The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Jocksereire

Gordon wrote:

Jocksereire, can you link to the exact article that answers civdef's article from NIST, pointing to a previously linked website is pointless.

Have you read that link that civdef posted? I did, seems pretty airtight now imo.

Gordon if you click on the link the first thing you see is the response to NIST. If people read Prof S Jones papers he released last week they would see that the NIST article has already been responded to.If it seems airtight thats a shame, coz its not at all.

In these papers last week he does experiments with motel aluminium to prove NISTs comments about the molten aluminium wrong yet again.
There is no point in me even discussing the experiments if people dont even read the papers.

Gordon

Hi Jocksereire, did you read the link that civdef pointed to just now?

Can you point me to a link that answers civdef's link directly please?

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

Its excellent because his experiments are relevant to the towers coming down and show the chemical remains of explosive at the WTC sites. Have you even read the articles!?!? Nah doubt you have.

I've already posted critiques of his original "paper" on this forum...possibly on stuff that's been folded into this very thread. Said work is badly flawed on a number of levels.

Given that Jones has yet to acknowledge (let alone deal with) the numerous flaws in his original work, I find it highly suspect that any new work of his could be "excellent" in a qualitative sense.

So, no, I haven't read his latest articles. I haven't read them because his original work was enough to convince me that he's not worth listening to until I see some indications that he's improving the quality of his work. Which is partly why I asked why it was excellent.

That is why it is excellent work.:rolleyes:

As expected, your reply is short on detail.

Not one detail on what he actually says, what new evidence he produces, what new proofs he uses. Not one comment on how he has dealt with the criticisms of his original paper and removed said flaws from being applicable to this new work. Hell, you don't even mention anything frmo the original paper either.

His chemical analyses, by the way, are badly flawed. He sees it as highly suspicious that the structural steel he analysed contains almost no chromium, despite the fact that structural steel contains almost no chromium. He sees the presence of sulphur as a possible indicator for thermate (which contains 2% sulphur or perhaps slightly more) but has no question about why the 29% barium-nitrate that should also be there isn't to be found at all.

So I'm still where I started: Its excellent because you like it and it says something you agree with. I even got an eye-rolling smiley for free into the bargain to show how unreasonable my request for more information was. I'd rather have had the information I asked for, but I guess the smiley will do.

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

In these papers last week he does experiments with motel aluminium to prove NISTs comments about the molten aluminium wrong yet again.

It doesn't prove it wrong.

It shows that a single attempt to reproduce the claims, under unknwon control-conditions was not successful.

The same criticisms have already been levelled at his "proofs" involving the ignition of thermite.

There is no point in me even discussing the experiments if people dont even read the papers.

Thjere's even less point if people can't distinguish proof from something which loosely resembles it.

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote:

So, no, I haven't read his latest articles. I haven't read them because his original work was enough to convince me that he's not worth listening to until I see some indications that he's improving the quality of his work. Which is partly why I asked why it was excellent.

Well then not much point in discussing something you wont read. Why even comment on it?[/QUOTE]

As expected, your reply is short on detail.

Yes and intentionally so as the amount a waffle i have read in here is amazing and i wont get pulled into it

Not one detail on what he actually says, what new evidence he produces, what new proofs he uses. Not one comment on how he has dealt with the criticisms of his original paper and removed said flaws from being applicable to this new work. Hell, you don't even mention anything from the original paper either.

Why should i make any points on it? I refer you to the document. The documnet says it alot better than i can. No point im me saying everything in the thread thats said in the paper.

His chemical analyses, by the way, are badly flawed. He sees it as highly suspicious that the structural steel he analysed contains almost no chromium, despite the fact that structural steel contains almost no chromium. He sees the presence of sulphur as a possible indicator for thermate (which contains 2% sulphur or perhaps slightly more) but has no question about why the 29% barium-nitrate that should also be there isn't to be found at all.

How do you know? you havent read it! We can all copy and paste from 911myths
If you dont read it you can ignore the following.
Electron microprobe data (BYU, June 2006)
4. Previously molten metal has Manganese and
Fluorine in abundance (where did Fluorine come from?
Not from structural steel!)

• Fluorine is present in an oxidizer using
Polytetrafluoroethylene as its base,
used in thermite charges.

• Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) is
also commonly used as an oxidizer in
thermite-reactants (aluminothermics).
• Hence, K, Mn and F are often present in
thermite residue, suggesting they are
part of a “thermite fingerprint” at WTC.

Technical notes on use of thermite for cutting steel (etc.) based on government-laboratory
report (1998)

• “The thermite cutting process consists of heating and melting the metal in the
cutting area by the thermal energy released during combustion of a therrnite
mixture (under conditions of an exothermic reaction)…
• These characteristics show that the composition of the [thermite] mixtures
using polytetrafluoroethylene as a base has a heat input 2.5–5.0 times higher
than that of the mixture based on thermite. These mixtures were tested on
bench generators. The target consisted of plates made from Kh18NT brand
stainless steel with dimensions of 100x 100mm and with a thickness of 2 to 6
mm, which were set up 50mm from the generator nozzle. [This is where the
Fluorine can come from: thermite mixture with polytetrafluoroethylene
as a base.]
• As a result of the experimental work performed, the following conclusions were
reached:
• Almost any metal or nonmetallic material can be subjected to thermite cutting.
• The thermite cutting process can be performed in different attitudes… [vertical
cuts as well as horizontal cuts, etc.]
• The thermite cutting technique ensures autonomous work performance… away
from electric power…
• The thermite cutting technique is characterized by maneuverability and the
small dimensions of its devices, which allows use of the technique in hard-toreach
locations.
• The pyrotechnic cutting torch can be used with automatic and remote-control systems"

So I'm still where I started: Its excellent because you like it and it says something you agree with. I even got an eye-rolling smiley for free into the bargain to show how unreasonable my request for more information was. I'd rather have had the information I asked for, but I guess the smiley will do.

Your request for more information? How about reading the Paper so

Diogenes

Bonkey....So good you had to say it twice. Jockeserie pwn'd

jockeserie wrote:

Are you saying this transaction didnt take place??? LOL

Yeah pretty much, I mean why? What was he supposed to do this cash?

Im contantly in awe of the fact that people who believe the governments conspiracy refuse to ackowledge information shown to them such as in the link above. But hey lets all be in awe of the amazing coincedences of what happened on that day

You mean like the amazing coincedence of the plane hitting the side of the building that was reinforced? I mean what are the odds?

You seem to assume those you address are ignorant, not that we've looked at the risible "evidence" and drawn a conclusion of the evidence.

The fact that the conspiracy theorists argument is video heavy but word poor, is evidence that the dubious evidence presented as "proof" is at least partial evidence that the conspiracy theorists are fact poor and rely on conjecture and speculation, presented as fact, in a fleeting manner that a viewer (not reader) cannot with any real degree of ease consider and examine, as they can do with the written word.

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote:

Thjere's even less point if people can't distinguish proof from something which loosely resembles it.

I with you here agree here

Gordon

Gordon wrote:

Hi Jocksereire, did you read the link that civdef pointed to just now?

Can you point me to a link that answers civdef's link directly please?

Sorry to bump this, just wondering if you missed/didn't read it.

Jocksereire

Yesterdays Poll on MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720
60, 000+ votes
those crackpot theorists !

Ciaran500

Jocksereire wrote:

Yesterdays Poll on MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720
60, 000+ votes
those crackpot theorists !

Whats that supposed to prove? Alot of people believe conspiracy theories? We already knew that.

Jocksereire

Diogenes wrote:

Yeah pretty much, I mean why? What was he supposed to do this cash?

Tut Tut now http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001298
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/08/india.ressa/

Who knows what he did with the cash or who he passed it on to. You say this transaction didnt happen coz....eh you said so....:rolleyes:

Do you still disagree???

FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL
Yesterday we noted a report from a Pakistani newspaper that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad had been fired as head of Islamabad's Inter-Services Security agency after U.S. linked him to a militant allied with terrorists who hijacked an Indian Airlines plane in 1999. Now the Times of India says Ahmad is connected to the Sept. 11 attacks:

Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd.

Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.

The fact that the conspiracy theorists argument is video heavy but word poor, is evidence that the dubious evidence presented as "proof" is at least partial evidence that the conspiracy theorists are fact poor and rely on conjecture and speculation, presented as fact, in a fleeting manner that a viewer (not reader) cannot with any real degree of ease consider and examine, as they can do with the written word.

Oh dear......

Jocksereire

Ciaran500 wrote:

Whats that supposed to prove? Alot of people believe conspiracy theories? We already knew that.

Bump it all you want i have provided you the link

Gordon

Jocksereire wrote:

Bump it all you want i have provided you the link

Is that reply for me?

Your link takes me to a website with lots of links. Which link is the link that refutes civdef's link?! Can you please post it, thanks.

Squaddy

Ciaran500 wrote:

So this is the big video now? I remeber when Loose Change was posted by everyone taking it as gospel. That turned out well. ¬_¬

Is it? How would i know? I never posted loose change once.

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

Well then not much point in discussing something you wont read. Why even comment on it?

I said I hadn't read it. That you understood this to mean that I won't read it is unsurprising.

As it is, I've thrown a quick eye over it. Looks like a slightly updated version of his original paper. Same glaring errors are still there.

Yes and intentionally so as the amount a waffle i have read in here is amazing and i wont get pulled into it

So thats why there's been so much activity by yourself on this thread in the past few days. Its because you don't want to take part in the discussion!!!!

Why should i make any points on it?

To show that its more than the same, tired, old, oft-repeated, already-answered stuff that we're sick to death of but that some new poster has found and thinks that they - like every other CT on the planet - will be the first to point it out to everyone.

To show that you've actually read it, understood it, considered and reasearched it and are thus capable of offering soemthing approaching a qualitiative opinion and aren't just offering the good old "I've no idea if its true or not, but it sure as heck sounds convincing to me" type of thing. Which, it would seem, is exactly what you're offering.

I refer you to the document. The documnet says it alot better than i can. No point im me saying everything in the thread thats said in the paper.

So instead of sdaying everything, you went for the nothing option. Maybe its just me, but I was always of the opinion that there are more then two options here - that you could have said just enough to distinguish yourself from the know-nothing types who just push anything and everything on whoever is unfortunate enough to be reading.

How do you know? you havent read it!

I said I hadn't read the new articles you mentioned. The errors I were referring to were in the so-called paper he had pulled from BYU, which I can assure you I have read, have critiqued on this forum, and am quite familiar with.

4. Previously molten metal has Manganese and
Fluorine in abundance (where did Fluorine come from?
Not from structural steel!)

This was from the lump of "melted together" stuff that he found...right....so can he show there were no sources of fluorine in the rubble-pile other than what he wants it to have come from? After all, he can't prove the fluorine was there before collapse, and even Jones claims there was molten metal in the rubble-piles.

Also, its relevant to ask how much fluorine he detected, seeing as his results are suspiciously absent anywhere I can find references to this electron-microprobe having being used.

• Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) is
also commonly used as an oxidizer in
thermite-reactants (aluminothermics).
• Hence, K, Mn and F are often present in
thermite residue, suggesting they are
part of a “thermite fingerprint” at WTC.

Alternately, one can equally point out that manganese is a standard component of structural steel, and should be expected to be found, as should the iron (I assume you meant Fe where you wrote F).

So of the three items present, two should have been found anyway. The third may or may not have been expected (flouride compounds are, in fact, used in the manufacture of steel), but at the very least the question of when it was incorporated into the sample is uncertain as even Jone's own belief in molten steel persisting in the basements long after collapse means that it could have been introduced at any time up to when the steel recooled.

We can then go further and note that Jones also finds the lack of Chromium suspicious, claiming that its always found in structural steel. This is perhaps the worst error of the lot, as Chromium should be found in stainless steel, but not in structural steel. This is hardly a mistake you can easily forgive from someone claiming any sort of expertise in the materials in question.

As I already mentioned, he has no comment about why he doesn't find other traces that he should expect, but makes a big deal out of finding low concentrations of others that should have been fuond in low occurrence. He also uses equations for red iron-rust despite the fact that its vastly less effciient than black, and yet introduces thermate and other more exotic options to give more efficiency.

The list goes on. Suffice it to say that if this paper were ever given a proper peer-review, it would be laughed out of court (so to speak). Hell, even the Engineering Dept at BYU came out against it because he got his materials science so wrong.

Your request for more information? How about reading the Paper so

My request was to see if you could explain why it was excellent as you claimed. To see if there was any reason I shoudl give this my time instead of the hours of video and reading that other people have equally told me are excellent and should be given my full attention. I have limited time - I don't think its asking too much to ask people why they gave something the accolade they did, when they obviously care enough to encourage others to view/read it.

Your response makes it clear that Jones' work is just more of the same. Indeed, it looks to be a lightly-revised version of the original paper. Therefore, all the existing criticisms of Jones' work will remain valid. I might read it just in case there really is something new in there, but I don't hold out much hope.

Squaddy

Ciaran500 wrote:

Whats that supposed to prove? Alot of people believe conspiracy theories? We already knew that.

I dont believe conspiracy theories, in fact i would agree that a lot of loose change is bs.

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

Tut Tut now http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001298
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/08/india.ressa/

Who knows what he did with the cash or who he passed it on to. You say this transaction didnt happen coz....eh you said so....:rolleyes:

No your original claim was that this was the CIA, a claim that you've not proven. Pakistian's security services close ties with fundamental Islam is well documented, you've taken two plus two and reached a thousand. Theres no evidence that Atta was paid by the US "gubment"

Oh dear......

Oh dear indeed. Incidently heres a link that makes the case the Irish were in fact behind all of this. It uses the same level of evidence thats "proof" for tunaman and jockeserie

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

Incidently tunaman hasn't risen to Bonkey's challenge.

Jocksereire

Diogenes wrote:

No your original claim was that this was the CIA, a claim that you've not proven.

what i said was "It is an excellent film showing CIA's connections to Al Queda. How the head of ISI wired Mohamed Atta(one of the hijakers)100,000$ the day before 911 and then spent the next 3 days with US government officials discussing partnerships with pakistan. "
Now..... you said that the head of ISI didnt wire money to Atta. And showed you news reports which state otherwise.
I asked you "Are you saying this transaction didnt take place??? " Your reply was "Yeah pretty much"
Keep reading the 911myths its great stuff altogether!

Gordon

civdef wrote:

Don't think I posted this before:

NIST responds to the conspiracy theories:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Jockseire doesn't seem to have a link that gives retorts to this particular link, does anybody?

Apparently it is somewhere on this website, but I'm not sure where..

Squaddy

9/11 Truth Movements response to NIST

Link - its not much but its a start till i find something good.

Ten Big Questions About 9/11

Gordon

Thanks Squaddy, finally got an answer! Maybe Jockseire wasn't actually reading what was written so thought he had answered the question?

The 911blogger.com is more relevant to civdef's NIST link but it seems that it's early days to get any decent retorts to the NIST answers yet as they are conversing about it. When they come up with an official reply to NIST's reply - could you let us know?

Squaddy

Gordon wrote:

Thanks Squaddy, finally got an answer! Maybe Jockseire wasn't actually reading what was written so thought he had answered the question?

The 911blogger.com is more relevant to civdef's NIST link but it seems that it's early days to get any decent retorts to the NIST answers yet as they are conversing about it. When they come up with an official reply to NIST's reply - could you let us know?

No prob ill see what I can do. I did see a good one somewhere but i cant seem to find it again.

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

what i said was "It is an excellent film showing CIA's connections to Al Queda. How the head of ISI wired Mohamed Atta(one of the hijakers)100,000$ the day before 911 and then spent the next 3 days with US government officials discussing partnerships with pakistan. "
Now..... you said that the head of ISI didnt wire money to Atta.

Really? Really, where did I say that? I think you'll find I was dismissive of the timing, but I never said, "no he didn't". I'm just wondering what he was supposed to do with all that cash hours before he killed himself.

Okay, and again for the hard of thinking, you've yet to prove any connection between the CIA and Al Qaeda. The ISI's links to Al Qaeda isn't been debated, just your incredibly credulous claim re the CIA.

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote:

Everyone knows a picture is worth a thousand words. Its a proven scientific fact.

I guess that means a one hour, 24 minute video at 25fps is worth 7,560,000,000 words!

Squaddy

A plane did really hit the pentagon

Look at this link its very good.

Gordon

oscarBravo wrote:

I guess that means a one hour, 24 minute video at 25fps is worth 7,560,000,000 words!

Tsk tsk, I think web video is around 12fps isn't it?!

Nick_oliveri

Gordon wrote:

Jockseire doesn't seem to have a link that gives retorts to this particular link, does anybody?

Apparently it is somewhere on this website, but I'm not sure where..

That Website wrote:

NIST and the World Trade Center: Official "Questions and Answers"
NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply
Jim Hoffman
Why NIST hasn't Answered its own Questions
Jim Fetzer
Why the NIST "Fact Sheet" Just Won't Do
Sean Glazier
Responses to NIST's FAQs
Kevin Ryan
Comments on Some of NIST's FAQs
Charles Pegelow
NIST and "The Foot Of God"
Robert Rice
Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
Steven E. Jones

Right hand side of the page, under "Responding to NIST's Official "Questions and Answers".
God that took a long few posts to be shown. :P

Ciaran500

Squaddy wrote:

Is it? How would i know? I never posted loose change once.

Wasn't really directed at you, just a general comment on the ammount of new videos and papers that people bring up once the previous one is ripped to shreds. Gets kind of annoying.

Gordon

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Right hand side of the page, under "Responding to NIST's Official "Questions and Answers".
God that took a long few posts to be shown. :P

Nick, I saw those links (along with all the other front page links) and the first link pointed to the NIST website and the second seemed to point to a copy of the NIST answers to the conspiracy theorists. Hence, I didn't read further.

Now I'm looking harder and it seems that the retort is indeed the second link which contains the answers to conspiracy theorists with added 'Notes' of an explanation (read: retort) against the NIST's answers. So.. thanks, I'll read that later.

Squaddy

Ciaran500 wrote:

Wasn't really directed at you, just a general comment on the ammount of new videos and papers that people bring up once the previous one is ripped to shreds. Gets kind of annoying.

Alright, soz, no prob, ill take it back.