ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th September 2009, 12:50 AM   #1
atavisms
Critical Thinker
 
atavisms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 315
No Explosives Here?


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/n.../site1085c.jpg

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM
**This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame.




The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

The debris field:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...gzaerial4.html


Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity.

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.

Scientific papers, and scientific bullying
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
cmatrix, I asked you some questions. You didn't answer. Twice..
aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me!

Take a few FACTS:

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?

Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!

The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away'
200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located.
Gravity did that?

Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people

-The concrete of WTC 1&2 :


-WTC 7's textbook implosion

-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)

-May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?)
(through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?)


*images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002)
Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/i]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

“A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI


-Witness testimony to molten metal:

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31]

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32]

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34]

Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]

Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]

Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37] *references please see: DR Griffin's article posted at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13528.html


NIST:

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?" . . ."NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
-- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

In follow-up to this response NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….and the taxpayers money."

This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.

NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.


*last bit from, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com...de-center-dust

just for a start.
atavisms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 12:53 AM   #2
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
No Explosives Here?
Nope.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 12:53 AM   #3
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
NIST did look for signs of explosives, and found none. Take a look at NCSTAR1-3.

It isn't "scientific bullying." You're just wrong.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 01:00 AM   #4
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!
Misleading. The reality is that Shaler (the man behind the identification project) has access to many remains that he can't identify because of the condition they were in:

Quote:
But in many cases DNA was also damaged or destroyed. In initial tests, researchers found that fire and water damage rendered the DNA unusable in about sixty-one percent of the remains recovered from the wreckage. "The problem with the World Trade Center samples is that they were exposed to extremes of heat for about three months as those buildings burned," explains Shaler. "In addition to that, they were spraying water on it to keep it cool so the workers could get in there and find the people, and the warm, moist environment is very bad for DNA, it's very bad for tissues, which decompose rapidly under those circumstances."
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles...e_id=218392053
The remains are there, there's just no way to tell who's who.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 01:09 AM   #5
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
so wait, I think you're telling us you think that this was an inside job?
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.***
-Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda
-I sooo have a blog.
-The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 01:23 AM   #6
Fjolle
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years.
Wow. What a load of nonsense.

First of all the Niels Bohr Institute is the department of Physics and Astromony, and has nothing to do with the department of chemistry.

B: He is just an assistant professor at the department of chemistry and has no doctorate, the institute leader is called Mikael Bols.

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned after the article had been published.
Fjolle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 01:25 AM   #7
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,576
Originally Posted by Fjolle View Post
Wow. What a load of nonsense.

The rest of the post isn't much better.

"Virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field."

*Snork*
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 01:25 AM   #8
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,182
Originally Posted by knife fight colobus View Post
so wait, I think you're telling us you think that this was an inside job?
I'm shocked.Why hasn't this been brought up before?




Loads of macroscopic concrete here if you're game to lookhttp://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/

Last edited by Reactor drone; 25th September 2009 at 01:38 AM. Reason: added link
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 01:45 AM   #9
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 37,264
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
[Batcraptastic rambling deleted]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.
How does the sputter of nanothermite burning cause debris to be thrown hundreds of feet?

I don't expect a sensible answer. I'm just asking for them:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Doitforthem.jpg (89.9 KB, 27 views)
__________________
"We stigmatize and send to the margins
people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid"
- Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 01:48 AM   #10
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7.
Is this a part of a textbook implosion?

Also, let me ask you: do you disagree with the findings described in this quote by a 911 researcher who investigated the WTC collapses?

Quote:
As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder
And I'm not sure if this has been said but, welcome to the forums!
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.***
-Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda
-I sooo have a blog.
-The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:02 AM   #11
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,786
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?
Your understanding is correct, and shows, quite conclusively, it wasn't thermite.

McHrozni
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:09 AM   #12
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by atavisms
(*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)
That is a lie

Check Brent Blanchards paper about the investigation of the steel from the WTC.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE...d%208-8-06.pdf

Page 8, assertion 6. If you have a problem with these claims, then you can contact the personnel mentioned. You will be the fist member of the 911TM on here to have done so AFAIK
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:15 AM   #13
Fjolle
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
The rest of the post isn't much better.
Yea, I know. I just picked something that i thought wasnt common knowledge...
Fjolle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:16 AM   #14
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics.
NFPA921 is guidelines on fire investigation.

I am sure trifiorcharity will school you on this one.

Quote:
NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2008 Edition
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product....der%5Fsrc=A292

AFAIK it is not a legal directive or standard.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.

Last edited by funk de fino; 25th September 2009 at 02:18 AM.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:21 AM   #15
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
I believe Popular Mechanics handles the explosives claim best:

Quote:
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
This is basic physics. Any two objects in direct physical contact will transfer energy to eachother. Your imaginary demo charges are in contact with the steel girders, which are in turn in contact with the girders below them and are in turn in contact with the girders below them. Eventually, you reach the pilings in the foundation which are driven into the bedrock. The detonation of the hallucinatory bombs would have sent the energy of their vibrations into the buildings frame, down through the foundation and into the bedrock and would have come through as loud and clear on LDEOs siesmographs as a Twisted Sister Concert in Carnegie Hall.

There were no explosives in the Twin Towers. It is just not possible in this universe, sorry.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:28 AM   #16
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,945
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post

Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)
Hoffman was wrong, either deliberately or through sheer stupidity. He took his figures from a study into the makeup of the drifting dust plume which, by definition, could contain no macroscopic debris. See how easily you were fooled, atavisms?
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:29 AM   #17
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Its funny when people post crap that was debunked years ago.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:30 AM   #18
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,576
Originally Posted by Fjolle View Post
Yea, I know. I just picked something that i thought wasnt common knowledge...

I did learn something from your post, I just didn't want people to think there were only minor details wrong with the OP.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:46 AM   #19
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
blah blah blah

just for a start.
Now sonny. First, google is your friend. Put in each of the twoof claims, and then for giggles put the word DEBUNKED after them. Now read what comes up.

To answer your question. Were explosives used?

No they were not. NIST did an analysis stating that if CD charges were used it would have deafened anyone within a half mile. It would be unmistakable.

Please find any video (that has original audio, not doctored sound) of the collapse and point out the explosions which would be clearly audible.

There are none.

Gravy has a great video explaining it, and showing you the difference between CD including what just 60 lbs of HE sound like.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...11926#12m50s**

so you would be able to hear CD charges going off.. where are they? There are NONE. it is rather amazing don'tcha think?

now lets move on to the molten metal claim. Do a simple search for melting pionts of metals. You will find that there are 10 metals which melt under 1000C which are commonly used in office buildings. 10 of them. Can you eliminate any of them from the molten metal seen? yes or no? No you can't. So you can't claim it is molten steel.

Now, what CD process has ever had molten steel/molten metal? Can you point out one CD of a building anywhere in the world where there is molten steel/molten metal? I'll wait.
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 02:51 AM   #20
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,300
Thanks for bringing this brand new research to our attention Mr Atavisms. Now tell us what you are going to do about this Earth shattering news.

Will there be front page stories in the New York Times?

Criminal prosecutions?

Huge crowds of protesters marching on Washington demanding President Bush's impeachment?

Who do you think will be elected President in 2008?
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 03:33 AM   #21
Bad_Doggie
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
(it was- check it out if you know how)
Do you know how to use the search function here? Each and every one of your claims has been answered extensively. You’re not bothering to take the step to do a search does not bring any greater validity to these claims.

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
It happens everyday I am sure but we do not very often see it happening. People become invested in their beliefs (world view) and their positions stem from that.

Many people are brought up in one faith and never really question things until they get older. Perhaps one day they reach a point in their own development which takes them in another even contrary direction. Often it is from having been presented with new information that leads to an inner conception or realization. Hopefully, we are all learning for life.
You have the chance to "learn all your life", but you have to make the effort yourself, nobody can do it for you. Press the search button.

Woof!
Bad_Doggie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 04:04 AM   #22
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...58ab15b041.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/n.../site1085c.jpg

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM
**This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame.
and in all of those videos do you have the sounds of rapid fire explosions right before the collapse in any of the buildings? no. why not? Explosives make noise. Lots of them.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

That is 1,000 lbs of TNT at over a MILE away. Notice how they jump.

please show me a video of anyone nearby right before the buildings collapse wehre they jump. Any video (and don't try passing off the firemen at the phone booth which is AFTER the first tower collapsed)

Quote:
The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)
It is amazing. Absolutely amazing. I know my cell phone could withstand the impact of several hundred thousand tons of debris on them. It is indestructible.

Quote:
This actually proves it was NOT explosives. When you use CD to bring down a building you bring it down into its own footprint (or pretty close). Each tower had a footprint of one acre. The debris was spread out over 16 acres. oops.

of course you will say well it was EXPLOSIVES which threw the debris that distance, but you then have the problem from above. Where is the sound on the dozens of recordings of the collapses? And to top that off, where is the schrapnel and the debris being thrown around. Again watch the mythbusters clip I posted. At over a MILE you can hear the schrapnel of the cement truck.

Anyone nearby would have been ripped to shreds and debris would have been thrown miles.

Quote:
Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity.
Great provide citations which support your claims. Realize that S Jones and co. are not "serious scientists."

Quote:
Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years.
That is a lie as has already been pointed. Niels Bohrs Institute is physics and has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY. And he wasn't "running" that department. 5 minutes of real investigoogling will find that for you.
Quote:
The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.
Steven Jones was forced to retire or be FIRED from BYU for academic fraud and unethical practices. Yup, he is a "serious" scientist. Of course you could be talking about Kevin Ryan, who was FIRED for talking about what his employer did and being wrong. He is so incompetent his wrongful termination lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice because he couldn't even make basic filing dates. You may want to check into your "leaders" there sparky.

Quote:
Scientific papers, and scientific bullying
Please provide any scientific papers published in real peer reviewed journals from ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. I'll wait.

Quote:
aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me!
No but you do need to go back and maybe finish high school, or ask a real structural engineer to explain what happened to you.

Quote:
Take a few FACTS:

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?
Ah yes... Missing bodies. Lets see, over 1900 of them were in the towers when they collapsed. They were in the piles for up to 3 months, with fires burnign, high temperatures and water seaping into their remains. It is absolutely amazing that they recovered ANYTHING from anyone in the pile.

Quote:
Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)
google is your friend, but basic research skills seem beyond you.

Quote:
In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!
Hey sparky, what happens as soon as something dies? Oh it starts to decompose. Guess what happens in HOT WET enviornments? Decompositon SPEEDS UP. OF course that is also leaving out that many of the victims were crushed into paste from the collapse.

Quote:
The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away'
200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located.
Gravity did that?
Yup. Gravity, fires, hot environment and time. Sure did. You may want to stop watching CSI, and actually try to read some stuff on forensics, human decomposition, and the rest.

Quote:
Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people
You may want to do 5 minutes of research again sparky. I've seen hundreds of images showing large sections of concrte. It helps if you can actually support your claims.

I'll let others rip this part apart.

Quote:
-WTC 7's textbook implosion
Whose textbook? Provide a citaiton.
How is a building which has an asymetrical collapse, which damages buildings that are adjacent to it, that has an 18 second collapse with NO SOUNDS OF CD CHARGES going off a "textbook implosion?"


Quote:
-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)
It is amazing. ARe you really so daft? I bet you are. Lets see. The fires were not aggressively fought for the first two weeks as the FDNY were in a recovery mode. This means they were not fighting the fires. So there was very little water being sprayed on the pile, which let the fires burn.

Since there were several subways under the WTC complex they fed the fires. Look up underground fires...

try again.

Quote:
-May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?)
(through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...560a729cdf.jpg
*images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002)
Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/i]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
Oh sparky. 1. This is from erosion due to high sulphur atmosphere. It is fully explained. Again, basic chemistry. You shoudl try it.


and I'm done with it... I have kids to go and play with.

ta ta sparky.

try to do at least 10 minutes of REAL research... use the SEARCH function, all of these claims have been completely demolished. They pulled it.
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 04:18 AM   #23
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...58ab15b041.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/n.../site1085c.jpg

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM
**This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c6b3763c5d.jpg
The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

The debris field:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...gzaerial4.html


Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity.

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.

Scientific papers, and scientific bullying


aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me!

Take a few FACTS:

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?

Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!

The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away'
200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located.
Gravity did that?

Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people

-The concrete of WTC 1&2 :
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c71aee676c.jpghttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...c7158489f6.jpg

-WTC 7's textbook implosion

-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)

-May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?)
(through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...560a729cdf.jpg
*images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002)
Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/i]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

“A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI


-Witness testimony to molten metal:

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31]

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32]

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34]

Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]

Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]

Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37] *references please see: DR Griffin's article posted at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13528.html


NIST:

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?" . . ."NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
-- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

In follow-up to this response NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….and the taxpayers money."

This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.

NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.


*last bit from, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com...de-center-dust

just for a start.
Just another shill for the truth movement.

Here, go read,

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://wtc.nist.gov/

Of course I know you will not go and read them, but I am required to provide you with something outside of scorn and disgust, so there you go.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 04:54 AM   #24
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
blah blah blah
Explosives?

Nope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmS36uSdtvw

Sorry twoof.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 05:18 AM   #25
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Other than the explosion of the fuel in/from the tanks, no!

But, I will happily defer to your degree in explosives technology from an accredited University/College.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 05:36 AM   #26
Comrade Raptor
Critical Thinker
 
Comrade Raptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post

*snip*

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

*snip*

There are no explosives.

Since there are no explosives, sane people do not see them in these events.

Just like sane people don't see evil monkeys in their closets.

Do you have an evil monkey in your closet?
Comrade Raptor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 05:39 AM   #27
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
This thread just goes to show how insulated the hardcore truthers are from the outside world.

Here we have atavisms wandering onto this forum with talking points from 2006 which he honestly thinks are rock solid.

Quote:
NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite.
Super-duper-nanothermite is possibly the worst tool imaginable for taking down a building. NIST might as well have tested for nuclear fallout.
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 05:40 AM   #28
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Its funny when people post crap that was debunked years ago.
Every day, some kid is let loose on the internet unsupervised for the first time and discovers a conspiracy site that hasn't been updated since 2006.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 05:44 AM   #29
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
How can you say things like that are evidence of controlled demolition if these things don't happen in controlled demolition?

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...rch_type=&aq=f

Did you see any piece ejected blocks away?
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 05:52 AM   #30
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor View Post
There are no explosives.

Since there are no explosives, sane people do not see them in these events.

Just like sane people don't see evil monkeys in their closets.

Do you have an evil monkey in your closet?
Hey now, don't go bringing evil monkeys into this... I see them... and they throw poo!!!

Of course I believe that Mothra did it. After all there is just as much evidence that Mothra did it as there were explosives in the towers.
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 05:53 AM   #31
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
This thread just goes to show how insulated the hardcore truthers are from the outside world.

Here we have atavisms wandering onto this forum with talking points from 2006 which he honestly thinks are rock solid.



Super-duper-nanothermite is possibly the worst tool imaginable for taking down a building. NIST might as well have tested for nuclear fallout.
And Mothra poo... can't forget they forgot to test for pixy dust or sonic vibrations from David Hasselhoff's CD's as the cause either... wait. CD's? Did the Hoff do it?
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 05:57 AM   #32
Comrade Raptor
Critical Thinker
 
Comrade Raptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
Hey now, don't go bringing evil monkeys into this... I see them... and they throw poo!!!

Of course I believe that Mothra did it. After all there is just as much evidence that Mothra did it as there were explosives in the towers.
No way, man. I'm a No-Mothra believer. There is no evidence of any Mothra at any of the scenes. You're an NWO Mothra-shill!

I put together a compelling case that it was definitely, positively, absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt... Magneto.

Think about it.
Comrade Raptor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 06:00 AM   #33
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Might wanna use that time machine and join us in 2009.

Every single one of those claims was debunked by 2006. Check out http://www.911myths.com for more information please.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 06:00 AM   #34
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
NFPA921 is guidelines on fire investigation.

I am sure trifiorcharity will school you on this one.



http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product....der%5Fsrc=A292

AFAIK it is not a legal directive or standard.
NFPA921 is not a legal directive. Once the initial investigation is done by the locaal law enforcement, then and only then does the NFPA or fire department start THEIR investigation. And it is typically to figure out if anything could have been prevented or done differently. It COULD possibly be used as evidence in court, but it typically would only be used in a Civil trial if the fire department was negligent.
Here are some reports that would be common.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/LakeWorth.PDF
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/FIphoenixsum.pdf

The author is using conclusions he found on the Firefighters for 9/11 BS page. It is absolutely wrong, and is used in the wrong context.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 06:01 AM   #35
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Oh. Another seagull OP. What a surprise.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 06:06 AM   #36
AdinDraco
Muse
 
AdinDraco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 664
Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor View Post
No way, man. I'm a No-Mothra believer. There is no evidence of any Mothra at any of the scenes. You're an NWO Mothra-shill!

I put together a compelling case that it was definitely, positively, absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt... Magneto.

Think about it.
Wait a minute! Everyone's completely overlooking the fact that no psychic, in the world, saw this coming! Who has the anti-psi cloaking capabilities of this magnitude?! This is a vital clue! Has Magneto entered into some sort of unholy alliance with Prof X???!!!
AdinDraco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 06:10 AM   #37
Comrade Raptor
Critical Thinker
 
Comrade Raptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 399
He does run a secret school in NY, after all. And they were best friends.
Comrade Raptor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 06:10 AM   #38
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
No big concrete?? Right. And that is NOT a car I see in there.

triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 06:15 AM   #39
paulheinze
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Fjolle View Post

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned after the article had been published.
From this link
Quote:
He informs videnskab.dk that the decision has nothing to do with Niels Harrit’s article, and that he otherwise did not achieve having any experiences with the journals, so that he cannot shed further light on how the journal operates.
So why are your citing this? This is a deceitful attempt to connect his resignation to the scientific article.

Last edited by paulheinze; 25th September 2009 at 06:17 AM.
paulheinze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2009, 06:17 AM   #40
paulheinze
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Fjolle View Post

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned after the article had been published.
From this link
Quote:
He informs videnskab.dk that the decision has nothing to do with Niels Harrit’s article, and that he otherwise did not achieve having any experiences with the journals, so that he cannot shed further light on how the journal operates.
So why are your citing this? This is a deceitful attempt to connect his resignation to the scientific article.
paulheinze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.