Professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11

 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    DVDCoverArt.org Forum Index :: The BLOG
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DVDCoverArt
Site Master
Site Master


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 1439

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:58 pm    Post subject: Professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11 Reply with quote

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News

Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante.

"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."

Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.

They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term. Most of the members are less well-known.

The group's Web site www.ST911.org includes an updated version of Jones's paper about the collapse of the Twin Towers and a paper by Fetzer that looks at conspiracy theories. The government's version of the events of 9/11 - that the plane's hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden - is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.

"Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers," charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.

"We have very limited resources and no subpoena powers," Fetzer said. "What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn't add up. We don't have a political ax to grind."

Fetzer has doctorates in the history and philosophy of science. "One of the roles I can play here," he said, "is to explain why a certain line of argument is correct or not."

In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of "potential terrorists."

The group's charges include:

. Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.

. No Air Force or Air National Guard jets were sent to "scramble" the hijacked planes, which were clearly deviating from their flight plans, although jet fighters had been deployed for scramblings 67 times in the year prior to 9/11. The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.

. The video of Osama bin Laden found by American troops in Afghanistan in December 2001, in which bin Laden says he orchestrated the attacks, is not bin Laden. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.

The Scholars group hopes that media outlets around the world will ask experts in their areas to examine the group's findings and assertions. If this were done, they argue, "one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world."

The group also asks for an investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, following up on points made in Jones's paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" That paper, recently updated, has been posted on Jones's BYU Web site since last November.

Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he says, includes:

. Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

. Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."

. No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.

. Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."

Neither Jones nor other members of the Scholars group suggests who would have planted the explosives, but they argue that the devices could have been operated by remote control.

Jones says he has received thousands of e-mails from people around the world who either support his ideas or think he's "nutty," and he still gets about 30 e-mails a day on the topic.

He continues to do research on cold fusion, which he prefers to call metal-catalyzed fusion "to distinguish it from the claims" of former University of Utah chemistry professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, "which we do not accept as verified." He reports that his metal-catalyzed fusion work is going well, with three scientific papers published last year.

Jones will present a talk entitled "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions" at Utah Valley State College at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 1.
_________________
DVDCoverArt
Site Master
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tkboxer
Resident Artist
Resident Artist


Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 1610

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Put me in the list of people who think Mr. Jones is "nutty".
_________________
No matter how many times you try...you can't clone the dirt off your screen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daripper
*Resident Artist
*Resident Artist


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 3144
Location: TN. USA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you tk the guy is freaking nuts. When the planes hit the WTC anyone with half a mind could tell
that the infrastructure of the building's sustained major damage to the load bearing beams and with all of the
jet fuel just setting there burning and burning the heat will cause the steel to soften up give way with all the
weight of the upper floors and the already damaged infrastructure of the building's. Crying or Very sad
_________________
Site Moderator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He who never asks the question will never know the answer.
My name is 0110010001100001011100100110100101110000011100000110010101110010
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DVDCoverArt
Site Master
Site Master


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 1439

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:33 pm    Post subject: He could be right Reply with quote

You need to study the physics more; they would not have collapsed like pancakes. The jet fuel does not burn hot enough to soften the beams all the way down the building that would allow them to collapse the way they did. The third building also collapsed in the same manner. It was not hit by an airplane.

The buildings were hit high enough, especially the second tower hit, that they could not have damaged the entire structure in such a way that they would collapse the way they did. Not only that, but it is improbable that they would collapse in an identical manner despite the fact that they were both hit with airplanes.

If this professor was the only one in academia with this opinion, then calling him nuts might be justified, however, this is not the case.
_________________
DVDCoverArt
Site Master
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylumi
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actually agree with the professor I hold a very serious veiwpoint on this subject, but, do not wish to cause any upset.
Back to top
blknight3
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 1254
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was a show on I think it was the Discovery Channel last year about the collapse of the World Trade Towers. According to this show it wasn't the jet fuel burning, nor the severity of the plane impact alone that brought down the towers (look at the Pentagon) rather it was the construction of thebuilding it's self that cauased the collapse. The Towers had an integral part ot their supports in the exterior facade of the building, and a supportive central core. I don't remember the terminology, and I am not an engineer, but this was a very very interesting explanation. What they concluded in the end was that if these planes had hit something like the Empire State building then there would have been sever damage, but no collapse. Which makes sense when you sondier the Empire State building did survive a collicion with a plane earlier. Again not being an engineer this made sense to me.... it wasn't the fire or the planes impact that was the sole result of bringing the buildings down. It was the force of the floors above pancaking down to the ones below.

This show also showed how the collapse of the other buildings was casued as collateral damage. This was casued by ruptured gaslines, and debris from the initial collisions.

There were several well known ( at least knew some of the names at the time) engineers scientists involved, so I would give some credence to this myself.

Having said this I also think it was entirely preventable if the leaders of both North Amrican countires had listened to the intelligence being gathered.
_________________
For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred with ignition trouble.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hyoogy
Member
Member


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Put me in the list of people who think Mr. Jones is "nutty". aswell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boesjev
Artist
Artist


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 200
Location: The Netherlands

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just saw a documentation about it. It seems that there are a lot of more things wrong then we think.

For instance who can explain that there were no airplane parts found at the pentagon? The tapes from a gasstation were taken by the FBI directly after inpact. People think it was a rocket.

There are a lot of things that are covered up in a certain way.
_________________
RBC - The trotst van West-Brabant
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiji
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 511
Location: U.S.A, Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have many people seen this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

I don't know what to think of the conspiracy theories. That article makes some VERY interesting points at which temperature steel melts, etc., and I'm glad the professor/scholars are wanting to look more into the cause. But blknight3 makes an interesting point, too, from the Discovery special. Not all buildings are built in the same infrastructure.

It's intersting, I was going to post this video about 9-11 just to get an idea of what people though about it. They come up with some very interesting evidence. Witness after witness kept saying they heard an explosion, or several explosions before the towers fell. I think part of me doesn't want to believe that our own government would do this sort of thing ... but the evidence seems to be pretty convincing at times.

But on the other hand ...

Do you really think the government could do this giant conspiracy without someone leaking information? Nixon couldn't cover up a much smaller scandal without someone taddling on him. If all this stuff being thrown around was true, where is the hard evidence? If this was a government conspiracy, it would have to involve hundreds, if not thousands of people, and one of them would surely end up spilling the beans.

The government is run by people and people are prone to making mistakes just like the rest of us. Yes, there was a lot of things that should of been done and things that should not of been done. Why can't that just be human error? Why does it have to be some evil plot?

There is always two sides to every coin:
http://911myths.com

I guess it's up to the individual to decide, but in the long run I don't think we'll have a definate answer that will make both sides happy. We may never have one, so I'm not going to waste my time worrying about too much. Confused

Anyway ...
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
flyers2thecup
Resident Artist
Resident Artist


Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 1578
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'm with you seiji!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiji
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 511
Location: U.S.A, Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boesjev wrote:
For instance who can explain that there were no airplane parts found at the pentagon? The tapes from a gasstation were taken by the FBI directly after inpact. People think it was a rocket.


They actually released the tapes of that today, or at least one. You have to watch it frame by frame to see anything, but when it is slowed down you see a flash of white, then the explosion. I doubt very much it will sway the conspiracy theorists.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
blknight3
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 1254
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seiji... DO you happen to still have that web site? I tried to get in but it was busy and I accidently deleted it.

Thank you
_________________
For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred with ignition trouble.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DVDCoverArt
Site Master
Site Master


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 1439

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:41 am    Post subject: Our Government Reply with quote

Quote:
Do you really think the government could do this giant conspiracy without someone leaking information? Nixon couldn't cover up a much smaller scandal without someone taddling on him. If all this stuff being thrown around was true, where is the hard evidence? If this was a government conspiracy, it would have to involve hundreds, if not thousands of people, and one of them would surely end up spilling the beans.


Yes, the government is capable and has covered up things over the years. Nixon is not a great example because he didn't order the break-in; he found out about it and then lied about what he knew.

If those in charge believe something is in our Nations best interest, they can ensure that we, the people, never know the truth. The Kennedy assassination is a prime example. Anyone who thinks that one bullet can pass through two people, shatter bones and travel in multiple directions and fall out of the President onto the gurney that he is laying on in perfect condition, doesn't know anything about ballistics.

The single bullet theory was adopted by the Warren Commission even though there were multiple witnesses (many of which they refused to let testify) who actually say the gunman in the grassy knoll.

Expert marksman from the FBI testified that the sites were so far off on the rifle that was said to be used in the assassination, that they couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with it.

There were also multiple witnesses that say Lee Harvy Oswald eating in the lunchroom at the time the shots was fired.

Why was Kennedy and then later his brother Bobby killed? There were many members of government that wanted the U.S. involved in the Vietnam conflict because they believed it would serve U.S. interests. One of those individuals was future President Johnson, who by the way was known to severely dislike President Kennedy. Kennedy was planning on pulling the U.S. military advisors out of Vietnam, Johnson and the military was apposed to that as were other members of the intelligence community.

So, put Johnson, the military, and the intelligence community together and you have enough people high enough in Government to cover up the assassination of President Kennedy.

It is interesting to note that Mrs. Kennedy stated in her will that no documents in her possession related to the assassination of her husband are to be unsealed for one hundred years.

Robbert kennedy was leading in the poles at the time of his assassination. President Johnson had decided he was not going to run for reelection. He hated the Kennedy's so much that he made a comment at a white house dinner to a few of his friends that if he wasn't going to be president no Kennedy would be either. Two days later Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.

There were witnesses at his assassination that stated they saw a policeman in uniform point a gun at Bobby's head and fire when the commotion broke out. Before Sirhan Sirhan even fired a shot he was grabbed and pushed down, as well as his shooting hand, on top of a chest freezer. His hand was never high enough to shoot Bobby Kennedy in the head. Not only that, but gun powder residue was in and on the wound indicating that the assailant shot him at point blank range.

Before the local law enforcement could conduct an investigation, one of the doors in the area that was impacted by a bullet from Sirhan Sirhan's gun was removed by the FBI, which prevented a ballistics comparison of the bullet that killed Bobby and the Bullet fired from Sirhan Sirhan's gun.

What would be the motive for our Government killing 3000 of our own people, simple, an excuse to go to war against Osama Bin Laden and Saddam, two thorns in the side of the U.S.

After seeing what President Bush is willing to do to push his agenda the past 5+ years, it wouldn't shock me to eventually learn that he and other powerful members of congress are responsible for 9/11.

He spies on us, lies to us, and has violated the laws of the land to pursue his goals. If he thinks he can somehow bring democracy to the entire World, what is 3000 people compared to "Saving" 6 billion? And I voted for this guy twice.

Several premier newspapers have stated that President Bush may very well be the worst, most corrupt president we have had in well over a hundred years. I agree with that sentiment.

Don't think for a moment that someone with great power won't do things that you would never think possible. History is full of just such people.
_________________
DVDCoverArt
Site Master


Last edited by DVDCoverArt on Fri May 19, 2006 10:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Seiji
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 511
Location: U.S.A, Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blknight3 wrote:
Seiji... DO you happen to still have that web site? I tried to get in but it was busy and I accidently deleted it.

Thank you


I saw it on T.V. a few times on some of the news networks. I'm sure you can find it somewhere on-line, though.

I thought the Documentary "Peter Jennings Repoting: The Kenny Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy" was excellent. If you have not seen it you might find it somewhere on-line (wink wink), or you might have to buy it: http://www.abcnewsstore.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=customer.product&product_code=S031120%2001&category_code=HOME

Two sides to every coin.

That being said, untill there is hard evidence, evidence that convicts someone (or many) for the murders of 3000 people, it's hard for me to be totally convinced. And if it happens, then GOOD, they accomplished their goal and did a great service for the people.

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Seiji
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 511
Location: U.S.A, Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

New book coming out about the issue: "Popular Mechanics 9/11: Debunking The Myths" Should be interesting to read.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ammaross
Web Admin
Web Admin


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:48 pm    Post subject: Comments Reply with quote

First, I wanted to mention that everyone has made very valid, researched comments on both the topics of the Kennedy assassination, as well as the 9/11 attack(s).

Now, my turn, from the top.

Quote:
Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.

I full well realize that the government may be covering up an involvement/exaggeration (potentially missiling the pentagon)/knowledge-of the 9/11 attacks. It might even be the president himself that is involved. But most likely not. If it is a government conspiracy, it is not masterminded by Bush. Those who don't like him would have to admit that would be giving him too much credit otherwise, thus nullifying his 'not intelligent enough to be president' slander.

Quote:
. No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.

No steel-frame, high-rise buildings were ever built like the Twin Towers. They were 'revolutionary' in their design at the time.

Quote:
The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001

Just how long do you think it takes to fly from the airports the planes took off from to the towers? Let alone from their intended flight paths (that probably ran them by New York anyway...). Only one I would give possibility to is the pentagon 'attack', which very well could have been a non-plane attack, considering it hit a newly-fortified (and empty) section of the pentagon. IF the government was going to have an intentional attack, it would have been orchastrated like the Pentagon's. Show me Bush selling stocks of companies that were housed primarily in the Trade Towers just prior to 9/11 (or within the year even) and I'll start to believe.

Quote:
Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."

Did the article mention if these 'leading structural and fire engineers' even had cause to view them? Were they members of an investigative commity, or perhaps commissioned by the government to review these facts? If someone asked me to release my personal configuration documents for this webserver, I'd tell them to fly a kite too. My work is my own.

Quote:
He continues to do research on cold fusion, which he prefers to call metal-catalyzed fusion "to distinguish it from the claims" of former University of Utah chemistry professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, "which we do not accept as verified."

Sounds like a guy with a chip on his shoulder to have to deviate from a common term just to differentiate his work from 'unverified' results. Should we stop calling 'cloning' as such just because someone lied about their lab results with embryonic cloning?

Quote:
You need to study the physics more; they would not have collapsed like pancakes. The jet fuel does not burn hot enough to soften the beams all the way down the building that would allow them to collapse the way they did. The third building also collapsed in the same manner. It was not hit by an airplane.

We study physics enough to know that if thousands of tons of material fall on something, it gets pancaked. Look at collapsed buildings after an earthquake. One floor goes, the rest under tend to, even if the ones above manage to remain in one piece. The design of the towers, with their central support, lend the building to collapse inward on itself as its central column collapses. The spray-on thin-to-no layer of fire retardant didn't help much with the integrity of the steel either, not to mention the rivits at the mounts which were the true point of failure. And a fire can burn hot enough to melt steel if more than jet fuel was burning. Remember, these offices were filled with all sorts of furniture and the like.

Quote:
Not only that, but it is improbable that they would collapse in an identical manner despite the fact that they were both hit with airplanes.

There were the exact same building. Need I say more?

Quote:
it wasn't the fire or the planes impact that was the sole result of bringing the buildings down. It was the force of the floors above pancaking down to the ones below.

Exactly, thank you blknight3.

Quote:
This show also showed how the collapse of the other buildings was casued as collateral damage. This was casued by ruptured gaslines, and debris from the initial collisions.

More than just one of the Tower's smaller buildings went down. Singling out one and saying it was detonated, but the rest were normal is rather weak...

Quote:
Having said this I also think it was entirely preventable if the leaders of both North Amrican countires had listened to the intelligence being gathered.

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but I've heard (even in my little no-watching-news corner of my life) several 'terror alerts' of possible attacks on various facilities and areas each year. These were almost unheard of before 9/11. Why? The government didn't think it would happen. The desk that has to wade through all the 'potential' threats and plans probably has 10 or more reports every day of possible threats. The 9/11 attacks probably crossed that desk, as well as car bombings, electrical substation attacks, dam explosions, and any host of other events. If you flood something with enough bad information, they're bound to miss one truth.

Quote:
For instance who can explain that there were no airplane parts found at the pentagon? The tapes from a gasstation were taken by the FBI directly after inpact. People think it was a rocket.

And considering there were no witnesses of a plane in the area either. I would remember if I was driving down the nice highway by the pentagon and saw a plane flying at 40ft.

Quote:
The single bullet theory was adopted by the Warren Commission even though there were multiple witnesses (many of which they refused to let testify) who actually say the gunman in the grassy knoll.

Be it on the grassy knoll or not, the multiple ballistics paths show at least two shooters, one at a downward angle (probably Oswald), and another more horizontal with the ground (think fence on knoll). Not to mention Oswald must have been a rapid reloader to get a couple shots off so quick they needed sound analysis to determine that there was more than one shot.


Quote:
Why was Kennedy and then later his brother Bobby killed? There were many members of government that wanted the U.S. involved in the Vietnam conflict because they believed it would serve U.S. interests. One of those individuals was future President Johnson, who by the way was known to severely dislike President Kennedy. Kennedy was planning on pulling the U.S. military advisors out of Vietnam, Johnson and the military was apposed to that as were other members of the intelligence community.

Be it Johnson or just some intel lackies that took the Kennedys out or not, the Kennedys had a lot of enemies without even needing to look in the government.

Quote:
What would be the motive for our Government killing 3000 of our own people, simple, an excuse to go to war against Osama Bin Laden and Saddam, two thorns in the side of the U.S.

Sounds like what V for Vendetta was hinting at.

Quote:
After seeing what President Bush is willing to do to push his agenda the past 5+ years

I wonder just what he was willing to do, since I haven't seen him hold congress at gunpoint just yet, maybe the FBI have that video too.

Quote:
Several premier newspapers have stated that President Bush may very well be the worst, most corrupt president we have had in well over a hundred years.

And several other premier newspapers hail him as the best president in the same period of time. Point? Would by like asking professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann about professor Steven E. Jones's "metal-catalyzed fusion". Just another opinion. Being a newspaper doesn't give one the end-all source of unbiased wisdom (nor do I get to claim such right either, so if I make sense, good. If not, oh well, let me live in my dillusion and continue about my merry way).


Quote:
Don't think for a moment that someone with great power won't do things that you would never think possible. History is full of just such people.

Like that blasted Washington and his group of rebels. How dare they betray Great Britian like that! Unthinkable!

If you made it to the end, good for you. Thanks for reading. I hope this has enlightened your view, even if you don't change it. I'm not seeking to change, just shooting down feeble darts.
_________________
Ammaross Danan
That Webmaster Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tkboxer
Resident Artist
Resident Artist


Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 1610

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:12 pm    Post subject: RE:Post subject: Comments Reply with quote

Enyoyed your comments Ammaross, however, now you need to pick up all those feeble darts on the ground as it is considered littering. Wink Laughing
_________________
No matter how many times you try...you can't clone the dirt off your screen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ammaross
Web Admin
Web Admin


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4306831?source=rss

Just an FYI about that professor... Razz
_________________
Ammaross Danan
That Webmaster Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tkboxer
Resident Artist
Resident Artist


Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 1610

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ammaross wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4306831?source=rss

Just an FYI about that professor... Razz


Nice paid vacation for the professor, unfortunately for him, he will pay for with credibility and job.
Quite fitting in my opinion.
_________________
No matter how many times you try...you can't clone the dirt off your screen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiji
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 511
Location: U.S.A, Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I use to be a doubter of the conspiracy, as you can read from my earlier posts. But the more evidence I see, especially those who made profit off of 9-11, the more convinced I become.

I would tell you to watch the videos below.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
blknight3
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 1254
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seiji wrote:
I use to be a doubter of the conspiracy, as you can read from my earlier posts. But the more evidence I see, especially those who made profit off of 9-11, the more convinced I become.

I would tell you to watch the videos below.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745

Again I'm no engineer.... But from what I've been able to read on this, that smoke they claim is proof is nothing more than the smoke and gases from the original explosion beingforced down and out by the force of the collapsing building. Plus there would be fire onlower floor caused by cascading jet fuel.

I also talked to an engineer I know and he said that the bit about the amount of time it would take the building to collapse would depend on the construction. This buidling was not built with the typical frame that most are. Even the builder said it was never built to with stand the forces that were placed on it. If you have thousabds of tons of concrete and steel coming down and more being added then those floors will collapse pretty fast.

He also pointed out something else that leads credence. The building the Timothy McVie (spelling?) blew up should not have caused the damage it did. It was all in the way the buidling was constructed.
_________________
For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred with ignition trouble.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spartanstew
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 182

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If there was a conspiracy, you have to look at who benefited.

Who benefited the most from 9/11?


Rudy Giuliani
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiji
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 511
Location: U.S.A, Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyway, the official story does not stand up to scrutiny, regardless what people want to believe. If it were mathematically/ physically/ logically possible, then "truthers" would be smart enough to realize this, and there would be no debate. The fact is, that engineers can debate, but don't let one engineer think that he controls the truth. He is just like anybody else who either refuses the truth, or sees it. If you put him in a room with another person with his same educational level, and he is given the formulas and math which proves it's an inside job, he would have to admit that the official story simply does not stand up to credibility.

I would also tell you to read this article and click EVERY link within it. It will give you more and more information as you read the article:

http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/170507NYT_fails.htm

There is honestly too much information to fit into one thread. I feel it's not really something you can debate here considering the amount of information that's out there. You have to take upon yourself to learn all the facts and evidence and then decide for yourself.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=91894148&blogID=246272185&MyToken=091cad72-7e2f-4038-af2a-3653a6381947

But the video I gave a few posts above has some great information beyond just the actual collapse.

This ones good too:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-649993991751648213
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Seiji
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 511
Location: U.S.A, Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Ten Questions That Every Intelligent Skeptic Must Answer"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5615710732442096687
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    DVDCoverArt.org Forum Index :: The BLOG All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Charcoal2 Theme © Zarron Media