9/11

[stignasty]

I don't spend a lot of time on speculation. . .

. . . and the ocean isn't wet.

[PolyNewbie]

did you see yourself in the above linked video cartoon stignasty ?

PeterF: none of them have any inside knowledge of the conspiracy or had anything to do with the conspiracy.

Intelligence experts and histoirians seem to think only 10 or so people would know about the big plot. I guess you agree with the presstitute idiots like Gwyn Dyer who say it had to be 10,000.

911 Officials

[Peter F]

did you see yourself in the above linked video cartoon stignasty ?

PeterF: none of them have any inside knowledge of the conspiracy or had anything to do with the conspiracy.

Intelligence experts and histoirians seem to think only 10 or so people would know about the big plot. I guess you agree with the presstitute idiots like Gwyn Dyer who say it had to be 10,000.

911 Officials

You're ignoring the obvious, Polly. What is it your polls say? 38% of Americans think you're right and the US govt was involved in 9/11? or is it 40%?

That what? 40% of 300 million people? So near half the population of the US thinks there is a coverup going on and that the government was involved in the greatest mass murder in modern history.

Yet, surprisinly, none of them were involved in any suspicious activity that they feel could have had something to do with the conspiracy that they believe exists.

The Genius of the 10 or so conspirators is absolutely astounding! Not only do they parce up the work of the conspiracy in tiny packets (sortof like the Monty Python skit 'The Funniest Joke in the World') but, on top of that, they only contract out to contractors who, after 9/11, will think the conspiracy theory is bunk

Sorry, Polly, no hunting yet.

[stignasty]

did you see yourself in the above linked video cartoon stignasty ?

No, I didn't follow your link because the theories you propose are nonsense.

[PolyNewbie]

PeterF:Sorry, Polly, no hunting yet.

I never actually expect to convince you. You claim to be an engineer but your discussion is cautious not to involve actual evidence.

The rate of collapse and mechanics of the collapse already prove 911 was an inside job. All the other stuff is just additional ammunition for people that are not confident in their understanding of basic physics.

People like you and stignasty will always ensure that we get a tyrannical government if the government wants to be tyrannical.

Constant use of "Polly" proves you are low life trash anyways.

[PolyNewbie]

PeterF:Yet, surprisinly, none of them were involved in any suspicious activity that they feel could have had something to do with the conspiracy that they believe exists.

The Genius of the 10 or so conspirators is absolutely astounding! Not only do they parce up the work of the conspiracy in tiny packets (sortof like the Monty Python skit 'The Funniest Joke in the World') but, on top of that, they only contract out to contractors who, after 9/11, will think the conspiracy theory is bunk

Most of this statement doesn't even stand up as logic. Making statements like this proves you are a gate keeper. All 'empty' arguements presented as fact.

The point of compartmentalization is so that even if someone thinks there is wrongdoing they are unable to connect their actions to the wrongdoing and therefore don't bother reporting it. When someone works for the government they will not accuse the government of wrongdoing witrhout very strong evidence. In the post 911 world [people lose their jobs for questioning things.

[Peter F]

PeterF:Sorry, Polly, no hunting yet.

I never actually expect to convince you. You claim to be an engineer but your discussion is cautious not to involve actual evidence.

The rate of collapse and mechanics of the collapse already prove 911 was an inside job. All the other stuff is just additional ammunition for people that are not confident in their understanding of basic physics.

People like you and stignasty will always ensure that we get a tyrannical government if the government wants to be tyrannical.

I claim to be an engineer?? Never have, Polly. Its you that claims to have a BA in Electrical Engineering - yet you have no idea what an EMP is...and you never actually attended the classes - but you taught instead!

Regarding the understanding of basic physics, some time ago you were going to produce the explanation of how the 2nd law of thermodynamics explains everything....you were working on it and promised it 'tomorrow'. But like your every other promise of an explanation for us layfolk - you have produced nada. nothing. All talk but no substance.

You believe in Black magic; a small group of people conducting Mind Control; Are incapable of critical thought; and a constant liar.

you are the biggest bullshitter on this web.

[PolyNewbie]

Regarding the understanding of basic physics, some time ago you were going to produce the explanation of how the 2nd law of thermodynamics explains everything....you were working on it and promised it 'tomorrow'. But like your every other promise of an explanation for us layfolk - you have produced nada. nothing. All talk but no substance.

You are right I got busy but I did post a link with a paper written by a Phd physicist (Dr Stephen Jones) that explains that the tower collapse as in the official version is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

I guess you must have missed that be accident.

The reason I haven't explained it yet is that I lost the link that neatly explains how the second law would apply in this situation. I could "wing it" they way you apologists do but that is not how I do things.

[stignasty]

a Phd physicist (Dr Stephen Jones)

WTC collapse controversy

At a department seminar held on September 22, 2005, Jones presented the substance of the paper that would become "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?".[9] His hypothesis is that on September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center towers and Seven World Trade Center collapsed as a result of controlled demolition, not the impact of the airplanes that hit them or the fires that followed. Jones highlights several what he says are anomalies in the collapse events, and underscores what he says are deficiencies in the official explanations, including: symmetry of the collapses, speed of the collapses, characteristics of dust jets, reports of molten metal in the debris piles, failures of the official collapse theories; and calls for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition hypothesis along with the release of all relevant data by the government. Shortly after the seminar Jones made the paper available on the website of the physics department of Brigham Young University. It would eventually be published in a book of essays critical of the official version of the September 11, 2001, attacks, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[10]

Jones has been interviewed by mainstream news sources and has made a number of public appearances, including the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, which was held in Los Angeles on June 24-25, 2006.[11] While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[12] his public comments have suggested a considerable degree of certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the culpability of rogue agents working within the U.S. government.[13] In an article published on September 5, 2006, Jones told The Guardian that the attacks were an "inside job".[14] His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.[15]

The paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor. Engineers have dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis with reference to the consensus that has formed in the engineering community about the collapses.[16][17] Jones's early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty[18] and shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners", and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[19]

Jones has always maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication. On Thursday, September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.[20] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones's work and the fact it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.[21] The review was supposed to be three-tiered, with the school's administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department involved.[22] This action has drawn fresh criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations are long time critics of BYU's record on academic freedom.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Judy Wood Phd (Engineering)

Judy Wood left the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" due to disagreement with the organization, objecting in particular to the Scholar's rejection of their 'no plane' theories (theories arguing that no planes hit the World Trade Center).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth

[PolyNewbie]

No one has yet put forth a theory or idea on how those buildings cokllapsed without explaosives that hasn't been exposed as scientifically wrong or ridiculous. Glaring scientific errors and / or unreasonable assumptions are a constant feature of these kinds of "scientific" work.

Pick one, lets go through it.

There is physical evidence to suggest that planes did not hit the towers. I don't get involved with speculation on what may have happened. I do not understand how a light weight aluminum wing and fuel can punch a hole in a structural steel beam. The planes made cartoon cutouts on the building and this doesn't seem possible to me on first look - but like I said I do not spend much time on theories.

Besides, the fellow scientists at BYU do not actually point out why Jones is wrong. They are simply complaining about him saying what he said. If he was wrong they would point out why - unless the protest was purely political.

[Jerry Galinda]

Exactly.

“Even among the hijackers, not all knew the whole plot” – it’s obvious – but every from them KNOW that they do something unusual – that it’s a SECRET.

Every from them had awareness of being terrorist.

You express better what I wanted to say.

[GostHacked]

GostHacked

So even with compartmentalization of the events needed to execute 9/11, you do not need many in the whole know of the situation. Only a few need to know the whole plan. ... So when I break it down this way, it is easy to see that compartmentalization can produce an environment where only a few at the top need to know everything. The more your underlings know about your plot, the greater the risk of the plot being exposed.

But, on 9/12, AFTER the death and destruction, when the folks in the various compartments would start wondering what atrocity they were implicated in. Would not then the various folks in the many compartments say 'Heyyyyy...wait a minit' and then the truth would come out. Insiders blowing the whistle.

Yet no insiders.

Some have come forward. A few janitorial peronelle in the basement heard loud explosions. Comming from above him when he was in the sublevels. Something like the truck bombing of the garage sub levels could have happened at the same time to produce those explosions in the basement. The truck bomb on the WTC in 93 proved to us that it is a possibility it happened again but with more explosive power . But I am speculating and theorizing and ruling out things.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/se...e_explosion.htm

This is the exact same article as found here http://100777.com/node/1352

“If they really wanted to get at the truth, these are the very people who should have been interviewed, not public officials who knew very little about what occurred inside the buildings that tragic morning.

This I can agree on,

Polynewbie, I have seen you speculate on things many times. Even your SPECULATION of several contractors in the bulding each doing a different floor. You have speculated more times in this thread than I have made speculations on this entire forum. EDIT - And the more different contractors you have in the building, the greater the possibility of something slipping out. I will speculate that if there were contractors in the twin toweres, there were maybe a handfull of contractors. Should start looking into who those contractors where and what company they worked for.

We need more than just Stephen Jones to come forward. We need more guys like this to come forward, And the media needs to give these people a fair chance at presenting their evidence. So far I have seen no one willing in the MSM to give Truthies and their supporters a fair chance to present their evidence.

Fox did a hit peice with Stephen Jones. MANCOW was the show and 'THE GRASSY KNOWL' was where they were in. Kind of like Orilley's NO SPIN ZONE!!!! HAHA. Mancow would shut up tight when the retired NYFD firefighter was speaking, but interupt Stephen Jones when he started speaking. So this show me that the MSM does not want to touch it at all.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/pl...team_member.htm

Each time Mancow did the lead-in he did the same thing over and over again, when it came time to introduce me he would swallow, roll his eyes, and make a comment about the ‘grassy knoll', the fact that I had to hear myself being mocked and knew it was coming each time did start to bother me.

Kevin Smith is Alex Jones' partner for Infowars and PrisonPlanet.

Here is the clip of that interview.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=615...323085&q=mancow

I guess I will just be the resonable moderating Truthie and help out Polynewbie with his broken record style.

[PolyNewbie]

GhostHacked:Even your SPECULATION of several contractors in the bulding each doing a different floor. You have speculated more times in this thread than I have made speculations on this entire forum.

That was not speculation. That was showing that something is actually possible when it was stated an unlikely or impossible.

You need to learn to stop and think before posting.

GhostHacked:Polynewbie, I have seen you speculate on things many times.

Where ?

GhostHacked:We need more than just Stephen Jones to come forward.

Like this ?

[PolyNewbie]

PeterF:You believe in Black magic; a small group of people conducting Mind Control; Are incapable of critical thought; and a constant liar.

you are the biggest bullshitter on this web.

You cannot back up a single item in that post. You cannot point out a single lie. You cannot show where I even indicate that I believe black magic.

The problem with these forums is that forethought is not a requirement for posting. Anyone can type this garbage, even though it cannot be backed up anywhere.

[stignasty]

Besides, the fellow scientists at BYU do not actually point out why Jones is wrong. They are simply complaining about him saying what he said. If he was wrong they would point out why - unless the protest was purely political.

Let's see, they're scientists. Scientists believe that a theory should be tested and peer reviewed before it is accepted. Since Jones didn't go through the correct process, they are holding that his theory is untested.

“The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s 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,” it reads in part.

“Professor Jones’s 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 structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty:Since Jones didn't go through the correct process, they are holding that his theory is untested.

So its political not scientific. If there was something wrong with what Jones was saying I'm sure they would point it out.

Truthers have ceratinly pointed out where the official version is lying or scientifically ridiculous and we have seen what happens to truthers when they come out to criticise the official version of 911.

From your above link:

"Physics Professor Harold Stokes, one of several faculty members who attended the seminar, said the explosive demolition hypothesis “certainly raises some interesting questions” and that Jones’ claims “certainly appear to be valid.”

Like many of his other colleagues, though, Stokes was up front in saying that he didn’t have the technical expertise to properly scrutinize Jones’ claims.

"

[GostHacked]

Polynewbie

That was not speculation. That was showing that something is actually possible when it was stated an unlikely or impossible.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speculation

-a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

-a single instance or process of consideration

I just spent about 10 minutes looking into the word 'speculate'.

Showing me that something is possible is also speculation. For you have not proven anything. If I say something is possible, I am speculating and contemplating what the reasons and causes are to back it up. Again it is all speculation.

And please, don't insult me anymore. Unlike the others here, I will have no problem reporting you. I have seen the way it has gone in this thread and I am disgusted with not just you Polynewbie, but some of the others in this thread that keep on these childish name calling rants. DROP that, all of it, and you will find that discussion about crazy speculative stuff can be civil. This thread has shown that civility has gone on vacation. Even you attacking Greg in the Support Questions thread, you turned it into a 9/11 thread. So in essence you ARE trolling.

You need to learn to stop and think before posting.

Beleive me, my posts are well thought out and I try as much as I can to proof read every post before submitting it. And often with the EDIT function, I needed to clean up some of my posts. My grammer and spelling sucks sometimes. So please take a dose of your own advice and think before you post again. I beg of you. I am asking nicely. Please think before you post again. Notice how long my posts are in this particular thread. Some though does go into it. Instead of cookie cutter hashing responses that you have made over and over again. Sometimes I have to word things differently for you and others to understand. Notice how often I post here in this thread as well. I do read it, so I only post when I think something needs to be addressed here.

If you knew me, you would quickly come to an understanding that I say what I think and feel. You would also come to know that I am very intelligent and actually speculate on much more than just 9/11. Most importantly, you would come to understand that I don't torelate stupidity.

With all that said and done, I am not going to get into a pissing match with you Polynewbie. Looks like you have done enough pissing for both of us. Can we work together or not?

[PolyNewbie]

By the poll results there is no shortage of sixteen percenters on this forum. These groups are full of gatekeepers, thats where some of the Pentagon money goes to shape public opinion.

Here its 18 % CNN video link

Great job guys. God save the queen.

[PolyNewbie]

Ghost Hacked:And please, don't insult me anymore. Unlike the others here, I will have no problem reporting you.

It wasn't an insult. It was a statement of fact. But if you are going to tattle I guess I will have to take your statements with a grain of salt and not point out the logical inconsistencies and incorrect logic.

Ghost Hacked:-a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

-a single instance or process of consideration

I just spent about 10 minutes looking into the word 'speculate'.

Showing me that something is possible is also speculation.

Yes, but in this context it was a proof to show something stated by another poster was not impossible or even unlikely. I got my idea from listening to intelligence experts - Von Romero the ex German defence minister.

Ghost Hacked:Can we work together or not?

I don't know - I doubt it. I don't mind being criticised but if you want to just throw mud around expect to have it thrown back especially when you are wrong. Don't mis represent me - I don't do it to you.

Even you attacking Greg in the Support Questions thread

How did I do that ? He points out that there are trolls on this thread, many readers say that I am the troll and that he is talking about me. I point out that this is not the case at all.

There seems to be masters of the twisting of logic on here. Line them up.

[stignasty]

So its political not scientific. If there was something wrong with what Jones was saying I'm sure they would point it out.

There's no way anyone can be this obtuse. This guy's obviously a troll. I apologize to the forum for feeding it

[PolyNewbie]

Nice try Stignasty.

George Bush is God, the moon is made of cheese and that really was Usama bin Laden in those confession tapes.

[Peter F]

GostHacked:

Some have come forward. A few janitorial peronelle in the basement heard loud explosions...

Yes, they heard explosions. But were they reporting suspicious behaviour in the weeks prior to the attack? Did they receive instructions to perform tasks, that with hindsight they now question? They were witnesses to a possible demolition but they are not insiders to the conspiracy - even in a minor way.

Of the ten or so conspirators in the know I canthink of two off the top of my head who definately had to be in on the conspiracy.

1. Silverstein. He was aware of the demolitions (according to the demo theory) since he gave the order to 'Pull' wtc7.

2. The unknown person Silverstein was giving the order to: apparently a wheel in the NYFD. That person must also have known that WTC7 was wired for demolition.

Feel free to add your own members of the conspiracy. It won't take long to get to ten or so. Once we have the list of the 10 or so in the know I think we will find that despite the use of compartmentalizing tasks, the whole thing would be impossible for 10 or so folks to organize.

Oh, I forgot, Number 3, the Bush fellow who was in charge of security of WTC. He had the place shut down for the weekend for no apparent reason and even had the bombsniffing dogs removed so's the 3 or 4 CIA guys could plant the thermite. Oh, and there's another 3 or 4 who definately were aware of the demolitions.

That makes 6 or 7 already. Almost there now.

8. Who ever it was that issued the order to NORAD to stand down. That would be Cheney, I believe.

[stignasty]

The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective.

[stignasty]

Identifying Misinformation

[Jerry Galinda]

“Congressional lies surrounding the investigation” ?

no one righteous in Sodom or Gomorrah ?

Lies ? – it’s your opinion based on your belief.