Evidence No One Wants To Know About

[Winstonm]

A group of 7 scientists have published their findings about material recovered from the dust in the collapse of the WTC towers on 9-11. They found trace samples of nano-thermite. The abstract is here:

 

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

 

The PDF file can be downloaded for free.

[Al_U_Card]

Lets see now...

 

Oh you crazy CT nutjob.

 

Don't you see it was just a bunch of fanatical Islamic terrorists.

 

Please respect the dead and their memory.

 

Did I leave anything out?...oh yeah, just the truth.

 

Can you say:

WMD

Gulf of Tonkin

Pearl Harbor

Remember the Maine

 

and so it goes...

[vuroth]

It's generally a bad sign when you're trying to present evidence as scientifically sound and you're also involved in a war of words with the JREF.

[Al_U_Card]

Remember that Marvin Bush (yes, them again) was head of WTC security until Sept 10, 2001.

 

Also, Larry Silverstein had just "leased" the now re-insured against terrorist attack buildings and was undertaking "upgrading" of the computer network wiring system....in buildings that it was known would require a billion dollar clean-up to remove the asbestos fireproofing in the building.

 

Interesting confluence of events wouldn't you say?

[blackshoe]

I suppose it's interesting to those who see conspiracy under ever rock. Rational people, OTOH...

[Al_U_Card]

Just like covert actions are easy to see....aren't they? Oops, only when they are uncovered and did I mention plausible deniability?

[vuroth]

Remember that Marvin Bush (yes, them again) was head of WTC security until Sept 10, 2001.

No, he really, really, really was not.

 

Based on your belief of that fact, I feel it is my moral responsibility to warn you that your Nigerian friend is, in fact, trying to steal your money.

 

V

[jdonn]

I suppose it's interesting to those who see conspiracy under ever rock. Rational people, OTOH...

My favorite part of saying stuff like that is they always come up with a reply that completely confirms it. :)

[Al_U_Card]

Remember that Marvin Bush (yes, them again) was head of WTC security until Sept 10, 2001.

No, he really, really, really was not.

 

Based on your belief of that fact, I feel it is my moral responsibility to warn you that your Nigerian friend is, in fact, trying to steal your money.

 

V

My bad. He was a director of that company.

 

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

[Al_U_Card]

I suppose it's interesting to those who see conspiracy under ever rock. Rational people, OTOH...

My favorite part of saying stuff like that is they always come up with a reply that completely confirms it. :)

Here's another:

 

The nicest wool comes from the sheep that remain docile during shearing.

:)

[rogerclee]

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

 

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!

 

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

 

So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

LOL

[jdonn]

I suppose it's interesting to those who see conspiracy under ever rock. Rational people, OTOH...

My favorite part of saying stuff like that is they always come up with a reply that completely confirms it. :)

Here's another:

 

The nicest wool comes from the sheep that remain docile during shearing.

:)

I bet the crazy chickens are the first to get their heads chopped off...

[Al_U_Card]

I suppose it's interesting to those who see conspiracy under ever rock. Rational people, OTOH...

My favorite part of saying stuff like that is they always come up with a reply that completely confirms it. :)

Here's another:

 

The nicest wool comes from the sheep that remain docile during shearing.

:)

I bet the crazy chickens are the first to get their heads chopped off...

Actually the last because the docile ones are easier to catch.

[helene_t]

I wonder why I am wondering if the same principle applies to sperm donors.

[luke warm]

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

 

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!

 

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

 

So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

LOL

i don't get it... aren't philosophers expert enough to help determine there was a conspiracy? if a jet, with cia foreknowledge and presidential approval, flies into a building and nobody's there to see it, did it really happen?

[helene_t]

Very similar to the question "if an elephant farts but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?". Certainly a philosophical issue.

[jdonn]

Very similar to the question "if an elephant farts but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?". Certainly a philosophical issue.

In this thread it's more like "If I can hear the voices in my head, are they really there?" And the answer, of course, is they are there if they tell you they are.

[PassedOut]

In 2004 a democrat insisted that I take and view a tape that would "open my eyes" about the plane that hit the pentagon. I watched it, expecting the worst. My expectations were correct, and the democrat didn't like what I told him about his critical faculties when I returned the tape.

 

Since then, I have found no need to examine more evidence on the whole topic.

[blackshoe]

Actually the last because the docile ones are easier to catch.

Having actually done this once (long ago) I can confirm this. Mostly. See, the method the four of us used was:

 

1. Enter chicken house.

2. Place case of beer on table.

3. Drink beer.

4. Turn off lights.

5. Chickens go to sleep.

6. Put chickens into crate.

7. When crate is full, seal it.

8. Drink beer.

9. Repeat steps 6 through 8.

10. When the chickens finally figure out something's not right, turn on lights to catch the last few who are now running all over the place trying to escape.

11. Repeat steps 6 through 8 again.

12. When all chickens are crated, move to next chicken house.

 

As I recall, there were six chicken houses.

 

:)

[onoway]

I find odd and quite sad that millions and millions of dollars were spent on pursuit of the question of whether or not Clinton was guilty of inappropriate sexual behaviour (between two consenting adults yet ), but there seems to be little curiousity about or appetite for finding some reasonable explanations of the anomalies surrounding 9-11.

 

It would not be the first time that the people in power had considered any number of their citizens to be expendable in pursuit of their goals, IF indeed that was the case. ( What else are most wars, after all?) If not, why don't they unmuzzle the group which was set to investigate the event and lay to rest the questions which are still rattling around? If so, surely it's best if the people know? It isn't just in religious issues that an open mind might be a good thing, however unpalatable the alternatives might be.

 

These sorts of questions are going to continue to have a life of their own if they are not met with more than a sniff of disdain.

[jdonn]

The psychology of the responses so far is rather interesting - all I did was post a website to an online journal and stated the findings.  But the responses so far are to: 1) Claim 76 assorted authors when the paper clearly states 7 and gives each by name.  2) dismiss as rdiculous because (asummption) it does not appear to conform to a preconceived belief, and 3) ridicule conspiracy when the basis of the post was simply an evidentiary finding and did not draw conclusions.

 

I am surprised there was not a single - "well, that's interesting", or "that's worth looking into".  Instead, it's been "let's ridicule the finding regardless if it is important or not".

 

It seems to me "Don't confuse me with facts when my mind is made up."

For someone who so often claims his positions get mischaracterized by others on the forums you sure are making a lot of mischaracterizations and assumptions about the positions of others. I'll help you.

 

1. No one claimed 76 authors about your paper, clee clearly quoted a different website and noted that (something you rarely do with your quotes, but yay for google.)

2. That isn't why it's dismissed as ridiculous. If you want to know why, (re)read The Boy Who Cried Conspiracy - er, Wolf.

3. Uh, yeah, obviously there was no (conspiracy-based) motive behind the post. It was simply an unbiased presentation of facts for the interest of the general public.

 

Per your surprise that no one's eyes were opened, so to speak. You are surprised?? How long have you been posting here? And you think everyone ELSE are the ones with their eyes closed and fingers in their ears??

 

Per what it seems to you, well it can seem to you whatever you want. It seems to me the explosive theory is about on par with "the moon landing was faked" theory. And so yes, I give it all the credit it deserves. Mostly by ridiculing it.

[Hanoi5]

I'm not sure how the events transpired back then, but can you imagine the church burning and prohibiting the telescopes after Galileo Galilei said that the Earth was round instead of flat as they claimed or that the Earth wasn't the center of (our) the universe but the Sun? Then those ideas might have been regarded as conspiracy theories against the church, wouldn't they?

 

Not believing in something because you just think it's outrageous is like 'doublethink' from '1984'. I guess we won't ever know the truth behind some stuff for remember that 'a lie repeated a thousand times turns into the truth' or something like that.

[hotShot]

Thermide does not explode it just gets very hot. It does get hot, because it's a solid-phase/solid-phase reaction and no external cool air is needed. It's reaction-speed depends on the size of the contact surface. In theory the smaller you dust the rust and aluminum the larger your surface gets and the faster the reaction can occur. In practice the aluminum is covered with a oxid-layer that is preventing the reaction from happening. When your aluminum particles get smaller the ration of aluminum (inside) to aluminumoxide (outside) gets to bad for a good reaction. Scientist have tried to overcome that problem. But still pure nanothermite is no explosive and you will need tons of it to create enough heat to weaken the structure of a building.

So while we know that there where tons of aircraft fuel burning, we now need mysterious people who carried tons of thermite into the building to create a 2nd fire that caused the collapse.

I don't buy that. It's much more likely that in the cloud of dust, aluminum and rust particles where present and meet when the dust settled down.

 

 

PS: If you are really interested in thermites read:

S. H. Fischer and M. C. Grueblich "Theoretical energy release of thermites, intermetallics and combustible metals" in "Proceedings of the 24th International Pyrotechnics Seminar", Monterey, California USA 27-31 July, 1998

[Al_U_Card]

The concept is startling.

Only if you don't accept that those buildings (WTC 7 being the smoking gun) were brought down by another type of act of terror.

[vuroth]

The psychology of the responses so far is rather interesting - all I did was post a website to an online journal and stated the findings. But the responses so far are to: 1) Claim 76 assorted authors when the paper clearly states 7 and gives each by name. 2) dismiss as rdiculous because (asummption) it does not appear to conform to a preconceived belief, and 3) ridicule conspiracy when the basis of the post was simply an evidentiary finding and did not draw conclusions.

 

I am surprised there was not a single - "well, that's interesting", or "that's worth looking into". Instead, it's been "let's ridicule the finding regardless if it is important or not".

 

It seems to me "Don't confuse me with facts when my mind is made up."

 

BTW, here is the journal:

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal which aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in chemical physics. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide

1 - I assumed the 76 was either the review panel, or the set of candidates from which the review panel was pulled. You do know that the scientific process requires a paper to be reviewed by a panel of experts before it is "accepted"?

 

2 - Did I look into it? I surely did. I found that the JREF has problems with the process and scientific validity of the findings. That's a big deal.

 

Scientists can and often will disagree vociferously over what data means, and how best to model it, and which theory best explains the data. But all of that happens AFTER the data is vetted by the scientific community. If there's an argument about whether or not the scientific PROCESS has been followed...well, let's just say it's not time for the common man to get excited about this, YET.

 

3 - As for the journal being a fully peer-reviewed journal, that seems to be at the heart of the debate. Certainly the journal (Bentham open?) feels that they are fully peer reviewed, and that they meet the generally accepted scientific standards. JREF, at least, does NOT feel that way. All things considered, I think I'd side with JREF 99 times out of 100 at least on issues like this - it's kind of their raison d'être.

 

I can understand that. But what is the reason for dismissing evidence? It would be somewhat like finding a second rifle behind the grassy knoll in Dallas and then ignoring the find.

 

Depends. If Sherlock Holmes found it, I'd be interested. If Jerry Springer found it? Maybe not.

 

What alarms me more than anything with the quoted article is that, rather than try to address the concerns of the scientific community at large, in order to bring their findings up to "fully accepted" status, they seem to be spamming the web with findings and refutations, and a war of words with JREF. That sounds a lot like rabble rousing and profiteering, more than genuine knowledge seeking.

 

Don't get me wrong, they may be correct. I just don't think that they've proven their point yet, not by a long way.

 

V