The First Attack: 9/11 WTC sub-level explosions

[Asterix]

Thereby invalidating your claim that it was the regime of GwB that did it?



There is no credible evidence of any thermite.



Thermite would anyway be a poor choice of material to bring down the building as you would need MASSIVE quantities of it. Not just a few little packets here and there--go do some research on just how much thermite is required to eat through an I-beam. We are talking a meter thick of thermite.

Thermite is sometimes used in collapse of bridge structures, because it can cut down through the support beams at either end. It is very difficult to direct unless controlled by say, a welder's torch, since it will tend to create an erratic path driven by gravity. To choose it for a precisely timed floor by floor demolition would be a horrible choice. It would be impossible. Also somebody needs to explain to me why anyone would find it necessary to set off explosions in the basement when the buildings clearly collapsed from the top down. Also odd that the promised refutation of the seismic data by the experts in the field has never materialized. Maybe my standards are too high.

 

[Ulan Bator]

To the jackass who called me a racist then deleted his post. Yes, Kroll and Associated is owned by Marsh and McLennan. They were bought in 2004. So much for your stupid comments. It was, in fact, Jules Kroll, a dual Israeli-American in charge of security at the wtc. And, yes, on the surface, PTECH is made to look like a Saudi company. Christopher Bollyn has investigated this thoroughly and found that PTECH is, in fact, an Israeli company supposedly with Saudi investors (no doubt as a front to fool idiots like you.) So scream racism all you want. Nobodys listening.

As for Fujimoto...What are you? Some kind of pope I have to convince? I don't have to convince you of anything, you've convinced yourself. I'm not interested in convincing you, so don't ask.

You are a fool. Anybody who believes the lies of the Bush Administration is a fool. You point out that I said planning the destruction of the towers took years. Then you had the stupidity to point out that, by saying this, I invalidated my own argument that Bush did it. A statement like that proves how stupid and naive you are. It doesn't matter who is in charge. The PNAC was the catalyst for the attack, not the U.S. government. No one in the Clinton administration was involved because they didnt have to be. It was all arranged for Bush and Cheney. Why do you think they rigged the voting in Florida and forced the election into the Supreme Court. Bush HAD to get elected so Cheney, who was part of PNAC, could be in position to carry out the attack.

Dont pat yourself on the back. You havent bitchslapped anybody, you jackass. You couldnt bitchslap me in a million years. You dont seem to get it. Whether the towers fell on their own or were brought down with thermite, it doesnt matter one hoot. It doesnt matter if Mohammed Atta did it or Jack Robinson. IT HAPPENED. The question is -- who did it -- and there is enough evidence to suspect Bush et. al. And dont expect anything from the controlled media. They never uttered a peep when Bush was committing all his crimes, when he invaded Iraq under false pretenses, when US forces were busy killing 500000 Iraqi civilians. You really think theyll say anything about his hand in 9-11....So, please, stop posting your nonsense. Your not fooling anybody. If no, as you say, scientific journal will support the idea of controlled demolition, I say ---BALLS! WHO GIVES A FUCK. That does nothing to solve the problem of WHO DID IT...

 

[Asterix]

Dont pat yourself on the back. You havent bitchslapped anybody, you jackass. You couldnt bitchslap me in a million years. You dont seem to get it. Whether the towers fell on their own or were brought down with thermite, it doesnt matter one hoot. It doesnt matter if Mohammed Atta did it or Jack Robinson. IT HAPPENED. The question is -- who did it -- and there is enough evidence to suspect Bush et. al. And dont expect anything from the controlled media. They never uttered a peep when Bush was committing all his crimes, when he invaded Iraq under false pretenses, when US forces were busy killing 500000 Iraqi civilians. You really think theyll say anything about his hand in 9-11....So, please, stop posting your nonsense. Your not fooling anybody. If no, as you say, scientific journal will support the idea of controlled demolition, I say ---BALLS! WHO GIVES A FUCK. That does nothing to solve the problem of WHO DID IT...

So you're saying we can throw out the various physical conspiracy theories as completely unsupportable by facts, but somehow cling to the idea that this was all still directed by Bush et al. Steven Stills was right, paranoia strikes deep.

 

[someone]

I do have respect for Fuji in using his time to counter this nonsense. However, any many ways, I think it is a waste of time. Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is like arguing with a religious fundamentalist. I recall some poster (was it Asterix?) who posted a list of characteristics of conspiracy theorists and I think just about all the characterises listed are displayed on terb. Nonetheless, I think that Fuji does make a worthwell contribution when it comes to informing fence sitters.

There are documentaries that are banned in Canada with …

I should know better than wasting time responding to a conspiracy theorist. However, I am really surprised that no one called you on this. Can you give evidence one example of any such “documentary” banned anyway in Canada?

Can you cite this training? I am not aware of it.

I’ll just add that I cannot imagine why pilots trained to shoot down enemy fighters with very advanced counter measures would need any training at all to shoot down a commercial passenger jet. Clearly, the American taxpayer is getting ripped off if the pilots are so bad they need extra training to learn how to shoot down commercial jets.

Fuji, given how one sided your debates with these guys are, I don’t know why I find them amusing to read but I do.

 

[danmand]

I do have respect for Fuji in using his time to counter this nonsense. However, any many ways, I think it is a waste of time. Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is like arguing with a religious fundamentalist. I recall some poster (was it Asterix?) who posted a list of characteristics of conspiracy theorists and I think just about all the characterises listed are displayed on terb. Nonetheless, I think that Fuji does make a worthwell contribution when it comes to informing fence sitters.

someone, I had frankly expected better from you than a congratulation to Fuji for his
argumentation. Being on the right side of the issue at hand, is not a licence
to emply dishonest and deceitful argumentation.

 

[fuji]

As for Fujimoto...What are you? Some kind of pope I have to convince? I don't have to convince you of anything

YOU don't have to do anything. You can believe whatever you want to believe. People, however, have eyes to see, and they can see quite clearly that you have failed to answer me.

Anybody who believes the lies of the Bush Administration is a fool.

You're right. Here I am on another thread arguing that under Bush the US Military committed war crimes in Iraq and Guantanamo--but I guess I am just a stooge. My vicious criticism of that regime is all just a cover so that I can come on this thread and tell you that you are full of shit.

You know what? I dislike Bush. A great deal. I would LOVE to pin something like 9/11 on the man--but I can't get past one simple fact: The guy just wasn't in office long enough at the time to have had any fucking thing to do with it.

Maybe you are able to shrug off facts. Me, I try and reconcile them with my beliefs.

Then you had the stupidity to point out that, by saying this, I invalidated my own argument that Bush did it.

Yup. Stupid of me to bring facts into this.

Dont pat yourself on the back. You havent bitchslapped anybody, you jackass.

You're right. I haven't bitch-slapped anyone--only you.

question is -- who did it

Well we know the answer to THAT one--it was a bunch of fucked up dudes who subscribed to the Al Qaeda world-view.

Next?

and there is enough evidence to suspect Bush et. al.

What evidence? I am still waiting for you to produce ONE bit of evidence. Not two.. ONE. One, as in, the FIRST bit of evidence---not some obscure bit, the FIRST bit. Really, anything at all.

You are shooting blanks dude.

Where's your "evidence"? I'd like to know. So would everyone else I imagine.

I'd insult you now but it'd be too easy.

 

[realthing69]

Fuji, given how one sided your debates with these guys are, I don’t know why I find them amusing to read but I do.

Ditto!

 

[Ulan Bator]

YOU don't have to do anything. You can believe whatever you want to believe. People, however, have eyes to see, and they can see quite clearly that you have failed to answer me.



You're right. Here I am on another thread arguing that under Bush the US Military committed war crimes in Iraq and Guantanamo--but I guess I am just a stooge. My vicious criticism of that regime is all just a cover so that I can come on this thread and tell you that you are full of shit.

You know what? I dislike Bush. A great deal. I would LOVE to pin something like 9/11 on the man--but I can't get past one simple fact: The guy just wasn't in office long enough at the time to have had any fucking thing to do with it.

Maybe you are able to shrug off facts. Me, I try and reconcile them with my beliefs.



Yup. Stupid of me to bring facts into this.



You're right. I haven't bitch-slapped anyone--only you.



Well we know the answer to THAT one--it was a bunch of fucked up dudes who subscribed to the Al Qaeda world-view.

Next?



What evidence? I am still waiting for you to produce ONE bit of evidence. Not two.. ONE. One, as in, the FIRST bit of evidence---not some obscure bit, the FIRST bit. Really, anything at all.

You are shooting blanks dude.

Where's your "evidence"? I'd like to know. So would everyone else I imagine.

I'd insult you now but it'd be too easy.

Hahaha....What an arrogant, presumptious nincompoop.........

So youre telling me you have it all figured out and these people dont:

1)Michael M. Andregg (FM)
Domestic intelligence, Justice and Peace Studies, St. Thomas University, St. Paul, MN
2)Mark Bamberger, Ph.D. (FM)
Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences, Miami University and Capital University
3)Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Programin both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air ForceLieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
5)Andreas von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the GermanSecret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliamentfor 25years
6)Ted Elden (FM)
Architect, Communicator
7)Bill Hammel (FM)
Ph.D. Physics at U. Wisconsin, Milwaukee (ret.)
8)Bruce R. Henry (FM)
Mathematics, Worcester State College
9)Joel S. Hirschhorn (FM)
Metallurgical Engineering
Materials Engineering
Environmental Education
Political Analysis
Public Policy
10)Aaron Jones (FM)
Computer Engineering at The University of Illinois - Chicago
11) Enver Masud
Engineer, Director: Operations Review Div. (State of Iowa) Acting Chief, Strategy and Emergency Planning, U.S. Dept. of Energy
12)David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

In addition, you have the following organizations:

1)Architechs and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
2)Physics 911
3)Pilots for 9/11 Truth
4)German Engineers Help The USA

I could go on and on..........You see, it's very easy to find the information you need. There is plenty of science to at least beg for a new investigation. People who remain unconvinced by the offical story or people who are not sure and who would like to find out more need only do their research. Mr. Fuji prides himself on his own research and his ability to 'bitchslap' anybody with an opposing view. Alright then. I would like to ask him to go through this post, line for line and debunk the credentials and the qualifications of each and every individual listed here. In his arrogance and conceit, he will no doubt find some twisted argument or convoluted logic to debunk the findings of each person or organization listed. It'll be pretty amusing to see.

 

[train]

In addition, you have the following organizations:

1)Architechs and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
2)Physics 911
3)Pilots for 9/11 Truth
4)German Engineers Help The USA

.

Do you get a decoder ring when you join one of these organizations along with instructions for a secret handshake. You keep quoting this same list of people and groups which no one cares about or even has the stomach to verify as truthful. Are there 10 wacked-out professors in the US who believe this drivel - sure there is, but so what?

Unfortunately nearly every post further characterizes you as someone who would benefit from lithium.

 

[fuji]

Ulan, quit the bullshit. All you've provided here is a big list of names with no context. What did those people say, and where did they say it?

I need the reference.

Where is the peer reviewed journal article written by a recognized expert?

Give me ONE. Cite what you consider to be the most respectable article published by an expert that corroborates some part of your conspiracy theory.

It should be in a well known publication that is peer reviewed by recognized experts and written by someone who is an expert in the topic they are writing on. For example, a structural engineer writing in a well known journal that structural engineers publish in; or an architect publishing in a well known architectural journal.

Give me even ONE.

 

[Ulan Bator]

Ulan, quit the bullshit. All you've provided here is a big list of names with no context. What did those people say, and where did they say it?

I need the reference.

Where is the peer reviewed journal article written by a recognized expert?

Give me ONE. Cite what you consider to be the most respectable article published by an expert that corroborates some part of your conspiracy theory.

It should be in a well known publication that is peer reviewed by recognized experts and written by someone who is an expert in the topic they are writing on. For example, a structural engineer writing in a well known journal that structural engineers publish in; or an architect publishing in a well known architectural journal.

Give me even ONE.

Alright, I see we're not going anywhere here. Let's try it from a different angle. Why did you give the names of some of these Journals you refer to? You must have some in mind.

Give me some names and I (quite seriously) will do some research. I will try to locate a paper, an article or treatise by a physicist or structural engineer who is of the 'conspiracy' persuasion. Then I will get in touch with the Journals you refer to and reference both the name of the author of the paper, his qualifications, etc., the subject of his paper and then I will ask them why they haven't published it or anything else of the same persuasion (ie. the 'conspiracy persuasion).

I presume I will get a reply if my enquiry is worded politely and respectfully. I will then report the reply to you via PM or on an open thread. In addition, I will get in touch with the author of the paper in question and ask him the same thing you are demanding. Why has his work not appeared in the following journals...........(followed by the names you have given me).

You now have me thinking and wondering. Something strange is going on. Either we have a case of mass paranoia or something else. I am going to find out.

Please provide the info I need to proceed. Thank you

 

[fuji]

Alright, I see we're not going anywhere here. Let's try it from a different angle. Why did you give the names of some of these Journals you refer to? You must have some in mind.

Any journal that has published ordinary articles that are widely cited in its field will do.

Rather than starting with the journals--there are too many--it would be easier for you to start with the authors and find out where they have published.

The question will be as much one of the quality of the journal as the quality of the author.

I just need a standard citation: Author(s), journal, publisher, article title, and date of publication.

If it's a "regular" journal, commonly stocked by University libraries, commonly cited, it'll be fine.

Beware of the following:

-- Fraudulent journals that are not well respected by the academic community which anyone can publish in for a fee without effective peer review (Damnand cited one of these previously)

-- Journals staffed entirely by conspiracy theorists such as the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" and so on--these are not going to be seen as credible publications other than by the converted.

Aside from journals I would also accept a peer reviewed presentation given at an ordinary academic conference. In that case there should be a synopsis published by a well respected society in their proceedings.

It's helpful to have access to the text of the article so that we can see that what was published really does corroborate the conspiracy.

 

[zaig]

Any journal that has published ordinary articles that are widely cited in its field will do.

Rather than starting with the journals--there are too many--it would be easier for you to start with the authors and find out where they have published.

The question will be as much one of the quality of the journal as the quality of the author.

I just need a standard citation: Author(s), journal, publisher, article title, and date of publication.

If it's a "regular" journal, commonly stocked by University libraries, commonly cited, it'll be fine.

Beware of the following:

-- Fraudulent journals that are not well respected by the academic community which anyone can publish in for a fee without effective peer review (Damnand cited one of these previously)

-- Journals staffed entirely by conspiracy theorists such as the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" and so on--these are not going to be seen as credible publications other than by the converted.

Aside from journals I would also accept a peer reviewed presentation given at an ordinary academic conference. In that case there should be a synopsis published by a well respected society in their proceedings.

It's helpful to have access to the text of the article so that we can see that what was published really does corroborate the conspiracy.

Fujisan, you are not very nice.. We both know that searching for your request is an exercise in futility. They don't exist. Why do you think all the troofers quote the same tired sources such as Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, the Loose Change Boys, Richard Gage, Webster Tarplay etc

I have also come to the conclusion that the troofers are really masochists. Haven't you noticed its always a troofer that brings this subject up on boards such as this, engage in debate, get totally shot down, and leave with their tails between their legs. Now its UB, before Mac and Protoss, and whoever before them, and of course again in the future with the next wave of troofers.

I have said it before and I will say it again. After 8 years, not 1 shred of evidence. Not one person coming forward to say that they were a small piece of a much larger puzzle. No physical evidence of any sort. Every one of their theories shot to hell, but they just keep on going. Some people must have way too much time on their hands.

So I figure that by the time UB realizes he is on a wild goose chase, the board will be able to get a reprieve from all this sillyness.

 

[Ulan Bator]

Any journal that has published ordinary articles that are widely cited in its field will do.

Rather than starting with the journals--there are too many--it would be easier for you to start with the authors and find out where they have published.

The question will be as much one of the quality of the journal as the quality of the author.

I just need a standard citation: Author(s), journal, publisher, article title, and date of publication.

If it's a "regular" journal, commonly stocked by University libraries, commonly cited, it'll be fine.

Beware of the following:

-- Fraudulent journals that are not well respected by the academic community which anyone can publish in for a fee without effective peer review (Damnand cited one of these previously)

-- Journals staffed entirely by conspiracy theorists such as the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" and so on--these are not going to be seen as credible publications other than by the converted.

Aside from journals I would also accept a peer reviewed presentation given at an ordinary academic conference. In that case there should be a synopsis published by a well respected society in their proceedings.

It's helpful to have access to the text of the article so that we can see that what was published really does corroborate the conspiracy.

Thank you for the civil tone in your answer. There is no need for profanity, name calling or bitchslapping by any of us at this point. Also, I hope anyone else on this thread doesn't feel that I'm undertaking this for strictly because I have some vendetta against Mr. Fuji or anyone else. He has a point and I have now realized that finding an answer here is really going to be for my own benefit more than anything else. In addition, he has also maintained his disdain for Bush and Co. which I feel as well, so, on that common ground, I decided to accept the challenge and find out.

Tomorrow is Saturday and I will start at the library first. I'll choose a few off-the-shelf issues of some scientific magazines and well known journals. If they are magazines that are freely available in a public library, they should then be pretty 'mainstream' . I will feel more comfortable if I have names or suggestions of names to give to these 'authors' since some of them may ask me what sort of publications I had in mind. I will also point out the dilemma they face in that none of their works have ever seemed to have appeared in any sort of widely read, established and well-respected publication with no axe to grind or any sort of secret agenda. I will enquire as to why this is and then ask where they have, in fact, been published and in what issue and where I can find their work.

I'm going to go into this with an open mind and will try to answer the following:

1) Has the work not been published because it is generally felt by these publications to be falsified, slanted, biased or unsound in any way?
2) Have these sorts of works been refused because it is not a question of merit but a question of the journal's reputation - of simply wanting to avoid the sensationalism and controversy such points of view can generate?
3) Could such works be construed as giving some form of aid and comfort to the enemy (Al Qaeda, Taliban) which is currently engaged in a shooting war with American soldiers and is it possible that editors would feel such topics should wait until these conflicts have been resolved?

The point is, is that there is more than pure science involved in this issue. There is also a definite political aspect here as well as a social one. Mainstream publication and dissemination could have a direct impact on the policies and functionalities of the American government and military. In addition, morale of both the home and battle fronts could be profoundly affected. Stodgy scientific journals may not want to get involved in any sort of firestorm any sort of 'conspiracy' research might generate. At any rate, we'll see.

I'll keep you posted. And, as a matter of fact, I'm not going to return to this board until I have something - one way or another, good, bad or indifferent....

 

[papasmerf]

Thank you for the civil tone in your answer. There is no need for profanity, name calling or bitchslapping by any of us at this point. Also, I hope anyone else on this thread doesn't feel that I'm undertaking this for strictly because I have some vendetta against Mr. Fuji or anyone else. He has a point and I have now realized that finding an answer here is really going to be for my own benefit more than anything else. In addition, he has also maintained his disdain for Bush and Co. which I feel as well, so, on that common ground, I decided to accept the challenge and find out.

Tomorrow is Saturday and I will start at the library first. I'll choose a few off-the-shelf issues of some scientific magazines and well known journals. If they are magazines that are freely available in a public library, they should then be pretty 'mainstream' . I will feel more comfortable if I have names or suggestions of names to give to these 'authors' since some of them may ask me what sort of publications I had in mind. I will also point out the dilemma they face in that none of their works have ever seemed to have appeared in any sort of widely read, established and well-respected publication with no axe to grind or any sort of secret agenda. I will enquire as to why this is and then ask where they have, in fact, been published and in what issue and where I can find their work.

I'm going to go into this with an open mind and will try to answer the following:

1) Has the work not been published because it is generally felt by these publications to be falsified, slanted, biased or unsound in any way?
2) Have these sorts of works been refused because it is not a question of merit but a question of the journal's reputation - of simply wanting to avoid the sensationalism and controversy such points of view can generate?
3) Could such works be construed as giving some form of aid and comfort to the enemy (Al Qaeda, Taliban) which is currently engaged in a shooting war with American soldiers and is it possible that editors would feel such topics should wait until these conflicts have been resolved?

The point is, is that there is more than pure science involved in this issue. There is also a definite political aspect here as well as a social one. Mainstream publication and dissemination could have a direct impact on the policies and functionalities of the American government and military. In addition, morale of both the home and battle fronts could be profoundly affected. Stodgy scientific journals may not want to get involved in any sort of firestorm any sort of 'conspiracy' research might generate. At any rate, we'll see.

I'll keep you posted. And, as a matter of fact, I'm not going to return to this board until I have something - one way or another, good, bad or indifferent....

Don't be suprised when you find out that dog won't hunt.

 

[WoodPeckr]

I'll keep you posted. And, as a matter of fact, I'm not going to return to this board until I have something - one way or another, good, bad or indifferent....

We will await your update...

 

[fuji]

We will await your update...

Seems to be a long wait.

 

[Asterix]

A coveted secret no doubt. Mac mentioned before he left last that he has researched it to the nth degree, but alas was only willing to share his proof with those who already agreed with him. Evidently you have to be part of the inner circle of believers.

 

[basketcase]

Either that or they discovered the truth and were wisked away to some secret government facility.

 

[WoodPeckr]

basketcase

So you know the MO, eh....