Alanador Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 The dust was transient and hung around in the air for days before disipating. It didn't settle until it rained a few times. So I disagree that it settled as fuel, save for some small percentage which I think would be negligible...as it should pertain to starting the oven. (A residual phase of the attack...do you know what breathing in gypsum in that amount does to lungs, and concrete, not to mention the asbestos...which incidentally would have cost 8 billion to remove...if someone was to want to rebuild pre 9-11.) That site (911 myths) seems almost to some degree, unreliable to me on some subjects, and absent of other subjects al together. Further, they seem to over complicate things (I find them the antithesis of conspiracy sites which I also try to avoid, but rest assured...911myth is in my favs now too) and I certainly disagree with them on the Silverstein take. Whereas I seem to relate better to your other links...I prefer your two research papers from the aluminum industry itself. It seems aluminum has to be coated to avoid this reaction you speak of. If not it is explosive, and different techniques of supression have had varying degrees of success, but from what I have read, raw aluminum, unprotected, would react very violently - not in a slow burn method, but in an explosive or volatile manner (contamination from other metals would aggravate the reaction more, and there was plenty of molten steel). The aluminum would be vaporizing the water that came into contact with it violently (especially cold firehose water...and a "lakes" worth mind you), possible causing an explosion due to the build up of pressure under the debris alone, remember if the pressure could get out, then air could get in and that negates the oven theory, which I agree we cannot do (I agree no-one added fuel. I find it crazy that you think I would assume such a thing). I still request a few days to go over your papers if possible, a few days won't change anything, unfortunatley. Is that alright with you? And may I post questions during that time if I need to? Or perhaps more properly PM them to you...out of forum. I will concede publicly if I have no further arguements. That is not to say I think I'll be conceding yet ( I'm not even close yet...)...just to let you know I wont duck saying you are right in public if that time comes. Oh yes, your 911 site disproves the drills on 9-11 as well as can be done by any news agency (thank you for the information EDIT: retrackted, read below article for why...article is from 4-4-2006). But what about 7/7. That was exact, that was simultaneous, and that was straight from the horses mouth on BBC television and later that day on BBC radio. I have yet to look further into 3-11 (Madrid). I will also agree to discount the Scott Forbes information as false. OK, it's 3 am here now. I have been researching like crazy non stop since we started this thread, I need a few days recess. Just a few clarifications... I didnt' say the governement needed an excuse, but as megalomanics isn't it better to have their people behind them on it. Of course it is. Maybe they had ideas of aggression in the region (Middle East) for some time, and this 'facilitated' their agenda. The BBC report I linked to shows evidence of insider trading just before 9-11, they say the terrorists did this, couldn't someone who also knew it was about to happen use that same information to gain...that is the definition of insider trading. It doesn't say anywhere that it was or wasn't someone in particular, it refers to terrorists in a broad term. I have to do more research on this to see how it ended, but I suspect it has 'disappreared' as a news story... http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/archive/911...der_trading.htm As for the whistle blowers, now you are in an area you don't know about. Do you know what these 6 gentlemen, from inside our intelligence community said...(testimony is from 2-14-2006, includes army testimony, FBI testimnoy, NSA testimony, DOE testimony, and black ops specialist testimony)...I'm quite sure you don't, judging from your flippant comment of the altered paperwork. One persons' testimony in particular is EXTREMELY relevent to this arguement, again, as soon a google verifies my video they will be posting it and I will link DIRECTLY to it, and hope sincerely you watch it first hand Peregrine. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer disclosed to the Intelligence Commitee that "Able Danger", one of the many, many covert operations he is highly decorated for, came forward to say that his group knew who 4 of the hijackers were, including the master mind ATTA...and told the FBI. This Massoui trial is futile, even if Massoui knew and didn't tell the FBI...THE ABLE DANGER GROUP KNEW WHO THEY WERE AND TOLD THEM. hmmm...interesting isn't it. So now we see this trial is in fact nothing more than drama, farce, or more eloquently...A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. The real fact of the matter is they DID know, and ABLE DANGER wasn't the only source. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer is EXTREMELY HIGHLY DECORATED by the administrations he worked for. He was a specialist in 'creating high risk, high gain situation..." and can be quoted further as saying "Inside the intelligence community I was a rock star..." Again he is extremeley highly decroated. His testimony is under oath and to the Intelligence Commitee. They all tesitfy to paperwork being "ROUTINELY" altered or fabricated. Rountinely does not suggest to me a few folks are covering their a**, it suggests much more. I will digress at this point until the testimony is made available. If I have to I will transcribe the testimony myself to expedite the issue if you cannot hold out for this very pertinent information. (It is 4 gigs of Mpeg2, 2.5 hours of testimnoy & questions, I think perhaps the UL failed due to size, I am going to shrink to DivX and see what I can compress it too and try again). If we have to you can get a PO BOX for a week and I will send you a copy of the video, with a check to cover the costs of said PO BOX. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4135400.stm http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Lt.Col.+A...tab-web-t&x=wrt http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889 http://abcnews.go.com/images/Nightline/NSAletter.pdf http://www.aclu.org/whistleblower/statements/2.html http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/2/16/194358/802 And finally your "Grain Mill" explosion explanation is not applicable. That happenes when the dust is airborne....there was no flash as the cloud of everything that was not steel atomized...the cloud then hung around (for days), settled some and moved off into the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanador Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 Sorry for the DP...here's more... QUOTE Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 SuspectOfficial version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for attacks Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 4 2006 The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President %&$! Cheney. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the Presidents Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the countrys foremost experts on National Security. Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project and was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it. In an interview with The Alex Jones Show aired nationally on the GCN Radio Network, Bowman (pictured below) stated that at the bare minimum if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11 then the government stood down and allowed the attacks to happen. He said it is plausible that the entire chain of military command were unaware of what was taking place and were used as tools by the people pulling the strings behind the attack. Bowman outlined how the drills on the morning of 9/11 that simulated planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover to dupe unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly enough to stop the attack. "The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD....that they didn't they didn't know what was real and what was part of the exercise," said Bowman "I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they're the ones that should be the object of investigation." Asked if he could name a prime suspect who was the likely architect behind the attacks, Bowman stated, "If I had to narrow it down to one person....I think my prime suspect would be %&$! Cheney." Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and colleagues did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story behind 9/11. Bowman agreed that the US was in danger of slipping into a dictatorship and stated, "I think there's been nothing closer to fascism than what we've seen lately from this government." Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, "Done more to destroy the rights of Americans than all of our enemies combined." Bowman trashed the 9/11 Commission as a politically motivated cover-up with abounding conflicts of interest, charging, "The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash." "There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of that junk," said Bowman. Asked if the perpetrators of 9/11 were preparing to stage another false-flag attack to reinvigorate their agenda Bowman agreed that, "I can see that and I hope they can't pull it off, I hope they are prevented from pulling it off but I know darn good and well they'd like to have another one." A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie Sheen have been that he is not credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11. These charges are ridiculed by the fact that Sheen is an expert on 9/11 who spends hours a day meticulously researching the topic, something that the attack dogs have failed to do, aiming their comments solely at Sheen's personal life and ignoring his invitation to challenge him on the facts. In addition, from the very start we have put forth eminently credible individuals only for them to be ignored by the establishment media. Physics Professors, former White House advisors and CIA analysts, the father of Reaganomics, German Defense Ministers and Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury, have all gone public on 9/11 but have been uniformly ignored by the majority of the establishment press. Will Robert Bowman also be blackballed as the mainstream continue to misrepresent the 9/11 truth movement as an occupation of the fringe minority? Bowman is currently running for Congress in Florida's 15th District. End Quote. So it THIS guy reputable enough to discern through the evidence we have, as a community that is? Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the Presidents Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the countrys foremost experts on National Security. Or is this guy just a "paranoid dilusionalist???" too, like you try to label me... http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_arti..._the_truth.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 The dust was transient and hung around in the air for days before disipating. It didn't settle until it rained a few times. So I disagree that it settled as fuel, save for some small percentage which I think would be negligible...as it should pertain to starting the oven. (A residual phase of the attack...do you know what breathing in gypsum in that amount does to lungs, and concrete, not to mention the asbestos...which incidentally would have cost 8 billion to remove...if someone was to want to rebuild pre 9-11.) Err, are you missing the fact that we're talking about two different sources of dust? The first, and the potential explosion source, was the combination of fuel vapor and dust from the impact. But that's only using up a few floors worth... the cloud that hung around in the air would be from the other 80+ floors collapsing. That site (911 myths) seems almost to some degree, unreliable to me on some subjects, and absent of other subjects al together. Further, they seem to over complicate things (I find them the antithesis of conspiracy sites which I also try to avoid, but rest assured...911myth is in my favs now too) and I certainly disagree with them on the Silverstein take It seems complicated because it actually goes into detail on the facts of the attacks, explaining in detail why the conspiracy arguments are wrong. On the other hand, the conspiracy sites go for over-simplified argumens like "this looked like a controlled demolition" without going into any detail on WHY. Whereas I seem to relate better to your other links...I prefer your two research papers from the aluminum industry itself. It seems aluminum has to be coated to avoid this reaction you speak of. If not it is explosive, and different techniques of supression have had varying degrees of success, but from what I have read, raw aluminum, unprotected, would react very violently - not in a slow burn method, but in an explosive or volatile manner (contamination from other metals would aggravate the reaction more, and there was plenty of molten steel). The aluminum would be vaporizing the water that came into contact with it violently (especially cold firehose water...and a "lakes" worth mind you), possible causing an explosion due to the build up of pressure under the debris alone, remember if the pressure could get out, then air could get in and that negates the oven theory, which I agree we cannot do (I agree no-one added fuel. I find it crazy that you think I would assume such a thing). Thank you for again proving your scientific ignorance here. Three points: 1) Chemistry 101, reaction rates can be changed depending on circumstances (surface area available for reaction being a big one). In the industrial example, the reaction is extremely fast, and so produces an explosion. This is not necessarily true for the same reaction under different circumstances. 2) The aluminum reaction example is just one aspect of the heat issue. It's one potential source for some of it, and one that will not in any way be slowed by water. It is far from the only factor, so not having lots of explosions doesn't prove anything. 3) AGAIN, YOU POST "BUT THIS DOESN'T WORK" WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ALTERNATE EXPLANATION. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE HEAT THAT I HAVE POSTED, POST ONE OF YOUR OWN.I still request a few days to go over your papers if possible, a few days won't change anything, unfortunatley. Is that alright with you? And may I post questions during that time if I need to? Or perhaps more properly PM them to you...out of forum. I will concede publicly if I have no further arguements. That is not to say I think I'll be conceding yet ( I'm not even close yet...)...just to let you know I wont duck saying you are right in public if that time comes. Why do you need a few days? You asked me by PM for a few days to review the aluminum industry links, which is just silly. I read them in about 15 minutes, they aren't that long. Obviously I can't force you to reply, but I have to wonder about your reading level if it takes several days to read a brief article. Oh yes, your 911 site disproves the drills on 9-11 as well as can be done by any news agency (thank you for the information EDIT: retrackted, read below article for why...article is from 4-4-2006). But what about 7/7. That was exact, that was simultaneous, and that was straight from the horses mouth on BBC television and later that day on BBC radio. I have yet to look further into 3-11 (Madrid). I'm intentionally ignoring that one for two reasons: 1) This debate is already generating long enough posts as it is. 2) I don't have the same knowledge of the subject, so I'm focusing on the one I do know about. Your 9/11 conspiracy arguments are based on engineering, something I have a pretty good understanding of. The other "coincidences" are all politics related, without the obvious factual errors I can point out.I didnt' say the governement needed an excuse, but as megalomanics isn't it better to have their people behind them on it. Of course it is. Maybe they had ideas of aggression in the region (Middle East) for some time, and this 'facilitated' their agenda. I don't think anyone's denying that the government used the attacks as an excuse for their actions, but it's a huge leap to go from "Bush used a disaster to his advantage" to "Bush planned the disaster himself and/or allowed it to happen intentionally." The BBC report I linked to shows evidence of insider trading just before 9-11, they say the terrorists did this, couldn't someone who also knew it was about to happen use that same information to gain...that is the definition of insider trading. It doesn't say anywhere that it was or wasn't someone in particular, it refers to terrorists in a broad term. I have to do more research on this to see how it ended, but I suspect it has 'disappreared' as a news story... Are you even reading the articles you post? The article states that terrorist groups possibly took advantage of their knowledge to make money through insider trading (to fund their future operations). How the hell does this provide even the slightest bit of proof that non-terrorists had the same knowledge? The people accused of insider trading all have clear terrorist connections to explain their information, there is no statement anywhere in that article that the government or non-terrorist citizens did the same. And if you're accusing private companies of doing it, WHY? What possible gain could they make from insider trading that would offset the losses they are about to take from the inevitable economic damage following the attacks? Why wouldn't they give that knowledge to the government and let them stop the attacks? And finally, how did these companies get their knowledge in the first place? Are you honestly making the completely stupid claim that the government would share their conspiracy with multiple random companies, for no apparent reason, when even the slightest leak would have fatal consequences for everyone involved? This only makes your arguments even weaker, because now you're suggesting that at the same time, the government was freely giving out knowledge of the conspiracy, and keeping complete silence about its involvement. ============================================ After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it. Thank you. This is exactly the kind of argument I was hoping you'd make. With that one quote, you've completely thrown away the last shreds of credibility you had. Are you honestly this stupid? Do you even understand the concept of MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction. DESTRUCTION. Why the hell would anyone WANT to start a nuclear war? You don't win a nuclear war, you just all die. Are you really trying to suggest that a bizarre suicide cult has taken over the US government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanador Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 You read but you don't, that guy left in the 80's when it was thought of being used for whatever it wasn't originally intended....are you trying to tell me you think this guy is off the wall? Obviously your sidenote is exactly why he left in fact! It is in reference to the Star Wars Program, remember...Ronald Reagen area...or were you even born then? Man....In case you ARE too young to remember there was a period up until the late 80's that it was a big fear for ALOT of people...we called it the cold war...LOOK IT UP, it used to be a very real fear..WHICH IS WHY STAR WARS THE SPACE PROGRAM WAS STARTED. ONE MORE TIME>>>THE PROGRAM HE WAS PART OF WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE GOVERNMENTS FEAR OF NUKES>>>>man.... The Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice) I would think that would carry weight with you. Apparently you as a student know so much about engineering that you have already passed one of its' most prestigeous posts?! His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. What's your Phd...I thought so. What will it take for you...a confession? The steady stream of folks coming out on this administration is appalling. I think it is now your ingnorance that shows, after reading the Aluminum industry papers myself I understand the reaction gets incredibly EXPLOSIVE if the aluminum is contaminated...by say...oh I dont know...MOLTEN STEEL?! For that matter ANYTHING not either water, inert gas, or Al is CONTAMINATING this experiemnt and increase the chance of VIOLENT explosions. And again...we've got one of the top men in your field saying that the offical version of 9-11 doesn't work. Look him up and read his works. And what about the whistle blowers...did you even check the links??? Of course not. ____________________________________________________ QUOTING: 1) Chemistry 101, reaction rates can be changed depending on circumstances (surface area available for reaction being a big one). In the industrial example, the reaction is extremely fast, and so produces an explosion. This is not necessarily true for the same reaction under different circumstances. Both examples were for submersion (which in necessary for the effect), which is exactly the scenario at WTC...submersion, in a man made lake of water. Here are some quotes from your papers.... ------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Aluminum Association reports that from 1980 through 1995 the aluminum industry experienced several hundred explosions during casting operations. Such explosions can be accompanied by injuries and extensive property damage. Three devastating explosions occurred in 1986 alone." They dont say fires...they say explosions. ----------------------------------------------------------- "The ORNL method was developed after researchers (mainly based on Aluminum Association sponsored test results) studied organic coatings used by the aluminum industry to suppress explosions." Again not fire...explosions. ----------------------------------------------------------- " When enough molten aluminum accidentally pours over submerged surfaces, an energetic explosion can occur. " Explosions... ----------------------------------------------------------- "We first studied the potential problem of steam explosions in water-cooled research reactors whose fuel elements are made of uranium-aluminum mixtures sandwiched between aluminum plates," says Taleyarkhan. "When molten aluminum first comes into contact with water, a protective steam film forms. Then some sort of 'trigger' causes the steam film to become unstable and collapse. As a result, the molten aluminum mass can break into literally millions of hot particles, causing water they come in contact with to flash to high-pressure steam." Here we learn that Al (aluminum) forms a protective layer that must be triggered, by a disturbance. Much like one that would occur DURING THE REMOVAL OF THE DEBRIS WITH FRONT LOADERS ETC....and so an explosion would have been INEVITABLE. ------------------------------------------------------------- "Thus, for example, rusted steel traps a mixture of water and steam, making it available for explosive boiling heat transfer, which can send shock waves to trigger a steam explosion." WOW, possibility of 2 explosions, one from the Al, one from the steam JUST LIKE I SAID. ----------------------------------------------------------- Says Taleyarkhan: "We believe that air injected into the protective steam film would repel water that would otherwise contribute to a steam explosion and would cushion against external shocks that could make the film collapse." Here more about the triggering shocks ----------------------------------------------------------- "Under certain conditions, contact between molten substances and water can result in an explosion. While millions of pounds of molten aluminum are produced and handled without incident every day, explosions do occur." Again Explosions....not fires... ----------------------------------------------------------- " Because of the chemical reactivity of aluminum, an explosion when it does occur can be violent." AH, when it does occur, so it doesnt even always occur, due to the protective coating of inert gas that the Al generates upon contact with water. ----------------------------------------------------------- "From the incident reporting program it was learned that many of the more severe explosions were caused when charging scrap into a remelt furnace. In particular, contamination of the charge was suspected in many of the events. " Here's we see what the addition of contamination has on the effect....a MORE SEVERE EXPLOSION...contamination such as from steel melting onto the existing conditions....or even the negligable amount of dust that did not become transient (did you even read the cloud analysis...) ----------------------------------------------------------- And no I don't have to prove another theory...there is more than reasonable doubt FROM YOUR OWN PAPERWORK, my arguement here is the government involvement tacitly...not this one issue. And no, many sites such as 9-11 myth use technical jargon that make it unapproachable for the everyday average joe, something I think folks like yourself rely on in debate. Lastly (I think) if you will not take me seriously then we can have no debate. I have shown you nothing but utmost respect, and have paid close attention to your links. DO THE SAME....please. PS, at least I read your links. Your idea of debate seems more like masturbation for your mind....very one sided. ONE MORE QOUTE - Are you even reading the articles you post? The article states that terrorist groups possibly took advantage of their knowledge to make money through insider trading (to fund their future operations). How the hell does this provide even the slightest bit of proof that non-terrorists had the same knowledge? The people accused of insider trading all have clear terrorist connections to explain their information, there is no statement anywhere in that article that the government or non-terrorist citizens did the same. Where does it say a NAME...terrorist is a subjective term, and to me ASLO IMPLIES THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED TACITLY. The stocks were airline stocks...and remain unclaimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Blah blah blah engineer blah blah medals... 1) The fact that he is seriously claiming that the US wanted a nuclear war with the Soviet Union proves he is completely delusional and has exactly zero credibility. Do you even have the slightest idea of what the result of this war would be? Millions of US citizens would die from the attack itself. Every major US city would be completely wiped off the map. Millions more would die from fallout and other secondary effects. The economy would be devastated, and make the depression of the 1930s look like a period of unbelievable luxury. Every major center of production would be a pile of rubble, most lines of communication and transportation would be cut, every major market would be a graveyard, and every major foriegn trading partner would be just as devastated. The US economy would cease to exist. As Washington DC and every major military base would be priority targets, few, if any, members of the government would survive. The US would be completely and permanently destroyed as a major world power. The US would take its place on the list of third-world hells that nobody wants to visit. Now, give me even one reason why any sane person would WANT a nuclear war, especially at a point where the worst of the cold war tension is starting to fade, and doomsday scenarios are looking more and more unlikely. Unless you're claiming that the US government has been taken over by a lunatic suicide cult, this man has zero credibility. 2) WHILE HE MIGHT BE AN ENGINEER, HE ISN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT ENGINEERING. HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT POLITICS AND INTELLIGENCE GATHERING. Claiming his engineering titles in this case makes about as much sense as me claiming mine in a discussion of 15th century english poetry. I clearly don't know even the slightest thing about chemistry. Thank you for again proving you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even know what an explosion IS? It's simply an exothermic reaction that, for whatever reason, happens at a high enough rate to overcome whatever forces are containing it. For example, a pile of grain, when set on a table and lit on fire, will burn slowly. But that same grain, turned to dust and distributed into the air, will EXPLODE. Same exact reaction, entirely different results. Or for your precious thermite reaction... Fe2O3(solid, dust form) + 2Al(solid, dust form) → Al2O3(s) + 2Fe(s) + INTENSE AND VERY FAST-BURNING FIRE. Fe2O3(solid block) + 2Al(solid block) → Al2O3(s) + 2Fe(s) + SLOW FIRE AT MOST. Different circumstances, same reaction, entirely different results. It's only the fact that the aluminum and rust are in powder form with the massively greater surface area that allows the spectacular results. And besides, as I've said way too many times already, the aluminum reaction is just one possible factor contributing to the heat. The oven effect, combined with slow-burning rubble, is by itself enough to explain why it would stay hot for a long time. And no, many sites such as 9-11 myth use technical jargon that make it unapproachable for the everyday average joe, something I thin folks like yourself rely on. Are you honestly this stupid? The fact that you are too ignorant to understand the facts involved doesn't make them wrong. I could post a complicated structural analysis of the building collapse. It could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that demolition charges were not needed to produce the observed results. It would end up being a thick stack of page after page of calculations, or a complex computer model doing the same calculations. Without an engineering or physics background, it would mean nothing to you. But it would be absolute, undeniable proof. On the other hand, stating it in non-technical terms would not be the same proof, you'd just be arguing whose argument sounds better, not whose has better factual support.But thanks for admitting in clear terms that you lack the knowledge to make an informed judgement of the relevant facts. =================================AGAIN, YOU POST "BUT THIS DOESN'T WORK" WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ALTERNATE EXPLANATION. IF YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THE LONG-TERM HEAT OBSERVED, POST ONE, OR CONCEDE THAT THERE ISN'T ONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanador Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 QUOTE1) The fact that he is seriously claiming that the US wanted a nuclear war with the Soviet Union proves he is completely delusional and has exactly zero credibility. Do you even have the slightest idea of what the result of this war would be? No it was to provoke them (provoke is a broad term, provoke to what...who knows!)...not to necessarily start a nuclear war. That is Alex Jones' inference. GO FOR THE QUOTED INFORMATION in these instances, especially when alex is involved. ------------------------------------------------------- 2) WHILE HE MIGHT BE AN ENGINEER, HE ISN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT ENGINEERING. HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT POLITICS AND INTELLIGENCE GATHERING. Claiming his engineering titles in this case makes about as much sense as me claiming mine in a discussion of 15th century english poetry. "The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash." That implies the story officially released by the commission does not jibe. Is he GUESSING AT THIS STUFF...I'm sure he knows more about it than you and I combined. He's not just an engineer, he's a decorated engineer...unlike yourself. He also has a PHd in Nuclear Engineering. I'm sorry I must have missed what your PhD was...maybe you typed it real small...let me recheck. Unfortunatley for you, THE ISSUE IS GOVERNMENT TACIT INVOLVEMENT.....should I use big fonts like you?you are just stuck on this one fact. THAT IS WHY I POSTED THIS ARTICLE...are you really this stupid?!!!! we've touched on many issues here, but I made clear my belief a few pages back.... --------------------------------------------------------- QUOTE: But it would be absolute, undeniable proof. On the other hand, stating it in non-technical terms would not be the same proof, you'd just be arguing whose argument sounds better, not whose has better factual support." No you have less credibility than these guys...plain and simple, unless you think you deserve two medals for your achievemnets so far...this guy isn't 'certified' like you hope to be...HE"S A PHD.....as in doctor...not unlike a master of his field... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 No it was to provoke them (provoke is a broad term, provoke to what...who knows!)...not to necessarily start a nuclear war. That is Alex Jones' inference. GO FOR THE QUOTED INFORMATION in these instances, especially when alex is involved. LIAR. FROM THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED: "After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it." Now please explain how "initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets" means anything BUT "start a nuclear war." He's not just an enginerer, he's a decorated engineer...unlike yourself. He also has a PHd in Nuclear Engineering. How nice. If this discussion in any way involved nuclear engineering, this fact might be relevant. But thanks for again proving your complete lack of relevant knowledge. Since you don't even understand how engineering degrees are specialized, and being an expert in one field does not make a person an expert at everything else, you clearly are not qualified to comment on these issues. "The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash." Which covers a full range of possible accusations from "demolition charges were required" to possible insider trading to intelligence coverups. Now show me where he is specifically attacking the engineering aspects of the official story and you might have the beginnings of a point. No you have less credibility than these guys...plain and simple, unless you think you deserve two medals for your achievemnets so far...this guy isn't 'certified' like you hope to be...HE"S A PHD.....as in doctor...not unlike a master of his field... Fortunately I'm not claiming superior expert status in an engineering-related. His titles and medals mean exactly NOTHING in a discussion of intelligence gathering and politics. If he was commenting on engineering issues, his titles would be relevant (though his overall credibility still harmed by the "we wanted to end the world" idiocy). BUT HE ISN'T. In fact, if he was actually using them to claim authority in the unrelated field of politics or intelligence gathering, he would be guilty of a significant engineering ethics violation, and be stripped of his certification. YOU WILL NOT SIMPLY IGNORE THE QUESTIONS YOU DO NOT LIKE. IF YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THE LONG-TERM HEAT OBSERVED, POST ONE, OR CONCEDE THAT THERE ISN'T ONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanador Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 again alex's inference.... "After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it." NOTICE THE THIRD PERSON NARATIVE.... He doesnt agree with the 9-11 commissions report...why...I'm sure it has to do with his knowledge in general. (But perhaps he doesn't like the ending..OF COURSE IT HAS TO DO WITH ALL HIS KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE!) The intelligence before that from the Lt. COl. and 5 others was for the intelligence part, this guy was just to show you that A EXHALTED MEMBER OF YOUR FIELD FROM THE GOVERNMENT SIDE OF THE FENCE DOESN"T AGREE WITH THE STORY...post a new link if you want to debate this one issue...It is not this threads purpose. here's the intelligence links AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN...you run in circes like a dog chasing his tail man. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4135400.stm http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Lt.Col.+A...tab-web-t&x=wrt http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889 http://abcnews.go.com/images/Nightline/NSAletter.pdf http://www.aclu.org/whistleblower/statements/2.html http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/2/16/194358/802 there you go, should I spoon feed them to you too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 again alex's inference.... "After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it." So we have two options: 1) The source you are quoting is a credible one, and this suicide-cult idiocy is Bowman's actual statement. 2) The source you are quoting is NOT credible, and made that part up. In which case, I expect you to edit it out of your post and never mention it again. If it is not a credible source, you have no business quoting from it. Any future references to this source will be considered proof of your complete dishonesty. YOU WILL NOT SIMPLY IGNORE THE QUESTIONS YOU DO NOT LIKE. IF YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THE LONG-TERM HEAT OBSERVED, POST ONE, OR CONCEDE THAT THERE ISN'T ONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanador Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 I will remove the THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE ONLY, the rest is quoted.... or i can find another of his interviews...instead of that one, which is very easy to do....up to you, either way it is admisable. here ya go What Really Happened on 9/11; Why All the Secrecy? by Dr. Robert M. Bowman There are conspiracy theories flying around the internet like seagulls around a landfill. Many people are convinced that George W. Bush knew what was going to happen and purposely allowed it to happen so he and his neo-conservative buddies could have the “new Pearl Harbor” they needed to justify their wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Others go further. They are absolutely sure Cheney and company actually planned and carried out the attack (usually along with the Mossad). These folks don’t think there were ever any Arab hijackers at all. What is so disturbing is that their arguments are quite convincing. If an enormous cloud of suspicion is not to be permanently over the head of our government, the Bush Administration must “come clean,” releasing information thus far withheld from the American people. Clearing themselves of actively planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks ought to be fairly easy. All they have to do is give the American people the answers to a few key questions: (1) Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists provided by the airlines? (2) What exactly is the status of the remote control system which conspiracy theorists say was used to hijack the airliners — a system designed to thwart hijackers by moving control from the cockpit to ground controllers. (3) Why is there no evidence of flight 77 which supposedly flew into the Pentagon? Why was there such a small hole in the Pentagon? Why were no wings or engines found? Why are there no eyewitnesses that saw the plane? Give us the evidence that it happened the way you say and that the Pentagon was not hit by a U.S. missile and flight 77 shot down over the ocean. There are lots more questions, but you get the idea. Answer just a few of the questions, and the most virulent of the conspiracy theories goes away. Dealing with the other major theory, however, (that Osama bin Laden really did it, but Bush et al let it happen) will require more answers. Various web sites have literally hundreds of unanswered questions. A group of New Jersey widows of men who died in the World Trade Center collapse have compiled quite a few. If this government is to have any credibility and avoid being seen as responsible for allowing thousands of Americans to die, it must answer these questions promptly and honestly. Here are just a few: (4) What was in the CIA daily brief presented to the president on August 6, 2001, and why has it been withheld for so long? The Congressional committee and the independent commission have both requested copies and been refused. Why? (5) Why did John Ashcroft and top Pentagon officials cancel plans to fly commercial airlines the morning of 9/11? If they knew what was about to happen, why wasn’t it stopped? (6) Who made all the millions of dollars selling short United and American Airlines just before 9/11? The hijackers obviously had no use for the money. Who besides them knew that those two particular airlines were going to suffer devastating losses on 9/11? Our intelligence agencies have Promis software that detects unusual stock trades. These trades were 25 times as great as usual. If, as has been reported, alarm bells were going off at our intelligence agencies on 9/10, why didn’t they beef up security on United and American flights? Why didn’t they react promptly to the hijackings? (7) Why weren’t the hijacked airliners intercepted by jet fighters and shot down before they could fly into the WTC and Pentagon? Standard procedures call for any airliner that loses radio contact or goes off course to be intercepted. Four airliners were hijacked almost simultaneously, and it was obvious to air traffic controllers immediately. The transponders on the airliners were turned off. The hijackers were heard on the radio. And the four deviated drastically from their assigned courses. Was NORAD told? If not, why not? What did the air traffic controllers say, and to whom? Why did the FBI impound the tapes of those conversations? Why has the public never been told what was on them? Why weren’t the congressional investigators told? The independent commission? Who is hiding what, and why? If it was just a matter of incompetence or somebody not doing their job, why hasn’t anyone been fired or reprimanded? If someone ordered the standdown, who? and why? and why haven’t they been charged with treason? (8) What was President Bush doing sitting in a classroom for half an hour after he was told that the country was under attack? Why didn’t the Secret Service rush him away from where everyone knew he was, unless they knew he wasn’t a target? If they knew that, how? There are many more unanswered questions. If the PNAC oil mafia didn’t purposely let 9/11 happen so they could have their new Pearl Harbor and pursue their imperialist wars, then why don’t they answer some of these questions??? QUOTE WIKIPEDIA - Despite his involvement with space programs and defense, he emerged as an early public critic of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, also aka "Star Wars") during the Ronald Reagan administration. On The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, he called it "the ultimate military lunacy, easily overwhelmed and vulnerable".[3] Bowman founded the Institute for Space and Security Studies, and its publication Space & Security News (1983) (ISSN 1071-2569), and authored two books on the subject of SDI. He is also a critic of an outgrowth of the SDI program, the Bush administration's proposed National Missile Defense.[4] For several years he has been active with Veterans for Peace and Vietnam Veterans Against the War as a speaker.[5][6][7] He had also been a member of the Peace Commission of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington.[8] In 1998, Project Censored cited Bowman's article "Our Continuing War Against Iraq," in the May 1998 issue of Space and Security News as one of the few (along with Bill Blum of the San Francisco Bay Guardian and Dennis Bernstein) covering what they deemed the fifth most censored story, "U.S. Weapons of Mass Destruction Linked to the Deaths of Half a Million Children."[9] The WMDs referred to are the biological samples sent to Iraq from the United States up to 1989, and use of depleted uranium during the Gulf War. He is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded in January 2006 by James H. Fetzer. Because of the beliefs Bowman holds regarding U.S. complicity in the September 11, 2001 attacks, he is also part of the movement to impeach George W. Bush. He spoke at a September 11, 2005 rally in New York City held by members of the New York 9/11 Truth Movement. SEE>>>>>>>>>.On The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, he called it "the ultimate military lunacy, easily overwhelmed and vulnerable"<<<< Not to mention his 101 air missions in vietnam - IM SURE HE KNOWS WHAT AN EXPLOSION IS!!!! I already said I try not to use Alex's material, but this was the most recent interview with Bowman. Alex believes the end of the world is coming, I just think it's the end of the bulls**t that's coming...MILITARY PERSONEL ARE TURNING OUT TO BE COUNTED OVER AND OVER....how long will you deny this? (technically it shows my honesty to publish the interview in full and not give you the one or two lines alone that I would think pertinent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.