London Bombs - Four Burning Questions On Press TV

Discussion about the July 7th 2005 bombings on London's public transport network. Underground CCTV security contract awarded to crooked (Kobi Alexander chair of their parent company is on the run) Israeli firm Verint Systems & their boss, IDF trained explosives expert Daniel Bodner. Crookedness, incompetance, misfescence and corruption at MI5, Scotland Yard 'Untouchables' and other parts of the Metropolitan Police which allowed 7/7 to happen and have contributed to the London Bombings not being investigated.

Moderator: Moderators

Stefan
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Stefan »

Wibble wrote:
Stefan wrote:
Then why are you here?
Looking for evidence of a conspiracy.
Good answer. I might add that if you already have the assumption that "there is no evidence" it might hinder the objectivity of your search.

However, this is simply a discussion forum for people who already consider they have.

You are far better off starting with these sites:

http://911research.wtc7.net

http://journalof911studies.org

http://ae911truth.org

I took three or so months reading back and forth between sites like these with sites which seek to refute their claims before making my mind up.

If you aren't the reading type, I could also recommend these videos to you:

Blueprint for Truth - Richard Gage:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... igLZq5nKAQ

New Standard for Deception - Kevin Ryan:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... iAKm8YDQAQ

Let's Get Empirical - David Ray Griffin:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... iQKvvbHMAQ (you'll need veoh TV for this one)

Ommissions and Distortions - David Ray Griffin:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... igKbhanQAQ

Loose Change Final Cut:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... iQK5zIjTAQ

There are a lot of good books out there as well - David Ray Griffins are excellent.

My suggestion is that your time will be better spent reading and watching these resorces, rather than hanging around a discussion forum mechanically disagreeing with people who already have.

I'll see you back here in a few months. No doubt on the other side of the fence... :wink:
Image

Peace and Truth
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

Your listing Loose Change and Dr Griffin as sources of evidence? Your joking right?

Virtually every other word in Loose Change is "allegedly" or "it is reported that". Could it get any vaguer?
Stefan
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Stefan »

Well done wibble, you just confirmed yourself as a waste of time... best of luck.
Image

Peace and Truth
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

Stefan wrote:Well done wibble, you just confirmed yourself as a waste of time... best of luck.
No.

Its Ok for you all to completely disregard official documents presented in a legitmiate and factual context by specialists such as the NIST report.

Yet I have to accept a shoddy documentry and the work of retired proffessor of philosophy?

How many more times does Loose Change need to be debunked?

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:31 pm
Location: South Essex
Contact:

Post by Newspeak International »

Wibble, this War on Terror malarky is about creating the environment to enable the bringing in The New World Order.also known as Globalisation.

You may have noticed how goverments are increasingly intruding in our private lives,and creating legislation allowing them to snoop on everyone.

Humanity is the problem as far as these people are concerned.
User avatar
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:08 am
Location: UK

Post by ian neal »

Wibble post in critics corner thanks
Irreverent
New Poster
New Poster
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:54 pm

Post by Irreverent »

Sorry for coming to the table so late in the life of this thread, but I just stumbled across it and felt compelled to respond.

Wibble,

Before relying on the NIST report as a source of authority and integrity, it may well be worth looking into the validity of the report itself. I did, as have others, and after cross referencing their findings with their methods of drawing their conclusions, I was left of the opinion that the entire report represents nothing more than a $20 million, 10,000 page exercise in obfuscation, data-fudging and evidence discarding.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it, so I highly encourage you to look into it for yourself. An excellent place to start would be with Kevin Ryan - an expert in his field (a former Site Manager for Underwriters Laboratories - the company that was responsible for signing off on the steel used in the WTC construction and therefore an expert metallurgist). His dissection of the NIST report makes for very interesting reading and viewing, and as long as you are approaching the subject without drawing any prior conclusions and still have an attitude of openness to the subject, I think you'll find it hard to come away from his critique without having at least a couple of substantial doubts about NIST's modus operandi.

You can find a detailed breakdown of a presentation he gave at the following link

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kev ... elanalysis

There is an accompanying video, which I strongly recommend you take the time to view, which is hosted on youtube in multiple parts, and can be accessed here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGuwulT7spQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFHdeq0VZNc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hrIbIp2cjc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGrvx5je4rI

As far as qualified and credible people go, few could be more qualified than John Skilling. He was the structural engineer in charge of the design of the WTC. If you are interested in what he had to say pre-911, then please peruse the following, taking note of the dates of the articles

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... ug=1687698
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

excerpt:

"On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993"



You may also find the following enlightening

http://www.journalof911studies.com/arti ... hTemp2.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... ssible.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... Method.pdf






Hope this helps
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Post by Micpsi »

You cite Jones' paper advocating thermate. This hypothesis was made to explain the molten metal pouring out of the South Tower shortly before it collapsed/was blown up. It is more likely that the metal was mostly lead, which melts at temperatures reached by office fires, originating in the lead batteries housed by Fuji Bank on the very floor hit by Flight 175.
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn- ... mnath.html
Therefore, there is no need any more for the thermate hypothesis to explain the melting of steel - it was NOT steel. Any supporting evidence for a redundant hypothesis should be regarded with suspicion. Unfortunately, reputations are at stake and a lot of people hate losing face by admitting their errors of interpretation. This applies to many in the 9/11 truth movement, who need a icon scientific figure llke Jones, whether or not his research holds up (it doesn't). So his supporters continue to support his thoroughly debunked ideas
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
by deliberating linking any attempt to discredit it with totally irrelevant but more easily ignored research, such as no-plane video analysis, DEW, etc. Debunking Jones does not imply one is a supporter of Dr. Judy Wood. Such spreading of confusion and wilful ignoring of problems with the work of leaders in the 9/11 truth movement, such as Jones, can be only harmful to it.
Don't say some of us never warned those of you who uncritically post links to papers as though they were beyond reproach and contained smoking guns about what happened to the towers. The thermate priest gets away with it because he never exposes his analysis to the criticisms of his scientific peers.
Irreverent
New Poster
New Poster
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:54 pm

Post by Irreverent »

I have to confess I'm actually struggling to make sense of some of what you wrote.

From what I *can* gather however, you seem to be focussing purely on 1 paper that I linked to in order for someone to try to avail themselves of opposing standpoints to the NIST report (notice how this is clearly different from blindly following a "scientific icon")

What do you have to say about Kevin Ryan? What about John Skilling?
User avatar
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3889
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Post by chek »

Micpsi wrote:You cite Jones' paper advocating thermate. This hypothesis was made to explain the molten metal pouring out of the South Tower shortly before it collapsed/was blown up. It is more likely that the metal was mostly lead, which melts at temperatures reached by office fires, originating in the lead batteries housed by Fuji Bank on the very floor hit by Flight 175.
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn- ... mnath.html
Therefore, there is no need any more for the thermate hypothesis to explain the melting of steel - it was NOT steel. Any supporting evidence for a redundant hypothesis should be regarded with suspicion. Unfortunately, reputations are at stake and a lot of people hate losing face by admitting their errors of interpretation. This applies to many in the 9/11 truth movement, who need a icon scientific figure llke Jones, whether or not his research holds up (it doesn't). So his supporters continue to support his thoroughly debunked ideas
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
by deliberating linking any attempt to discredit it with totally irrelevant but more easily ignored research, such as no-plane video analysis, DEW, etc. Debunking Jones does not imply one is a supporter of Dr. Judy Wood. Such spreading of confusion and wilful ignoring of problems with the work of leaders in the 9/11 truth movement, such as Jones, can be only harmful to it.
Don't say some of us never warned those of you who uncritically post links to papers as though they were beyond reproach and contained smoking guns about what happened to the towers. The thermate priest gets away with it because he never exposes his analysis to the criticisms of his scientific peers.
Micpsi, you consistently bring up this issue seemingly without acknowledging the responses, which I know both Snowygrouch and myself have posted.

The thing about the molten flow from WTC2 is not its 'moltenness' which as you say could have been caused by a number of candidates.
Rather the point is its luminosity - the light being emitted by the material - that indicates its temperature.

Whether it's molten steel (for which Gordon Ross gives a good reason for why a thermite-based incendiary would be used, and for which Steven Jones has found empirical evidence for its presence) or something else, it was at the temperature of molten iron.

However if it was something else (e.g. lead) as you contend, you have to then account for how it was contained while it was heated to reach a high enough temperature to emit that wavelength of light.
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 1452
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: UEMS

Post by Thermate911 »

chek wrote:Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Hi chek, I always appreciate your posts and as this thread has gone way off topic anyway, I thought to query you about your sig line.

How do you propose we go about this dissolution? Delaware State has got nowhere yet in overturning 'corporation as human entity' and they've been working on it for years.

Many people are now fully aware of the elephants in the room. Many people are aware that they have names and addresses. Many people are aware that there are three main forces in the world working against the majority's well-being - Thule, Zion, (plus elements of) Black Dragon - all facets of the Brotherhood of the Snake.

Yet pitchforks and tar seem to be out of fashion. Why is this do you suppose? It really is time to visit 'the mansion on the hill', IMO - in vast numbers. Oh look, they're all going to party in Sitges in June! What better time to arrest them all and put a stop to all these energy-draining scams and mayhem they have spread throughout the world?

As for 'micpsi' he'd be better off with the ostrich & disinfo crowd over at rinf or jref, IMO
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Post Reply