Political Crossfire Forums

[William Amos]

If you ever want me to answer any more of your questions about 911 or debunk any more of your sites then answer this one question.

It takes thousands of pounds of TNT to destroy even a small building much less 2 100+ Story buildings and one smaller one.

It would take in excess of 500,000 pounds of explosives to bring down these buildings.

Any forensics person will tell you that any bomb will leave bomb residue. And certainly that much explosives to bring down the WTC would ahve left massive levels of explosive residue

So tell me where is it at ? If there was such explosives where is the residue ?

You need to prove this else nothing else you state makes any sense.

[Patriot911]

Might I add that the amount of explosives needed to bring down a small building also assume that the main supports have been precut as much as 90% to insure the explosives work.

And the fact that people who survived the collapse heard each floor slam into the rest of the building but didn't hear either the initial explosions or the continued explosions claimed by the CT crowd.

And the fact that people were right next to the base that the CT crowd claims was blown, yet they suffered no damage to the stairwell and heard nothing.

And the fact that the fires would have cooked off the explosives long before "they" could have set them off.

The list goes on and on.

[LostSoul3412]

There is no residue. Everything is under control.

[William Amos]

They keep trying to claim this was an instantanous event when its well know that the buildings stood for hours while people were trapped there.

They claim that a 747 couldnt bring down a building yet want to claim that some small "Bomb" can do it ?

Even their own facts dispove their theories

[William Amos]

LostSoul3412 wrote: There is no residue. Everything is under control.

You cannot create an explosion without leaving residue. Explosives by nature are chemical and they leave chemical traces.

So there would ahve had to been residue especially with the insane amounts needed to brind down a hugh building.

[Patriot911]

And since when did their theories even make any sense? :lol: Funny how they claim the "official" story is wrong, but can't even come up with a theory that explains the facts. You should have seen Psholtz's dance when he had to explain Silverstein's supposed admission. According to him, Silverstein felt so guilty for ordering the demolition that he subconciously admitted to it, but also subconciously framed the fire department for actually doing it. :roll: Apparently Psholtz is a new breed of mind reader who knows what people were thinking in the past just by watching a video tape.

[LostSoul3412]

William Amos wrote: You cannot create an explosion without leaving residue. Explosives by nature are chemical and they leave chemical traces.

So there would ahve had to been residue especially with the insane amounts needed to brind down a hugh building.

There were no traces, because there was no explosion, because there was no operation. Everything is under control, and there is no need to question further. Carry on with your scheduled activities.

[PeterX]

Profesor Steven Jones of Brigham Young University found traces of thermate in physical samples of WTC debris.

Placed in the right areas thermate would have no problem burning through the girders which supported the WTC.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm

[William Amos]

PeterX wrote: Profesor Steven Jones of Brigham Young University found traces of thermate in physical samples of WTC debris.

Placed in the right areas thermate would have no problem burning through the girders which supported the WTC.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm

Sorry I dont trust that good professor. And he wouldnt have gotten just "traces" he would have gotten lots of thermite.

BTW love his thesis here

Quote: Alex Jones's 2005 release Martial Law 9/11 Rise of the Police State highlighted the physical evidence that the towers and Building 7 were brought down with incendiary devices

Nah he isnt biased at all !

Wiling to bet he put the thermite in his own test

[psholtz]

William Amos wrote: PeterX wrote: Profesor Steven Jones of Brigham Young University found traces of thermate in physical samples of WTC debris.

Placed in the right areas thermate would have no problem burning through the girders which supported the WTC.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm

Sorry I dont trust that good professor.
Well see... This is where it all breaks down into something of an absurdity.

You ask for "evidence".. So someone brings to you evidence from a well-respected professor from a well-respected university, and you just say you don't "trust" the professor..

OK .. what do you trust? Who do you trust?

What would convince you? Would anything convince you?

You keep asking for evidence, and yet when evidence of the highest and most impeccable caliber is brought to you, you just close your eyes and refuse to look at it.

If you're going to be that way, why bother starting any threads at all? What's there to discuss?


Quote: Quote:
Alex Jones's 2005 release Martial Law 9/11 Rise of the Police State highlighted the physical evidence that the towers and Building 7 were brought down with incendiary devices


Nah he isnt biased at all !
So what if he's biased?

People are supposed to biased.

It's the Newspeak-Doublethink mind-job that Fox is pulling on you by telling you (a) they're fair-and-balanced when (b) they're nothing of the sort that's really confusing you.

Nothing in this world is free from bias.. (Least of all you, I might - politely - add)

Get used to it.

[PeterX]

William Amos wrote:

Wiling to bet he put the thermite in his own test

You're prepared to doubt a scholar who until he began researching 9/11 was massively respected was prepared to falsify the results of his scientific analysis but think that an alcoholic, drunk driving, draft dodging, grandson of a nazi collaborator is trustworthy?

Wow.

[Patriot911]

PeterX wrote: Profesor Steven Jones of Brigham Young University found traces of thermate in physical samples of WTC debris.

Placed in the right areas thermate would have no problem burning through the girders which supported the WTC.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm

The steel tested by Steven Jones did not have any kind of chain of custody controls on it. Who knows WHAT that steel was exposed to between the time it was at ground zero until he tested it. You can't prove ANYTHING without a chain of custody to prove the sample was not contaminated / tampered with.

Second, the elements present in thermate are common elements. Aluminum oxide, iron and sulphur.

Third, thermate can't "easily cut through girders" because they are vertical in nature, not horizontal. Thermate cuts by burning through, i.e. using gravity.

Fourth, the amount of thermate needed to cut through all the girders in the WTC would be extremely problematic to place, especially where nobody would notice.

Fifth, thermate is not used in demolitions because it doesn't have the kind of control / reliability that high explosives have. High explosives burn in milliseconds from ignition. Thermate takes several seconds to initiate and then more time to burn through. Also, the timing would be extremely difficult because not all girders are the same size.

Sixth, Steven Jones said he found traces that COULD be the results of a thermate reaction, but couldn't prove that it was thermate without further testing.

Seventh, you really should find a more reliable source than prison planet. Any site that lies as much as that site does should be viewed with great skepticism.

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: William Amos wrote: PeterX wrote: Profesor Steven Jones of Brigham Young University found traces of thermate in physical samples of WTC debris.

Placed in the right areas thermate would have no problem burning through the girders which supported the WTC.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm

Sorry I dont trust that good professor.
Well see... This is where it all breaks down into something of an absurdity.

You ask for "evidence".. So someone brings to you evidence from a well-respected professor from a well-respected university, and you just say you don't "trust" the professor..

OK .. what do you trust? Who do you trust?

What would convince you? Would anything convince you?

You keep asking for evidence, and yet when evidence of the highest and most impeccable caliber is brought to you, you just close your eyes and refuse to look at it.

If you're going to be that way, why bother starting any threads at all? What's there to discuss?


The "evidence" provided by the "good professor" is highly questionable to begin with. He has yet to provide his paper for peer review and has since been suspended because of it.

psholtz wrote: Quote: Quote:
Alex Jones's 2005 release Martial Law 9/11 Rise of the Police State highlighted the physical evidence that the towers and Building 7 were brought down with incendiary devices


Nah he isnt biased at all !
So what if he's biased?

People are supposed to biased.

It's the Newspeak-Doublethink mind-job that Fox is pulling on you by telling you (a) they're fair-and-balanced when (b) they're nothing of the sort that's really confusing you.

Nothing in this world is free from bias.. (Least of all you, I might - politely - add)

Get used to it.
Alex Jones is a known habitual liar who is out to make a buck by preying on the gullible. He has plenty of prey it would seem.

[Patriot911]

PeterX wrote: William Amos wrote:

Wiling to bet he put the thermite in his own test

You're prepared to doubt a scholar who until he began researching 9/11 was massively respected was prepared to falsify the results of his scientific analysis but think that an alcoholic, drunk driving, draft dodging, grandson of a nazi collaborator is trustworthy?

Wow.

I am willing to doubt anyone who won't let his peers examine his own work. I am also willing to doubt anyone who doesn't follow chain of custody practices which is standard for insuring an untainted sample.

And last time I checked, Bush hasn't written a single word of the papers that debunk the conspiracy theories and show what really happened. That was done by professionals with access to ALL the evidence. The NIST report has work by some of the very best structural engineers in the world. I would put a structural engineer up against a hack physics professor who won't show his work any day of the week.

[William Amos]

So this is the very same professor who got caught and suspended and they want to hang their whole argument on him


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: The "evidence" provided by the "good professor" is highly questionable to begin with. He has yet to provide his paper for peer review and has since been suspended because of it.
That paper has already been peer-reviewed 3 times.

He was suspended b/c a false, libelous, slanderous hit piece written against him by a neocon accusing him of fomenting a violent revolution against the government.. such which is completely untrue.

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: The "evidence" provided by the "good professor" is highly questionable to begin with. He has yet to provide his paper for peer review and has since been suspended because of it.
That paper has already been peer-reviewed 3 times.

He was suspended b/c a false, libelous, slanderous hit piece written against him by a neocon accusing him of fomenting a violent revolution against the government.. such which is completely untrue.

bulls**t. The paper has not been peer reviewed at all which is why he has been suspended. Look on the BYU web site.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: The "evidence" provided by the "good professor" is highly questionable to begin with. He has yet to provide his paper for peer review and has since been suspended because of it.
That paper has already been peer-reviewed 3 times.

He was suspended b/c a false, libelous, slanderous hit piece written against him by a neocon accusing him of fomenting a violent revolution against the government.. such which is completely untrue.

bulls**t. The paper has not been peer reviewed at all which is why he has been suspended. Look on the BYU web site.
Where on the BYU Web site?

Nobody in the academic world has ever been fired just b/c they had a paper that didn't get peer-reviewed. That's absurd, and if that's the excuse they're using publicly, it betrays to you just how cowardly and terrified those in power have truly become.

[Otacon]

If explosives were used, there would indeed be an absolute **** of residue. There was an explosion all right, the explosion came from the 20,000 pounds of jet fuel on the 747s.

[letfreedomring]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: The "evidence" provided by the "good professor" is highly questionable to begin with. He has yet to provide his paper for peer review and has since been suspended because of it.
That paper has already been peer-reviewed 3 times.

He was suspended b/c a false, libelous, slanderous hit piece written against him by a neocon accusing him of fomenting a violent revolution against the government.. such which is completely untrue.


That being the case, has he filed a lawsuit? what about the questions that was asked? about the chain of custody of the sample? about thermate being a common substance? and about the amount that would be required? how about the placement of the thermate? there have been conflicting stories on these sites as to the placement?