Were Esplosives Used to Bring Down The Towers? – Rebut Redux

22 08 2006

To start, mad props to angryhippie for posting the first piece on this subject.  That takes balls when everyone is just waiting to call you “crazy” or a “Conspiracy Theorist”.  I dislike that conspiracy theory has a negative connotation so to fight that I will ass a new tag *drumroll* Conspiracy Theory.  *applause*  I know its not very imaginative but well I couldn’t think of anything better, we need to validate that conspiracy theory is a good thing.  It causes people to ask questions that might not ever have been asked, thus generating more knowledge.  I’m big on data/knowledge aggregation.  Go Gnostics Go!!

Note:  There is alot of info below the fold on this so its a bit of a read, but be patient.  All things come to those who wait.  Plus there’s videos.  mmmmm videos.
First of all, I would like to thank you, angryhippie, for opening up this new world for me.  I really hadn’t seen much of the theories before today.  I relied on what I saw, knew about science myself, and what I had spoken about with my father, my grandfather and some of my dad’s buddies from saudi that do this kind of stuff for a living.  I tried to steer away from anything that I would consider tainted speculation, including the 9/11 report because I knew that was a bunch of hooey.

Onward to the debate:

On Steven E. Jones: First Read His Paper. Then read on.

The original paper was “peer reviewed” before its publishing, that means that people from BYU, other proffessors, reviewed the paper and said it was ok to publish.  But then there were retractions after too much publicity, which is bad when you might rely on govt grants and such.  (NOTE: I’m not saying that Jones is correct only that he offered an intruiging theory based on what he saw, and he got hammered for it, which is not suprising considering our near police state.)

Here are a couple links, that are totally outside mainstreem media, that either outright say Jones is wrong or say he’s a bit flighty as a source of info.

http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2005/11/steven-e-jones-redux.html  – This guy has actually looked up all of Jones’ papers and well..he is a bit of a extremist.  I agree with this blogger that we need a professor with better creds to follow up this line of questioning.

http://911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html  – This one just outright shows that Jones’ theories about “squibs” are incorrect.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=154964 – Wow, this one takes the cake.  Basically it says that Jones statements about Iron are wrong.  Numerous links and citations of evedence and experiments.  In essence, when Iron rusts, its is actually slowly burning.  I always knew that Oxidation was another term for fire, but I never put two and two together on that one.  A very interesting read. I also really like the other stories they have.  It seems they are pretty moderate as far as political views.  Good stuff all around.

Anyhew, the subject is so full of speculation and conjecture and contradiction amongst the theorists themselves, that only time will reveal all the facts.  Right now there is just too much money to be made on either side of the point of contrition to get something reliable.  Most of the sites I looked at that were pro-“inside job” are speculative but not hard evidence.  Time…if only we had more of it.  This is why I can’t wait for the JFK papers to be released in 2025 (i think thats the year they become declassified), then I can KNOW (ie have it in my grubby little hands) what the evidence is.

Oh well, I’m still happy to have seen all this stuff that is news to me.

Keep up the good fight.  Knowledge is power.  Why do you think the early catholic church kept the the mass in Latin?  So they could controll the interpretations of the bible.

Good job angryhippie.  Keep em coming.  This is the whole reason why I wanted a diferent perspective, more data!!

Below this is my crappy anti-demoliton theory, based solely on what I see and what I have learned about actual demolitions in researching this stuff.

First and foremost, the towers fell because they were structurally damaged via the planes crashing into them and all the resulting damage of those crashes and subsequent explosions/melting/damage caused by oxidating steel beams. It is easy to make the mental leap that there were professional demolition devices used to make the towers fall because that’s what it looked like. In essence explosives were used to bring the towers down, only in this case the explosives were planes and hot iron and not “squibs”.

Side Note: The fact that there weren’t large chunks of cement laying around is because of this simple fact: before cement is that hard stuff you walk on, it’s just dust, when you smash it with great force, it turns back into dust. Moving on…

Here’s a video of what it looks like when a building is demolished.

Now, Watch this video that is a montage of what happened on that day.

The 28th second of the vid shows the buildings fall. Does that look like a controlled demolition? Yes and no. See, the building goes top down and is not a true implosion, which is what professional demolition guys do to lower the debris floating around.  Does it look like the WTC buildings fell just as fast as the controlled demolition? YES. (Notice all the cement turning into dust as it falls.)

Does anyone deny the calls from the planes to their relatives on the ground?  Some do, but Airphones are cheap when your life is on the line. I take these calls into consideration when I think about the planes being the cause of the WTC destruction. I think these recorded calls, and calls explained to the public by mourning family members, are evidence that planes were hijacked. Flight 93 in particular leads me to believe that terrorists were the hijackers, not US agents in disguise.
Osama Bin Ladin was even surprised at how well the attacks went. Does anyone deny that Osama Bin Ladin exists/existed (I as well as angryhippie think he’s dead by now, but that’s a horse of a different color)? Does anyone deny that he is a terrorist?  You might think that because he was paid/supported by the US govt to help keep Russia out of Afganistan that he could be a covert operative for the CIA.  But all the evidence points to the exact opposite.  The most reliable evidence, in my twisted mind, is that Saudi’s HATE Osama for messing up relations with the US, which in turn endagers our buying their oil.

Here’s my 50p on the reason why all these conspiracy theories even exist: Because the US government reacted incompetently and they tried to cover that up.  They sent jets out in the wrong direction. They failed to take the early warnings about a “spectacular” terrorist attack seriously. Our government failed us that day. But it doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was some sort of conspiracy. Unless, incompetence is a conspiracy. 😉

This is the last I will write on the subject (at least until some new evidence surfaces, which I think will probably be a looooooong time from now). It is not my role in this world to be a journalist of some kind.

I want to aggregate and hand out knowledge about penetration security and post bouncing boobies.



One response

15 06 2012

I’ve been browsing online more than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It’s pretty worth enough for me. In my view, if all webmasters and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be much more useful than ever before.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: