) chips found in several samples of the WTC dust, although I have been reporting our findings as they proceed on this energetic material for OVER A YEAR. Yes, this material we conclude to be nano-thermite, with properties useful for demolitions as reported in the PUBLISHED literature, if people would only look. It does seem to me that the debunnkers are shying away from discussion of the red/gray chips or nano-thermite, but perhaps you will address the issue, Mark?
Red/gray chip discovery and commentary, discussed by me at a conference in Boston: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3147&hl=en
I discussed more recent results at UVU last September, with several from this forum in attendance who can attest.
Where are the debunkers when it comes to nano-thermite and the red/gray chips observed by more than one lab now, in the WTC dust?]

What was the chemical make up of the chip? Iron, aluminum?

[Now I have addressed the debunker piece -- Mark, you raised these guys up and pointed to their piece -- will you have the courtesy to address my points and comments? I'm waiting.]

What I would like to see, Dr Jones, is for you to simulate, using nano-thermite as a cutting charge on an equivalent sized column that was in the Towers. That would be very convincing.

OMD

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 12:17 pm**

I know! It was Col. Mustard (Mossad), with plastique , in the elevator shaft!

Do I win?

OMD

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 12:33 pm**

Mark wrote:...Yet those like Pritchet take this "how dare you" approach to anyone asking for any specific clarifications or daring to bring up other alternative thoughts like those from the debunkers to the overwhelming accepted mindset of this board. Why is that?

I think you make a good point here Mark... attacking others because they don't agree with your point of view is counter-productive (IMO). All I wish to do is bring forth the information that I have learned and allow others to make up their own minds. If they see things in a different light, so be it. I enjoy the opportunity to present all of the information and evidence I've come to a knowledge of over the past several years RE 9/11 in an attempt to convince others of the fraud and inside job 9/11 was. You and I have opposing viewpoints on many fronts Mark, but I respect yours and also your right to gather all of the information from both sides of the 9/11 argument so that you can make up your own mind about what happened on that fateful day. I will say, however, that science and physics is on the side of the 9/11 truthers... not the 'Feds'.

Also, I've been meaning to ask you... do you not find it odd and an amazing coincidence that on Sept. 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld made the startling revelation that $2.3 TRILLION in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for and then the next day, the investigative arm of the Navy (NCIS) that was looking into the missing money which coincidentally had its offices in the section of the Pentagon that was struck had over almost 50 of its Accountants and Auditors killed, all in an amazing 270 degree spiral turn by Hani Hanjour, passing up several other key offices (such as Rumsfeld's) to smash a section of the building that was being re-inforced with far fewer people in the area... even though Hanjour dropped out of flight school and couldn't even fly so much as a Cessna? Whew... there's a run-on senetence!

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 1:00 pm**

Thanks for that post Col. I appreciate your tone. It is far different from some others i have heard here. You raise a good point on the 2.3 trillion. I would be interested in any further info on that if any is available. That does seem very shall we say coincidental. It is speculation but still very interesting..

Also I run a business and can't spend 24/7 on researching everything said immediately Dr. This is not my luxury right now as interesting as all this is. I will look at all the info as my time allows. I am not avoiding addressing anything you are saying or claiming here. I am also not an engineer or scientist and am doing the best I can to decifer what I am reading from both camps.

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 1:14 pm**

thanks for responses, OMD. In particular,

Me: Red/gray chip discovery and commentary, discussed by me at a conference in Boston: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3147&hl=en
I discussed more recent results at UVU last September, with several from this forum in attendance who can attest.
Where are the debunkers when it comes to nano-thermite and the red/gray chips observed by more than one lab now, in the WTC dust?]

OMD: What was the chemical make up of the chip? Iron, aluminum?

The answer about the chemical make-up is given in the video I referenced whose URL you quoted! I can't look at it for you. Here it is again, pls take a few to look at it and get your answers:

Red/gray chip discovery: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3147&hl=en

(If that doesn't work, will find another URL that will.)

OMD: "What I would like to see, Dr Jones, is for you to simulate, using nano-thermite as a cutting charge on an equivalent sized column that was in the Towers. That would be very convincing."

Sure, in my copious free time with zero support-resources to speak of! However:

1. We have found the unignited material in tiny pieces and we're "blowing it up" to characterize the reaction -- which is highly energetic.

2. A chemist colleague of mine is trying to reproduce the stuff, then we may have quantities sufficient to do what you suggest. But will you be convinced then?

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 2:16 pm**

Mark wrote:Thanks for that post Col.

I appreciate your tone.

8)

It is far different from some others i have heard here. You raise a good point on the 2.3 trillion. I would be interested in any further info on that if any is available.

For starters...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/ ... 5985.shtml

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/dail ... 2wn018.htm

"The impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area." -Arlington County After-Action Report

That does seem very shall we say coincidental. It is speculation but still very interesting..

It's not speculation at all... it's fact.

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 2:50 pm**

I worked under DOE direction for a number of years. It was always rather odd that we had solutions that were cheap, quick and easy, but we were give directives and mandates not to use those, but come up with something (lots of studies) that eventually cost a whole lot more and took a whole lot more time to not even come close to the cheap, quick and easy solutions we had originally.

The issues of "were there explosives used" is a no-brainer. The answer is yes. What kinds and how they were used really is not relevant to 9/11.

We already know why the buildings were destroyed.

We have a pretty good idea who and how.

We also know the motive.

Pinning the culprits with jail time or the electric chair is not going to be possible, because they covered their tracks so well.

If you want specific answers to specific questions, than state those. And then accept the responses, instead of keeping a Sesame Street-trained short attention span, without acknowledging that your specific questions were indeed answered.

Fascination with feces, does not make it smell any sweeter. And we have seen enough of it flung around.

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 3:35 pm**

pritchet1 wrote:I worked under DOE direction for a number of years. It was always rather odd that we had solutions that were cheap, quick and easy, but we were give directives and mandates not to use those, but come up with something (lots of studies) that eventually cost a whole lot more and took a whole lot more time to not even come close to the cheap, quick and easy solutions we had originally.

The issues of "were there explosives used" is a no-brainer. The answer is yes. What kinds and how they were used really is not relevant to 9/11.

A lot of demolition experts (the ones who weren't or aren't afraid to speak out) have said that the power and level of sophistication that was used to demolish the towers baffles even them. You can't help but wonder if some new technology was used, like aerosolized explosives (the planes would have been a perfect igniter), in conjunction with the thermate, which sliced through the steel support columns and core.

We already know why the buildings were destroyed.

Yep... to save billions on asbestos removal, to make billions on insurance pay-outs and to stick taxpayers with the re-construction of the new 'Freedom' Tower, not to mention all of the no-bid contracts dished out by the criminals in Washington in defense spending for the bogus 'war on terror' AND control/contracts for the oil/natural gas pipelines/reservoirs in the middle east. Follow the money.

We have a pretty good idea who and how.

My money says the Military-Industrial Complex, Mossad and/or CIA (or some combination of two or all three).

We also know the motive.

Pinning the culprits with jail time or the electric chair is not going to be possible, because they covered their tracks so well.

Except for the PNAC guys... stating that they needed a 'new Pearl Harbor' to achieve their objectives wasn't very smart.

If you want specific answers to specific questions, than state those. And then accept the responses, instead of keeping a Sesame Street-trained short attention span, without acknowledging that your specific questions were indeed answered.

Fascination with feces, does not make it smell any sweeter. And we have seen enough of it flung around.

Amen!

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 3:38 pm**

[From pritchet1;
I worked under DOE direction for a number of years. It was always rather odd that we had solutions that were cheap, quick and easy, but we were give directives and mandates not to use those, but come up with something (lots of studies) that eventually cost a whole lot more and took a whole lot more time to not even come close to the cheap, quick and easy solutions we had originally.]

I feel your pain, Robert. I worked for 8 years out at the test site for the DOE and now work for the city. Governments seem to always find the most expensive way of doing thing. I am pulling my hair out now because they are trying to force us to use an outdated system that the private sector has that is better and cheaper.

[The issues of "were there explosives used" is a no-brainer. The answer is yes. What kinds and how they were used really is not relevant to 9/11.]

Actually, as I have shown, there are many who disagree.

[We already know why the buildings were destroyed.]

You have shown me motives for attacking the building which BTW, I have no problem with, but not for demolition, which are two separate things.

[We have a pretty good idea who and how.]

Did you find the fingerprints without telling me!

Shame on you Robert.
Actually I believe you are only guessing. If you are talking about prior knowledge, that only proves that they new the attack was coming, not that they then planted explosives.

[We also know the motive.]

Dr Jones and I have been discussing the motive. So far I see a motive for attacking the buildings but none for adding demolition charges.

[Pinning the culprits with jail time or the electric chair is not going to be possible, because they covered their tracks so well.]

All those who had prior knowledge and did nothing to stop it are just as guilty as the Jihadists who flew the planes!

[If you want specific answers to specific questions, than state those. And then accept the responses, instead of keeping a Sesame Street-trained short attention span, without acknowledging that your specific questions were indeed answered.]

So you don’t think it was either Miss Scarlet nor Col Mustard, the Mossad agent?

[Fascination with feces, does not make it smell any sweeter. And we have seen enough of it flung around.]

Then why do you keep looking through all the feces, Robert?

OMD

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 3:50 pm**

Oldemandalton wrote:Dr Jones and I have been discussing the motive. So far I see a motive for attacking the buildings but none for adding demolition charges.

Dalton, for the last time... the towers were laden with asbestos and the city of New York had passed new legislation requiring asbestos removal in older buildings throughout the city. The cost to remove the asbestos from both towers was going to cost more than the buildings were worth. Thus, the NY Port Authority leased the buildings to Silverstein 6 weeks before 9/11 (they now no longer had to worry about the expense) and he promptly took out insurance policies against terrorist attacks. The bogus terrorist attacks and subsequent demolition of the buildings saved billions and made billions for those who were in on the plot... IMO, it's pretty much that simple. Furthermore, the NY Port Authority tried on many occasions to get a permit from the city to allow for the demolition of the buildings and each time, were denied. Put two and two together man!

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 4:19 pm**

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it, just to clear my conscious for not having died with those in NYC.

This exercise in futility brought to my attention the dasterdly deeds of buildings 5, 6 and 7, of which I was blissfully ignorant before doing the research.

I'm still flabergasted that those who were not there still believe bombs did not go off in parked vehicles or that the large gutted buildings left standing were caused by girders falling from the towers, instead of by explosives that threw material up and out over a wide area.

Whether done with C-4, granades, thermite devices or whatever, the fact is they were destroyed from within and not by something that happened from without - at least in NYC, is a done deal. To not believe it after all the evidence has been presented, especially those who sealed their testimonies with blood, is the epitome of ignorance.

Now, to target the auditors inside the Pentagon in order to cover up mishandling of funds, using a surgical strike, is a classic military move.

The murders need to be avenged, as the blood of the innocents continues to cry from the ground.

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 4:24 pm**

Col. Flagg wrote:
Oldemandalton wrote:Dr Jones and I have been discussing the motive. So far I see a motive for attacking the buildings but none for adding demolition charges.

Dalton, for the last time... the towers were laden with asbestos and the city of New York had passed new legislation requiring asbestos removal in older buildings throughout the city. The cost to remove the asbestos from both towers was going to cost more than the buildings were worth. Thus, the NY Port Authority leased the buildings to Silverstein 6 weeks before 9/11 (they now no longer had to worry about the expense) and he promptly took out insurance policies against terrorist attacks. The bogus terrorist attacks and subsequent demolition of the buildings saved billions and made billions for those who were in on the plot... IMO, it's pretty much that simple. Furthermore, the NY Port Authority tried on many occasions to get a permit from the city to allow for the demolition of the buildings and each time, were denied. Put two and two together man!

OMD

I don't know col. How many people do you think knew of this attack? Silverstein, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani etc. etc. So private citizens, the state of New York and the federal government all knew about it and are all hush hush? I highly doubt it. That's too good of a secret to keep to ones self. That's one heck of a job to pull off.

Giuliani: Hey Cheney, the port authority wants to demo the towers. It'll cost too much. Do you know of anyone that wants to buy it so they can demo it?

Silverstein: Dick, I'm looking to invest in some real-estate. Do you have any ideas?

Terrorists: Hey vice president, quit meddling in the middle east. You're making us mad.

Unknown person/people: Mr. Cheney, we need more money and are looking for some sweet stock deals. Any suggestions on what to invest in?

Secret Combo: Cheney!! We put you in office to take away the rights of the people and further enslave them! What are you doing to accomplish this?

Rumsfeld: Mr. president, I mean vice president, I lost a trillion or so dollars. I thought I put it in my wallet to take to the bank, but it's not there. I think Colin Powell took it to Vegas, he has a gambling problem.

Cheney wonders what he can do to help all these people looking for advice/help. He can't sleep at night. He can't shoot straight. He has a few heart attacks. Then one night he wakes up to an awesome plan. Thus 9-11. Now everyone is happy. Well, not everyone.

Is that how it played out? I'm kidding of course, but I can't see how so many unrelated problems can be solved with this one event. Maybe it did happen this way, but it's unbelievable in my mind. I'm not doubting a conspiracy, just doubting that so many knew about it and are still quiet.

Posted: **January 6th, 2009, 4:45 pm**

That is the diabolical beauty of the Gadiantons. Loose lips sink ships, so they either sew the lips shut or send folks home to their maker when they do slip up.

Yes, they do make pacts to keep quiet. Yes they do it on a grand scale. The bigger the lie, the more believable, because the truth cannot be accepted. Look how long it took to get the records on the pre-Pearl Harbor communications to discover the truth. Many knew it, but were not permitted to speak out. Our buddy in Oz knows what he is talking about regarding Pearl Harbor and how the US aka Committee of 300, tweaked the nose of Japan with a "I double dare you", to destroy the lives of millions and further consolidate both money and power to their "elite".

Convenient? Yes. There are no coincidences.

LDS Freedom Forum

If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...

Re: If you were a terrorist...