Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

[tango]

Yeah, here's a commnet...

Why exactly is most of the 'evidence' that conspiricy theorists rely on in the form of videos?

Perhaps conspiricy theorists, instead of wasting time watching videos of documentaries and speeches by their favoirite 'believers', would be better served by taking a few remedial science classes.

Meanwhile, while the average conspiricy theorist is wasting time watching videos, scientists and engineers are publishing articles in peer reviewed journals debunking the nonsense of conspiricy believers.

references please

[GostHacked]

Yes, the Fifth Estate video is old news....nothing there that hasn't been discussed before. I got bored with the other video. Got anything better?

I thought you were not going to waste your time watching any more videos. Now you want more?? That is pretty dumb.

[benny]

references please

Peer-reviewed journals doesn't mean much more than journals where articles are approved by referees sharing the same very specialized prejudices than the authors.

[segnosaur]

Perhaps conspiricy theorists, instead of wasting time watching videos of documentaries and speeches by their favoirite 'believers', would be better served by taking a few remedial science classes.

Meanwhile, while the average conspiricy theorist is wasting time watching videos, scientists and engineers are publishing articles in peer reviewed journals debunking the nonsense of conspiricy believers.

references please

Ummm... what exactly did you want a reference to?

Here's a reference to a peer reviewed paper detailing the collapse of the towers (note: they are actually describing the strutural failure; they are not attributing it to explosives, death rays, mini-nukes, bionic cochroaches, or any of the other explainations that conspiricy theorists like to trot out.)

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

It was:

A: written by people with an academic history in structural engineering (unlike most conspiricy theory 'experts', like Jones, who are writing about fields they have no experience in)

B: appeared in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, a peer-reviewed journal, where any articles are reviewed by multiple experts in the field (who have no stake in the outcome) in order to ensure there are no major flaws in the article

Edited April 21, 2009 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

A forum is the place where one gets in control of ideology and science is also an ideology.

Ummm... no. Science is not an ideology. Science is a way of discovering knowlege about the world. It involves building hypothesies, collecting evidence, and then accepting or rejecting the hypothesis based on the data presented.

The fact that you would consider 'knowledge' to be nothing more than an 'ideology' reveals why exactly you don't seem to be capable of recognizing your conspiricy theory as bunk, and why you seem to be incapable of actually putting together rational thoughs on the issue.

Peer-reviewed journals doesn't mean much more than journals where articles are approved by referees sharing the same very specialized prejudices than the authors.

Since when did knowledge and expertise become 'prejudices'?

When you go to the doctor, do you usually get a second opinion from the janitor?

[bush_cheney2004]

I thought you were not going to waste your time watching any more videos. Now you want more?? That is pretty dumb.

I watch lots of videos...about all kinds of things. LOL!

[WIP]

My point is it was a controversial decision even with the attack on the WTC, and certainly the American people would not have agreed to the war without the WTC attack. So there was good motivation for Bush to engineer mass destruction and maximum death.

This argument made no sense to me the first time I heard it when Alex Jones was on late night radio one night, and still doesn't make sense. There is no logical progression from WTC to WMD's to invading Iraq. 9/11 doesn't not fit the narrative, and that's why conspiracy theorists have to create convoluted schemes to fit it in.

Before 9/11, the Bush Administration was trying to build a case that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD production from U.N. inspectors, and they were totally pissed off when Mohammed El Baradei and even one of their own weapons inspectors - Scott Ritter, contradicted claims of secret WMD production. The truth is that, if there is a conspiracy, it is in the phony evidence, like the yellow-cake uranium from Niger, and the coaching of phony witnesses like the infamous "Curveball." That's where the scandal is, and if anything, 9/11 required a change of plans, because first, they had to invade Afghanistan to try to get Bin Laden.

But, notice that Afghanistan's major operations were wrapped up in a hasty manner so they could get back to planning the Iraq Invasion. There are even a number of former Bush insiders, such as Paul Oneil, who claim that plans for an Iraq Invasion were being drawn up long before 9/11. 9/11 didn't help the invasion plans -- it was a temporary delay to the original goal, and that's why the reasons for the Iraq Invasion kept changing from week to week, throughout the Bush Years -- one thing they were never able to do convincingly, was to connect the dots between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein -- and that's where the conspiracy theory really falls apart -- it doesn't benefit the Iraq strategy.

When I listened to Alex Jones and some of the other 9/11 conspiracy theorists, what bothered me most, wasn't the way they portray themselves as instant construction and chemical engineers - telling us what a collapsed building can or cannot do - what bothers me is the implicit assumption that America cannot have foreign enemies. A terrorist attack on U.S. soil could not be caused because America has real enemies who would want to carry out a terrorist attack -- instead, it has to be a government conspiracy -- so guys like Alex Jones, ignore or minimize Islamic terrorist groups. The assumption is that the only time they can be a danger, is if they are co-opted by the CIA.

[Wilber]

WIP you silly devil, you're using logic.

[GostHacked]

This argument made no sense to me the first time I heard it when Alex Jones was on late night radio one night, and still doesn't make sense. There is no logical progression from WTC to WMD's to invading Iraq. 9/11 doesn't not fit the narrative, and that's why conspiracy theorists have to create convoluted schemes to fit it in.

I agree with you here. However, the dismal connection that was said to exist between Al-Queda and Hussein, led to the suggestion of a possible link between Hussein and 9/11. Alright, Bush was not the greatest speaker ever, but in the wake of 9/11, it would not be so hard to convince people that if something is not done, something much worse than 9/11 will happen. The power of fear led to the connection in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Before 9/11, the Bush Administration was trying to build a case that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD production from U.N. inspectors, and they were totally pissed off when Mohammed El Baradei and even one of their own weapons inspectors - Scott Ritter, contradicted claims of secret WMD production. The truth is that, if there is a conspiracy, it is in the phony evidence, like the yellow-cake uranium from Niger, and the coaching of phony witnesses like the infamous "Curveball." That's where the scandal is, and if anything, 9/11 required a change of plans, because first, they had to invade Afghanistan to try to get Bin Laden.

Well, something should set off alarms in ones mind, when the reasons for the invasion kept changing. If they had said from the start and stuck with it, that regime change needed to happen regardless of 9/11, supposed WMDs and the lack of locating even one, do you really think the stupid public would have gone along with it and supported the invasion initially? Why did the support fall so fast after the cakewalk of an invasion over a severly crippled military after 10 years of sancitons and foriegn patrolled no-fly-zones?

Considering Bin Laden was said to be behind 9/11 leading Al-queda to fly planes into buildings, it makes sense to go after the people who organized 9/11. It was obviously a failure, because Bin Laden and Company are kicking it out in the backwoods of Pakistan. Another Mission Accomplished. But it turns out that Kaleid Sheik Mohammed, the now known ringleader incarcerated at GITMO, is the actual brains behind the opperation. I will also say that Bin Laden won't be caught in Pakistan either. He will die simply of old age.

But, notice that Afghanistan's major operations were wrapped up in a hasty manner so they could get back to planning the Iraq Invasion. There are even a number of former Bush insiders, such as Paul Oneil, who claim that plans for an Iraq Invasion were being drawn up long before 9/11. 9/11 didn't help the invasion plans -- it was a temporary delay to the original goal, and that's why the reasons for the Iraq Invasion kept changing from week to week, throughout the Bush Years -- one thing they were never able to do convincingly, was to connect the dots between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein -- and that's where the conspiracy theory really falls apart -- it doesn't benefit the Iraq strategy.

Well, something should set off alarms in ones mind, when the reasons for the invasion kept changing. If they had stuck from the start that regime change needed to happen regardless of 9/11, supposed WMDs and the lack of locating even one, do you really think the stupid public would have gone along with it and supported the invasion initially? Why did the support fall so fast after the cakewalk of an invasion over a severly crippled military after 10 years of sancitons and foriegn patrolled no-fly-zones?

When I listened to Alex Jones and some of the other 9/11 conspiracy theorists, what bothered me most, wasn't the way they portray themselves as instant construction and chemical engineers - telling us what a collapsed building can or cannot do - what bothers me is the implicit assumption that America cannot have foreign enemies. A terrorist attack on U.S. soil could not be caused because America has real enemies who would want to carry out a terrorist attack -- instead, it has to be a government conspiracy -- so guys like Alex Jones, ignore or minimize Islamic terrorist groups. The assumption is that the only time they can be a danger, is if they are co-opted by the CIA.

You will get no arguments from me on Alex Jones. I find him a little too passionate about all of this and all the information he gives. So I take his stuff with some salt as well. However, the CIA has done shady things to the American public before, don't put it past them to do it again.

[lit_schaeffer]

The idea that there is a monolithic 'conspiracy theory' being proposed as an alternative to the official conspiracy theory is incorrect. I have no idea what happened on 9/11, nor do I ever expect to know. My main interest is in the continued apathy toward finding out. It has been pointed out that the U.S. government spent considerably more money investigating the challenger accident which killed less than 10 people than it did investigating the 9/11 attacks, which killed thousands.

This is sadly not an isolated incident. The U.S. went into the Vietnam War based on the Tonkin Gulf incident, which we now know never happened. It went into the first Gulf War largely as a reaction to stories of atrocities fabricated by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. It went into the second Gulf War based on WMD's which weren't there. In none of these cases was there any surprise or outrage on the part of the general population when these deceits came to light. They were so lightly reported most Americans probably still don't know about them.

If andwhen the truth about 9/11 comes out, I doubt it will merit coverage on the front page of any American newspaper, if there are any left to report it.

On another note, the following answer appeared to one of my previous posts:

'First of all, the towers didn't exactly collapse into their own 'footprint'. The collapse of all 3 towers was messy, and the collapse of WTC7 actually damaged several surrounding buildings. If it were being carried out by a 'controlled demoliton', it was a lot messier than any other controlled demolition."

I don't mind being quoted, but being misquoted upsets me. I stated that building 7 fell into its own footprint, which if you watch the demolition, it clearly does. I made no claims regarding the other buildings.

[segnosaur]

The idea that there is a monolithic 'conspiracy theory' being proposed as an alternative to the official conspiracy theory is incorrect. I have no idea what happened on 9/11, nor do I ever expect to know. My main interest is in the continued apathy toward finding out. It has been pointed out that the U.S. government spent considerably more money investigating the challenger accident which killed less than 10 people than it did investigating the 9/11 attacks, which killed thousands.

First of all, you wouldn't happen to, you know, have any actual PROOF that the U.S. spent more investigating the Challenger than 9/11? You made the claim, now you have to support it.

Secondly, lets assume you're right. (You're not, but lets pretend you are...) What do you think is harder, investigating the shuttle disaster where there is no first hand knowledge over what happened, or investgating 9/11, where we have A: confessions by the hijackers themselves, B: airline records, C: About a gazillion minutes of TV footage.

On another note, the following answer appeared to one of my previous posts:

'First of all, the towers didn't exactly collapse into their own 'footprint'. The collapse of all 3 towers was messy, and the collapse of WTC7 actually damaged several surrounding buildings. If it were being carried out by a 'controlled demoliton', it was a lot messier than any other controlled demolition."

I don't mind being quoted, but being misquoted upsets me. I stated that building 7 fell into its own footprint, which if you watch the demolition, it clearly does. I made no claims regarding the other buildings.

You weren't misquoted...

Once again... ALL THREE towers, INCLUDING WTC7, damanged surrounding buildings when they collapsed. WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint; it damaged neighbouring buildings. (I believe the reference I gave pointed out that buildings were damaged more than 70 feet away.)

[Michael Hardner]

lit,

The idea that there is a monolithic 'conspiracy theory' being proposed as an alternative to the official conspiracy theory is incorrect. I have no idea what happened on 9/11, nor do I ever expect to know. My main interest is in the continued apathy toward finding out. It has been pointed out that the U.S. government spent considerably more money investigating the challenger accident which killed less than 10 people than it did investigating the 9/11 attacks, which killed thousands.

The cause of the Challenger explosion was unknown. The causes of the attacks on 9/11 are clear.

This is sadly not an isolated incident. The U.S. went into the Vietnam War based on the Tonkin Gulf incident, which we now know never happened. It went into the first Gulf War largely as a reaction to stories of atrocities fabricated by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. It went into the second Gulf War based on WMD's which weren't there. In none of these cases was there any surprise or outrage on the part of the general population when these deceits came to light. They were so lightly reported most Americans probably still don't know about them.

If andwhen the truth about 9/11 comes out, I doubt it will merit coverage on the front page of any American newspaper, if there are any left to report it.

Sadly is right. False flag operations have happened in the past, but I'm convinced most people who are calling for an investigation into 9/11 will never believe the obvious and mostly correct 'official story'.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[tango]

The causes of the attacks on 9/11 are clear.

And what are they again?

[benny]

Ummm... no. Science is not an ideology. Science is a way of discovering knowlege about the world. It involves building hypothesies, collecting evidence, and then accepting or rejecting the hypothesis based on the data presented.

The fact that you would consider 'knowledge' to be nothing more than an 'ideology' reveals why exactly you don't seem to be capable of recognizing your conspiricy theory as bunk, and why you seem to be incapable of actually putting together rational thoughs on the issue.

...

Since when did knowledge and expertise become 'prejudices'?

When you go to the doctor, do you usually get a second opinion from the janitor?

It is well known in physics that subjective decisions about what to measure are determining what one will end up observing.

Edited April 23, 2009 by benny

[JerrySeinfeld]

So did Bush plan the London tube bombings, too? How about the Madrid train attacks?

What about the Bali nightclub bombing?

Or the fatwa (price on the head) of Salman Rushdie?

Or how about the attacks on the USS Cole?

Or what about the nun who was shot in the back in Somalia as reaction to Danish cartoons?

Or the "protests" in Manchester demending "Death to the Jews"?

Ya. I'm sure Bush was behind alll of it and global Islamofascism is a figment of our imagination, conjured up by Dick Cheney and Rummy over a bottle of scotch and a couple of cigars.

hahahaha. I love lefties. Or I would, if they didn't run our universities, media outlets and, now, the US government.

Scary.

[bush_cheney2004]

... If they had said from the start and stuck with it, that regime change needed to happen regardless of 9/11, supposed WMDs and the lack of locating even one, do you really think the stupid public would have gone along with it and supported the invasion initially?

Yes, the public would have supported the invasion of Iraq, the same as it supported other sanctions and military operations against Saddam. Go back and read the Congressional resolution authorizing the war.

Is the "public" only smart when it agrees with you?

Edited April 21, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[benny]

So did Bush plan the London tube bombings, too? How about the Madrid train attacks?

What about the Bali nightclub bombing?

Or the fatwa (price on the head) of Salman Rushdie?

Or how about the attacks on the USS Cole?

Or what about the nun who was shot in the back in Somalia as reaction to Danish cartoons?

Or the "protests" in Manchester demending "Death to the Jews"?

Ya. I'm sure Bush was behind alll of it and global Islamofascism is a figment of our imagination, conjured up by Dick Cheney and Rummy over a bottle of scotch and a couple of cigars.

hahahaha. I love lefties. Or I would, if they didn't run our universities, media outlets and, now, the US government.

Scary.

Since all camps were or still are interconnected, the game that is been played out is which camp will succeed most positively to use the other camp to advance its interests.

[GostHacked]

Yes, the public would have supported the invasion of Iraq, the same as it supported other sanctions and military operations against Saddam. Go back and read the Congressional resolution authorizing the war.

Is the "public" only smart when it agrees with you?

No, just when they have been given the proper information. It was counted on that people would not see the forest for the trees and make the connection themselves. Power of fear can do wonderful things for the powers that be.

Without 9/11 it would have been very tough for the American public to get behind the invasion of Iraq. Hell, I beleived the official story at the start, and I stil say it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, knowing how people misinterpreted the rhetoric. But you see, the Cheney Admninistration never wanted to correct that either, knowing it would work in their favour. Simple as that.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, just when they have been given the proper information. It was counted on that people would not see the forest for the trees and make the connection themselves. Power of fear can do wonderful things for the powers that be.

The American public had/has very diverse views at any given time, but actions against Saddam were already in motion and supported by a majority. Congress agreed.

Without 9/11 it would have been very tough for the American public to get behind the invasion of Iraq.

Harder, but certainly not impossible. President Clinton didn't need any 9/11 to attack Iraq and Serbia.

Hell, I beleived the official story at the start, and I stil say it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, knowing how people misinterpreted the rhetoric. But you see, the Cheney Admninistration never wanted to correct that either, knowing it would work in their favour. Simple as that.

Why would they "correct" any such advantage? Saddam had been a pain-in-the-ass for 12 years, and regime change was a matter of public law (1998).

Sorry, but your belief and opinion on the matter were/are irrelevant.

[GostHacked]

The American public had/has very diverse views at any given time, but actions against Saddam were already in motion and supported by a majority. Congress agreed.

Politicians voted on it , the public had no choice. Simple as that.

Harder, but certainly not impossible. President Clinton didn't need any 9/11 to attack Iraq and Serbia.

I am surprised you didn't mention Canada here. And from what I know , the only two people who initiated attacks on Iraq had the same last name. Howver, with some research.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Looks like Clinton took care of the problem. .... oh wait

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate

*facepalm*

Why would they "correct" any such advantage? Saddam had been a pain-in-the-ass for 12 years, and regime change was a matter of public law (1998).

Well, as I have gotten from you in another thread, you support lies and deceit. So, your opinion is about as relevant as mine.

Sorry, but your belief and opinion on the matter were/are irrelevant.

CANADA !!!!!!!

[M.Dancer]

There were numerous strikes against Iraq during Clinton's tenure....

[GostHacked]

But again, let's get back to the topic at hand, jsut because we have some posters who are soo good at derailing threads.

[M.Dancer]

But again, let's get back to the topic at hand, jsut because we have some posters who are soo good at derailing threads.

What you call derailing threads other might call a rapier thrust to the illogic of the premise.

[bush_cheney2004]

Politicians voted on it , the public had no choice. Simple as that.

It was simple as that for the other wars too....even the ones you "liked".

I am surprised you didn't mention Canada here. And from what I know , the only two people who initiated attacks on Iraq had the same last name. Howver, with some research.

Guess again....Operation Desert Fox was most certainly an attack. The UK joined in the fun.

Looks like Clinton took care of the problem. .... oh wait

If you consider killing Iraqis the solurion....OK.

Well, as I have gotten from you in another thread, you support lies and deceit. So, your opinion is about as relevant as mine.

No long threads about Canada in Iraq....I wonder why?

CANADA !!!!!!!

That's the spirit....wishing on a dream.

[bush_cheney2004]

What you call derailing threads other might call a rapier thrust to the illogic of the premise.

They don't like that..especially the thrusting part.