Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

Originally Posted by mcwillis

This is why there is a large amount of discussion on thermite as it is an incendary device that can be used to cut stell very quickly without any noise. As others pointed have pointed out that the towers were designed to survive an impact from an aeroplane, as big as a Boeing 737 I heard on one documentary.

Since no 737 had ever crashed into a building before 9/11, there's no way they could have truly predicted the full extent of the damage. Specifically, they didn't predict that gobs of burning jet fuel would soften the steel enough to collapse the building. Also, the WTC was built in the 1970s, so there was probably a LOT of cost cutting in the safety department, including adequate fireproofing.

So...if you're going to try to make your case on convincing people that a 737 full of jet fuel flying at 500 mph couldn't possibly take down a building, then you've got an uphill battle my friend.

Nano-thermite can be painted onto walls and doesn't become volatile until dries. It's as easy to rig a building to blow as hiring a paint crew.

Originally Posted by cmind

Since no 737 had ever crashed into a building before 9/11, there's no way they could have truly predicted the full extent of the damage. Specifically, they didn't predict that gobs of burning jet fuel would soften the steel enough to collapse the building. Also, the WTC was built in the 1970s, so there was probably a LOT of cost cutting in the safety department, including adequate fireproofing.

So...if you're going to try to make your case on convincing people that a 737 full of jet fuel flying at 500 mph couldn't possibly take down a building, then you've got an uphill battle my friend.

You should read what article O posted as a response to me a while pack.
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
According to this, that is exactly what they planned for.


Also, anyone got a comment on this?

Originally Posted by khh

From what I can gather (from a quick google search) The Open Chemical Physics Journal isn't very well respected. This makes me wonder why the article was published there, rather than in a more reputable journal. Surely scientific journals wouldn't shy away from controversial subjects if the science presented in an article is sound.

Also this blogpost claims to cite a debunk of the article. While the source isn't very good, it does state that one authors of the article admitted that the flakes weren't enough by themselves to cause the collapse, and were probably used as fuses for other bombs. While I haven't checked the validity of that, it's worth a read.
Screw Loose Change: A Response to Harrit, Jones, et.al. From Dr Greening

Originally Posted by khh

From what I can gather (from a quick google search) The Open Chemical Physics Journal isn't very well respected. This makes me wonder why the article was published there, rather than in a more reputable journal. Surely scientific journals wouldn't shy away from controversial subjects if the science presented in an article is sound.

I do understand where you are coming from but if you were the editor of a highly respected journal would you be reluctant to publish such an article? Afterall, it could bring great ridicule to the publication could it not? Considering the background and expertise of the authors of the paper is it worthy of being in a more reputable journal? I wholehearedly say that it should be, as the authors are saying in their paper that they have evidence that demloition devices were used to bring down or help to bring down at least one of the three skyscrapers at the world trade centre. This obviously raises some very serious and difficult questions. Professor Jones has been very outspoken about this subject for many years. He gave a lecture at the university he works at regarding the inconsistencies of the official explanation given by the US administration and its investigative bodies and was suspended from all teaching duties until the day of his retirement as a physicist. His superiors didn't like what he had to say because this issue raises a lot of uncomfortable, difficult questions that many people are not willing to entertain even if the science shows that there is justification for a new independant, international criminal investigation of what really happened on that frightful day. If demolition devices were planted in those buildings who put them there? Naturally Al Qaeda would have to be the prime suspect, but, how did a small group of well-funded religious extremists manage to orchestrate and logistically carry out such an enormously difficult task of placing and activating those demolition devices? That last question raises even more difficult questions; questions that weren't raised by NIST or the 9/11 commission. I am now reminded of the words by Lieutenat Colonel Robert Bowman when he said in a TV interview, 'Jesus came to comfort the afflicted. Well I'm here to afflict the comfortable.'

Originally Posted by khh

You should read what article O posted as a response to me a while pack.
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
According to this, that is exactly what they planned for.

I'm sure they did "plan" for many things, but hopefully you will agree that there's a big difference between "planning" for an event and actually experiencing an event. Especially when the event is unprecedented.

There's first order analysis and second order analysis. First order is easy, obvious things like "will a plane with X mass topple the building with the force of impact"? Second order is tougher to imagine, like "will burning jet fuel alter the strength of the steel after burning for 2 hours straight"? There's exponentially more not-so-obvious things than obvious things. So saying that you've planned for everything is frankly a joke when something new happens.

Now, I can buy WTC 7 being demolished in a hurry without telling anyone for insurance money. That's halfway plausible to me. It also happens to look like it was demolished and no planes actually hit it, so...yeah. BUT, WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by muslim extremists in hijacked planes. Sorry.

It doesn't have to just altar the integrity of the steel, it has to melt it. Eye witnesses saw molten steel streaming through the place like they were in a foundry.

Besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how explosive residue was found in the rubble besides because it was a controlled a demolition.

When you eliminate the impossible...

Originally Posted by Original Poster

It doesn't have to just altar the integrity of the steel, it has to melt it.

Incorrect. If you had done any objective research into the subject of metallurgy, you would know that steel softens at a temperature far below melting. And a supertall tower like WTC 1 or 2 wouldn't have a very wide margin of error for steel strength.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Eye witnesses saw molten steel streaming through the place like they were in a foundry.

Eye witness testimony -- especially in a panicked state, doubly especially when there were other things that, to a layman, might look similar to molten metal (like burning jet fuel) -- doesn't count for shit. If that's the "evidence" you're limping to the barn with, then go hang out with some UFOlogists.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how explosive residue was found in the rubble besides because it was a controlled a demolition.

Be more specific. Where exactly was it found (more specifically than "somewhere in the WTC"), precisely what chemical compounds are we talking about, and what evidence can you present that it was where YOU say it was?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

When you eliminate the impossible...

You haven't eliminated any theory, on either side of the debate.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

Just saying.

So you don't get all your 9/11 conspiracy theories from the internet? You do realize anyone can claim to be scientific or have followed scientific processes? How is it ad hominem when it's accurate?

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal
Your logical fallacy is black-or-white
Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity

Just saying.

These scientists and engineers have published scientific papers in printed scientific journals and not on websites.

These "scientists" published their papers to a dubious source and have since been dropped by the publisher.
Submitting is the easy party; standing up to peer review is the hard part.. Guess who failed peer review?

They are reputable scientists and I have cited professor emeritus Steven E. Jones as an example.

Not reputable enough to convince other scientists.

It is not officially certified debris because that physical evidence was removed illegally from the crime scene. All of the physical evidence should have been colected, catalogued and kept on U.S. soil as a requirement of U.S. law. These scientists would have thoroughly checked, as best that they could from a scientific standpoint, that the physical evidence that they had in their posession was related in whole to the experiments that they carried out in the scientific paper that I mentioned.

Link me to the law you reference; that's how you back up an argument by the way. And than link me to evidence(verifiable source) that all the physical evidence was destroyed before being properly investigated.. (as if our country was going to keep all the leftovers...)

These people are not amateurs.

They clearly are if they think dust from a random person in Manhattan stands up under scientific scrutiny.

Once again these are not armchair, internet experts; they are real-world experts and long standing members of academia.

Self-appointed experts that rely on dubious sources of evidence?

You're missing the point; they collectively agree that fire was extremely unlikely to have been the real cause of the collapse of the building.

And the majority of engineers and architects collectively agree that fire was the cause of the building collapse. Majority rules than?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm

Can you debunk this link and it's assertions? Until you can; your argument is very, very weak. And seems based on ignoring all known science.

I have checked a lot of resources for that and a found a demolition old-timer that says 'pull' did used to be used half a century ago to describe pulling a building over when doing a demolition. He also stated that it is rarely used these days.

Modern usage of "pull it" for demolition companies is for pulling down buildings through the use of cables.

Well I wonder who the contributors and editor of that website are? You are citing nameless experts and as such we don't have any idea of their understanding of the scientific method.

Everything is backed up by news articles and other educated sources. The writers of a website don't matter if they can aggregate accurate information.

Well I for one am not going to shut up, which is rather rude of you by the way. Your arguments are not baseless, just from a different viewpoint but your arguments in this thread are rather incoherent to say the least.

Nothing incoherent at all; you and I both know it. It's hard to abandon something you've been believing for years; but trust me it's worth abandoning clearly false beliefs.

That link; basically destroys every single conspiracy surrounding WTC7 through the use of engineering concepts. You can call it rude; I call it educating yourself before speaking.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________

Pro-Explosives Point: George Bush's brother was on the board of directors of the company in charge of security for the WTC, up until 2001. IF there were explosives planted in the buildings, security would conceivably have all access to the building, without sending up any red flags.

So Bush' family has been planning 9/11 since the early 90's? Bush knew he would be elected President and be able to take advantage of the situation before the American people were elected.. Is this what you are implying?

If there were explosives planted in WTC7 why did they bother sending Airplanes into the twin towers?
What possible reason for destroying a building next to the Twin Towers is there? What does anyone gain other than insurance money for one guy? Why would the secret controlling government that you obviously believe in run an insurance scam when they can just print their own money whenever they want?

What reason for the act of making a building next to the towers go down.. is there? What does this gain the secret control force that the twin towers didn't already accomplish?

So you have a family member of Bush working in big business for a security company; not quite the smoking gun you're looking for eh?

Your second 'point' (while cute) is obviously worthless to your argument, and would probably have done your credibility a better service by being completely left out.

Pro-Explosives Point: You talk about how it takes weeks to set up a demolition project. You are talking about the use of industrial-grade explosives, I assume. IF these buildings were to have been taken down as a part of a military false flag operation, there are many other types of explosives that could have been used, most probably of military-grade; some of which can be sprayed on as a foam and set off by radio, eliminating the need for all of the conspicuous wiring used in traditional, industrial demolitions. I am not saying that this is what happened, but that it is plausible

You believe military-grade explosives allow for buildings to fall straight down? Could you please show me a study on the use of military-grade explosives for neat and orderly demolitions; as is so argued by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. You can't have your cake and eat it to after all.. Industrial demolition projects take a lot of time because they aren't as simple as spraying foam and hoping the building falls down orderly.

I'm saying it's not plausible.

If I believed everything I heard, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, now would we?

Yes we would; because you're having it right now.. You believe everything you hear; as long as it's not from the evil government that's trying to turn your mind into a soulless slave of the Illuminati... The reason people can believe the 9/11 evidence from the side that supports fire taking down WTC7 is because it's backed up by evidence, science and facts.. while the false-flag, blah blah crowd relies on youtube videos and personal accounts.

(As the official story has been proposed for years, now. Use your head, boy.) The more you keep harping that same sentence (which I'm sure you've parrotted to countless people, so I don't blame you for forming the habit), the more I realize your arguments aren't based on any sort of logic, but on an automatic, Pavlovian reaction that your mind instinctually slips into, whenever you talk to anyone who even questions the official 9/11 story.

Evidence for your claim? How is questioning the 9/11 story not an automatic, Pavlovian reaction that your mind instinctually slips into because it's lack of trust for government?

I have a feeling that, the more we carry on this discussion, the more obvious that is going to become to everyone but yourself.

I have a feeling that, the more we carry on this discussion, the more evidence I'll provide and the less you'll actually pay attention to the argument and instead will continue to parrot your belief as the more likely story regardless of any factual evidence and mostly will provide just a bunch of assumptions and conjecture.

But the official story would stand up in court, right? Oh wait, I forgot, there was never any investigation actually done, because the evidence was destroyed (which is a federal offense, in any other case but this one).

Since you know so much about federal laws; could you link me to some case law on the subject? Or at least where this law can be found in a law book of some sort?

So there was no investigation done.. hmm I remember the 9/11 Commission.. that would actually count as an investigation.. and I'm betting the FBI/CIA and other agencies also investigated as well...

My thoughts are that you probably don't know how law works but are instead parroting some idea you've heard on the web before....

How about those that are 'on trial' right now? Oh wait, those proceedings could take Years before they can even begin to make any headway. The only 'conviction' made in the 11 years since the incident was by one, single man who pleaded guilty while wearing a shock belt. We have no evidence that even the Official Story would hold up in court, so as it stands, your 'good enough' feelies on that point are actually pretty worthless.

A trial is based on the concepts of Motive, Opportunity, Evidence. The official story does a lot better of a job providing motive, opportunity and evidence.. than your side does.. Trust me. Your "movement" hasn't actually ever provided a serious motive that is logical or coherent.

There is proof that the extremists hijacked the planes on 9/11 and crashed it into the towers. You don't think theirs airport footage of these people boarding planes?? LOL? The FBI and Law Enforcement never submits all details to the public.

Did you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la la la la' to the rest of them as well? Oh, who am I kidding? Of course you did.

Nope I debunked them and provided them links that they likely never read and continued to believe whatever the popular conspiracy of the day was. Kind off like what you'll be doing after reading my post.

That you believe the only place where information on the alleged conspiracy can be found is on the internet really goes a long way toward telling people just how ill-informed you really are. How about PBS (or are you going to sit us down and explain to us about how PBS is a bastion for public deceit and misinformation? Quite a bold claim.)

Ahh.. The television, another great source of information......... Let me guess; everything on the History channel is historic!? Ancient aliens here we come.

And I see conspiracy theories for JFK on TV too.. must make them true as well...

The things you say I allege; I never alleged. I alleged that's where you get your information from; is it not?

There is little doubt that conspiracy theories generate controversy and thus ratings.

9/11 Conspiracy theories started on the internet; I've been hearing this same shit for years.

The only thing you've been able to prove that you can 'discern' is what mainstream media source(s) you decide to put all your faith in, and how to charge through an argument by relying on insults, shallow rhetoric and avoidance of as many actual points as possible. You're not even aware enough of yourself to know when you're making a 'claim' or not. I'll bet the claim you've made numerous times in this thread - that the scientists who do have doubts on the official story are (by your expert opinion) 'not-credible' - has completely slipped your mind, too, therefore leaving you no responsibility to substantiate that phantom claim. Right?

I've proven that you believe things that have no reputable source nor scientific evidence to substantiate said claims.

If you feel insulted than perhaps you shouldn't form your opinions based on dubious sources; than you wouldn't feel insulted. The "scientists" matter little compared to the science that has been rejected by peer review. You can call it gold; but it's still a pile of shit.

[Edit: By the way, it's apparent that you're not exactly 'new' here, but I'll give the courtesy of formally 'requesting' that you moderate your own tone, while discussing things here at DV. From what I can see of your activity in this thread (and others), you have a hard time competently making an argument with resorting to calling people 'idiots' or telling them to 'shut up' or calling everything you disagree with 'bullshit'. Please get a handle on that, quickly. If you are intelligently capable of explaining your position, the childish insults are absolutely unnecessary, and will not be allowed to continue for too long.]

Yeah; no.

I'll continue to tell people who don't bother to read evidence; to shut up. What's the point of discussing a topic with those who don't bother to educate them on the reality of a situation and instead prefer to live in a fantasy world? I don't call everything I disagree with bullshit; I call 9/11 conspiracy theories that point to our government doing it bullshit. And without evidence; that's what it is.. a steaming pile of bullshit.

Please get a handle on yourself, quickly. If you are intelligent and capable of explaining your position, the childish whining over e-feelings is absolutely unnecessary. Neither you or I will be stopped because no one was actually insulted in this thread.

I'm not a care-bear and I never will be; if you don't like my tone.. Don't reply. I'm not gonna sit here and cry about your attitude; but I certainly will continue to cut down your inability to defend your positions.

I'm gonna give you the formal courtesy of letting you know you should mind your own business and tone while discussing things here at DV. As such I'll do the same.

I'll be waiting for a quote of when I called someone an "idiot".. As for the rest... Calling theories bullshit; when they are.. Isn't against any forum rules. Nor is sarcasm as far as I'm aware? I can't say shut up? Is that like a fuck you now? I'll say it again.. Put up, or Shut up.

This is why there is a large amount of discussion on thermite as it is an incendary device that can be used to cut stell very quickly without any noise. As others pointed have pointed out that the towers were designed to survive an impact from an aeroplane, as big as a Boeing 737 I heard on one documentary.

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

Nano-thermite can be painted onto walls and doesn't become volatile until dries. It's as easy to rig a building to blow as hiring a paint crew.

Peer-reviewed Science article showing the ability for "nano-thermite" being able to take down large structures? No really; can I see some science?

Besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how explosive residue was found in the rubble besides because it was a controlled a demolition.

The problem with your argument is that you want people to defend something that no ones ever shown to be true. Explosive residue was not found in the rubble.

You never even bothered looking at the evidence. I have sourced scholarly articles examining the evidence, You have not. The burden of proof is in your court now, you have to refute the sources I provided. For Christ's Sake, at least read them.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You never even bothered looking at the evidence. I have sourced scholarly articles examining the evidence, You have not. The burden of proof is in your court now, you have to refute the sources I provided. For Christ's Sake, at least read them.

If you're so keen on proving that the US government is bad, why not talk about the atrocities they actually admit to doing, like Hiroshima, or the Iraq war?

It's a given they're "bad," that's not the point. The point of this thread is that 9/11 was an inside job, and I didn't believe it until I read the evidence, but now that I have I'm a little flabbergasted people won't even look at the evidence.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You never even bothered looking at the evidence. I have sourced scholarly articles examining the evidence, You have not. The burden of proof is in your court now, you have to refute the sources I provided. For Christ's Sake, at least read them.

Are we talking about the article that was dropped by it's publisher? How is something that didn't stand up to peer-review scrutiny and has been generally tossed aside by the scientific community as large.. a smoking gun? The burden of proof is still in your court.

It's a given they're "bad," that's not the point. The point of this thread is that 9/11 was an inside job, and I didn't believe it until I read the evidence, but now that I have I'm a little flabbergasted people won't even look at the evidence.

Dressing something up as evidence; doesn't make it true. I'm sorry; the evidence is out of your favor.

I have no idea what you're referring to. Dr. Steven Jones' examination has not yet been refuted as far as I know. Red/Gray chips and dust particles were found in the residue in and around ground zero in WTC. All in all there were four examinations by four different groups, including the RJ Lee Company, U.S. Gological Survey and McGee, et al. One of the samples was collected ten minutes after the second building fell so there's no possibility of contamination. In fact every single sample collected of the debris turned out these same peculiar red/gray chips. This includes random residents of New York who collected dust samples of their own and then sent them in to be examined. Not one single one was absent of these chips.

I'm not a chemist or an explosive expert, but you can read about the examination of these chips yourself. It was concluded that they were the left-overs from a chemical reaction caused by thermite.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Originally Posted by Original Poster

It's a given they're "bad," that's not the point. The point of this thread is that 9/11 was an inside job, and I didn't believe it until I read the evidence, but now that I have I'm a little flabbergasted people won't even look at the evidence.

But what's the point of trying to prove something that will never, ever be truly proven one way or another? You seem to think that if you just managed to pin this one crime (9/11) on the US government, THEN people will understand it's an evil empire. Dude, anyone who doesn't realize it already, never will.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I have no idea what you're referring to. Dr. Steven Jones' examination has not yet been refuted as far as I know.

You haven't looked very hard than.

(In the study it says the "sample" was obtained from a residents of Manhattan. ; This should raise little red flags in your mind very quickly. )

Red/Gray chips and dust particles were found in the residue in and around ground zero in WTC.

A sample given to them and not collected by a verifiable source.

All in all there were four examinations by four different groups, including the RJ Lee Company, U.S. Gological Survey and McGee, et al. One of the samples was collected ten minutes after the second building fell so there's no possibility of contamination. In fact every single sample collected of the debris turned out these same peculiar red/gray chips. This includes random residents of New York who collected dust samples of their own and then sent them in to be examined. Not one single one was absent of these chips.

It's amazing what liars can convince people of.

I'm not a chemist or an explosive expert, but you can read about the examination of these chips yourself. It was concluded that they were the left-overs from a chemical reaction caused by thermite.

Of course that's what they concluded; they wanted peoples attention. Even if it's based on fake science and a load of crap.

Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Can you smell a rat yet?

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

Maybe now?


Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Steven E. Jones - Scholars for 9/11 truth

I see a lot of ad hominem in that debunking but not much attacking the actual findings. Perhaps you can find me an examination done of the debris that did not find explosive residue. If you can find one, I'll withdraw the claim.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I see a lot of ad hominem in that debunking but not much attacking the actual findings. Perhaps you can find me an examination done of the debris that did not find explosive residue. If you can find one, I'll withdraw the claim.

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

15. What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?

There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items. For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that "... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment.” 2

In a second example, researchers at the EPA measured the concentrations of 60 organic compounds in air samples from Ground Zero using an organic gas and particle sampler. The presence of one of these compounds, 1,3-diphenylpropane, has been suggested as evidence of thermite. However, the authors of the EPA paper state in the opening paragraph that although “… this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling … it has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.” 3

P.S. It's almost impossible to attack findings that are fake. I'm sorry. (I'm sure you can understand that it's a lot easier to debate findings based on actual scientific analysis)

The misinformation gang for 9/11 is making a lot of money keeping this story circulating.

Originally Posted by cmind

If you're so keen on proving that the US government is bad, why not talk about the atrocities they actually admit to doing, like Hiroshima, or the Iraq war?

Originally Posted by cmind

But what's the point of trying to prove something that will never, ever be truly proven one way or another? You seem to think that if you just managed to pin this one crime (9/11) on the US government, THEN people will understand it's an evil empire. Dude, anyone who doesn't realize it already, never will.

I'm pretty much on your side here, I think it seems ridiculous to think that 9/11 was an inside job, but then again I haven't done much research. Anyways, sorry to say but those arguments are really bad.
It sounds like you're just trying to shift the attention to something else "Oh, why talk about this really significant historical event when we can just talk about Hiroshima??". The other one basically says that if something it is hard to get to the bottom of something then we should just stop trying all together.

Imagine if 9/11 really was an inside job. It's already gone into the history books as something that was done by religious extremists. That has some very significant implications, it basically means we can't at all trust history neither the one in the past nor the one that is continuously created. If there's any real doubt whether or not a government committed such a horrible crime on their own people and subsequently succeeded in completely hiding the fact that they did it; then that's a gigantic problem and asking "what's the point?" seems just batshit crazy.

Originally Posted by Maeni

I'm pretty much on your side here, I think it seems ridiculous to think that 9/11 was an inside job, but then again I haven't done much research. Anyways, sorry to say but those arguments are really bad.
It sounds like you're just trying to shift the attention to something else "Oh, why talk about this really significant historical event when we can just talk about Hiroshima??". The other one basically says that if something it is hard to get to the bottom of something then we should just stop trying all together.

Imagine if 9/11 really was an inside job. It's already gone into the history books as something that was done by religious extremists. That has some very significant implications, it basically means we can't at all trust history neither the one in the past nor the one that is continuously created. If there's any real doubt whether or not a government committed such a horrible crime on their own people and subsequently succeeded in completely hiding the fact that they did it; then that's a gigantic problem and asking "what's the point?" seems just batshit crazy.

Then you haven't understood my point. As you've actually demonstrated yourself in your post, most people don't seem to care about the horrible atrocities that their government ADMITS to doing. 9/11 Truth stuff is nothing more than a distraction to get people to drain their energies on something that will never be proved conclusively. Part of me actually thinks that 9/11 Truthers are actually trying to discredit the real liberty movement by saddling it with conspiracy theories that both reduce its credibility and waste the time and energy of some of its members.

Originally Posted by cmind

Then you haven't understood my point. As you've actually demonstrated yourself in your post, most people don't seem to care about the horrible atrocities that their government ADMITS to doing. 9/11 Truth stuff is nothing more than a distraction to get people to drain their energies on something that will never be proved conclusively. Part of me actually thinks that 9/11 Truthers are actually trying to discredit the real liberty movement by saddling it with conspiracy theories that both reduce its credibility and waste the time and energy of some of its members.

I think humanity can handle investigating several issues at once. I agree that perhaps people unjustly turn a blind eye to the horrible things their own country does, and that is an issue, but that issue doesn't overrule every other problem we have. We've got lots of 'em, we just wouldn't get anywhere if we used this queue-of-problems mentality... *shrug*

I've decided after more research to temporarily withdraw my argument. I'm going to look at this more in depth because I don't know enough about chemistry.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I've decided after more research to temporarily withdraw my argument. I'm going to look at this more in depth because I don't know enough about chemistry.

It's a rare thing to see someone say something humble on the internet.

Both sides of this argument are pointless. No matter how much "evidence" or "debunking" which occurs, even both sides make legitimate points, please understand that you will never agree. It is the nature of this sort of argument. The majority in this argument are too ego-charged to admit when they are wrong or don't know something. So to fulfill that desire, they will actually convince themselves that they are right. I've read through literally this entire thread, including the links. Both sides have made valid points. I'm more inclined to agree that further investigation should/should have happened in light of the questions that were raised. In any other crime, more examination and investigation would have been done. Instead, large quantities of evidence were removed, and/or destroyed, which is a violation of federal criminal law. No one has bothered to address that portion of what happened, for example. To me, an average person who doesn't know much about engineering, physics or chemistry, even that is cause enough to say, "Hey... why did they do that? Shouldn't we look into this a bit more?"

I don't think there is anything wrong with inquiry. I there is reasonable cause there to demand further explanation or investigation. To DeathCell, I don't believe that Oneironaut Zero is saying "THIS ALL HAPPENED, IT'S A CONSPIRACY WE'RE ALL SCREWED, THE GOVERNMENT DID IT, IT'S CERTAIN!" I think he is saying something which is completely reasonable and agreeable- "There are enough unknown factors in this incident to merit further official investigation." I don't know why you have such a problem with that. You have a lot of valid points that you're trying to make, but they are stained with personal attack and repetitive talking points which don't really address the majority of the argument which has been presented. For someone who I believe is likely pretty intelligent, it's a disappointing thing to witness such childlike name-calling and internet bashing. It accomplishes only two things- tarnishing what credibility you had in the first place, and simultaneously, it demonstrates an egoic response, triggered by the fear of being wrong. Insulting your opposition only validates the likely mindset that you're uncertain of your argument, and cannot refute the points made objectively without adding your personal flare and attacks, because you don't want to admit to ANY possibility that just PERHAPS, this time, you could be wrong.

I cannot agree nor disagree with the information that has been exchanged here, because I'm not qualified. I have my opinions, which are backed largely by assertion, but also by the knowledge of the fact that the government throughout history HAS committed atrocities on large scales many many times. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been verified, to my knowledge, but the CIA alone has conducted horrible things to achieve generally meaningless goals, or to maintain or create coverups for something usually minor, which result in wars being started- several of them. I don't personally believe that the government at the time, as terrible as they are, would actually willfully MURDER thousands of it's own people. I believe that there is much more at play than will ever be known, and I think the government knew what was going to happen, and made no attempt to stop it, because of how convenient it would be. How much easier it would be to start wars, destroy civil liberties, suspend the constitution at will, enact and establish intelligence gathering programs and practices which have always previously been illegal. The amount of power they have received after 9/11 is immense, and they benefited from it. That doesn't mean that they themselves did it. Again, I think there's much more than meets the eye (or the corporate-owned scewed, misleading media) about this.

Originally Posted by cmind

But what's the point of trying to prove something that will never, ever be truly proven one way or another? You seem to think that if you just managed to pin this one crime (9/11) on the US government, THEN people will understand it's an evil empire. Dude, anyone who doesn't realize it already, never will.

I think that's just it. There is no point in arguing about this. First of all because the two sides will never agree. It's simply not going to happen. Second of all, you could use this focused energy which you waste on one another to go after the real enemy. This country is going down a dark road. It is in desperate need of change, and I'm not referring to some wack-job candidate from our twisted, corrupt, corporate-funded two-party political system of treachery and deceit. As long as we continue squabbling about (anymore) irrelevant topics such as this one, we will continue to miss the point- we can prevent further atrocities from happening which are caused directly by our government. NDAA? That actually DID happen. NSA illegal spying? That actually happened too. Unmanned missile-carrying drones regularly attacking small villages in "terrorist-occupied" countries, which goes unreported by the precious all-knowing media? That is happening. As Cmind said, there are terrible things that are happened which the government OPENLY discloses to you! And we allow it to happen. If that isn't a slap in the face and a big "fuck you," then I don't know what is.

So can we move on from 9/11 please? It sucked, it was sketchy, no one outside of Washington knows what happened, and you never will. And even if you did find out the truth- what then? Are we all suddenly going to have a revelation, and change the world, and find world peace? Are the people responsible going to be "brought to justice?" No. and even if they are, guess what? You'll forget about it. Everyone will. Just like the NDAA. Just like illegal wars/battles like the non-congress approved fighting in Libya which we started participating in. Just like fractional reserve banking. You all forgot before, and you will forget again. You'll never agree, and even if you do, what will you accomplish by unveiling the truth? Nothing.

Originally Posted by Maeni

I think it seems ridiculous to think that 9/11 was an inside job, but then again I haven't done much research.

Adolf Hitler was quoted as once saying, 'What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.'

Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher was a minister & member of the war cabinet in the British government. He and the other members of the war cabinet had very little time to mull over the evidence that Tony Blair cited to invade Iraq. Mr Meacher resigned as the minister for the environment over the prime ministers decisions (probably because he thought Tony was full of shit). I emailed to ask him about what took place at the war cabinet meetings and understandably he was extremely coy when he replied to my email. Below is a very good interview with him on his views of 9/11 and as he has done this interview off the cuff it clearly shows he has done an enormous amount of personal reseach into the matter.