|Sender:||Cody Luna <email@example.com>|
|Added:||Dec 01, 2010|
|Sent to:||Editing Committee|
hey dumbass..Stephen Jones didn't find iron microspheres 'in the paint
chips', actually, Stephen Jones wasn't the first person to discover the iron
microspheres at all (which are not 'in the paint chips' at all, but just lone
spheres of iron by themselves..)
The USGS found them first in 2005. They cataloged them in their atlas of world trade center dust particles.
Here is the official list of dust particles collected by the USGS;
here is the link to the image of the iron-rich microsphere, taken NOT BY STEPHEN JONES, but by the USGS.
Your entire article smacks of ignorance of even ground-floor 9/11 conspiracy theories. My suggestion; watch Blueprint for Truth, from
Here is part one of the 13 part video.
Then, if you want to debunk the theories, at least you know what the theories are that you are trying to debunk..it helps a little.
Educate yourself. Then write what you want, just don't be so blatantly an agent of propaganda, use the facts if you are so sure 9/11 truth is a lie. What do you have to resort to character assassination and lies of omission/distortion for if you are so sure 9/11 truthers are wrong? Huh?
You are wrong, as I'm well familiar with the claims of Steven (not "Stephen") Jones. His claim is that "iron microspheres" indicate some sort of explosives or "controlled demolition." That claim is false. You may want to review this paper which refutes not only Jones's claims, but those of David Ray Griffin, another "hero" to 9/11 Truthers who resorts to pushing spurious and unsupportable claims:
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf (The discussion on iron "spherules" begins on page 160).
Furthermore, the whole "iron spherules" issue is idiotic and ignores the extreme logical problems with the very concept of a 9/11 conspiracy. How did these explosives get into the towers? It would have taken months of installation, wiring, and pre-cutting of support columns--and you think this could have been done in the largest office building in the world, where 100,000 people worked daily, and not one of them noticed this activity going on?
Not a single one of these "charges" was observed BEFORE 9/11?
For an analysis of why "controlled demolition" claims, including Steven Jones's, are not credible in the slightest, I suggest you look at this:
Why am I an "agent of propaganda?" Because I call out conspiracy theorists on their false claims, mistakes, logical fallacies and stunted thinking? Or do you call me that because I disagree with the way you think 9/11 happened, and anyone who disagrees must by definition be a "shill," "brainwashed" or "sheeple?"
A long email, but I'd rather be exhaustively thorough than leave anything to
speculation or misinterpretation.
You are an agent of propaganda because you are clearly misinformed about what you are talking about, yet continue to act as if you are informed, and utilize techniques of propaganda such as character assassination, distortion of facts and bandwagon appeals to make your points. Correct yourself.
To start, let's ignore WHY the microspheres are there and any conspiracy theories concerning them, let's talk about your inaccurate reporting of the facts concerning these spheres.
THEY ARE NOT 'in the paint chips' as you claim. So there your claims are completely, 100% false. They are just microspheres. Lone. Balls of iron. As well, Steven Jones is not the only one who found them, in fact not even the first. RJ Lee Group found them, the USGS found them, and any independent observer who wants to examine the dust will also find them now. The fact that they are there is not up for debate, WHY they are there, WHEN they got there, and WHAT they mean is the focus of the 9/11 debate, try to keep up.
Let's get to your other appeals to reason;
Where are the WHISTLEBLOWERS? Where is the evidence of CD?
As well, you have a specious claim that is just as unfounded and rhetorical as any discussion on conspiracies, the 'fact' that 'someone would have noticed' explosives or 'someone would have blown the whistle' from the inside.
After the collapse they didn't LOOK for explosive remnants, thus of course they did not find any. How do you find what you are not looking for? YOU DON'T, unless you accidentally stumble across it, and that is provided that you know what you are seeing when you stumble onto it. They also did not find the black boxes from either flight into the WTC and they were looking for them, and knew WHAT they looked like..so claiming that something was absent from the site doesn't mean it was never there to begin with, as clearly the planes had black boxes in them, right? If you say 'they didn't find it there, they would have found it if it had been there' about explosives, then the only logical conclusion one can draw is that they didn't find the black boxes because they were never on the planes right? No one would be so dumb as to claim the black boxes weren't at the WTC to be found, and simply were never located. LOST FOREVER. Like many of the victims' bodies and personal belongings that also disappeared into thin air.
So they were looking for the black boxes and COULDN'T find THEM, but yet they WEREN'T looking for explosive evidence and you claim they WOULD have found IT had there been explosives. This is a logical fallacy, someone like yourself who claims to debunk conspiracies should understand a thing or two about logic. If the things that were being looked for the hardest went undiscovered, claiming that explosives, because they were never looked for and thus never discovered, must not exist because no one found anything doesn't make sense..you don't find stuff you aren't looking for.
Yet, when Niels Harret and Steven Jones went looking for evidence of explosives they found it; why hasn't anyone debunked the nano-thermite paper yet? They haven't, in case you missed something. The claim that they are paint chips doesn't hold water because WTC paint had large amounts of chromium in it- the chips do not contain chromium. What are the chips made of? Extremely uniform nano-sized particles, hexagonal plate structures of aluminum, and rhomboid nano-sized particles of iron-oxide, suspended in a silicon and carbon matrix. Paint does not use nano-sized ANYTHING, much less aluminum. Nano-sized aluminum powder, as Van Romero, head of Los Alamos will tell you, is a controlled substance. You have to have a license to get it, and even then acquiring more than a few pounds is impossible.
WHY IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A STANDARD DEMOLITION, and why no one noticed anything suspiciousFirst, how many of those 100,000 people would even recognize a charge of RDX or, even worse, a layer of nano thermite painted on a column? How many of those 100,000 people had had any type of education regarding bombs and explosive devices, and how many were being vigilant and looking for such devices in the WTC prior to 9/11? How many of the 100,000 people you claim 'could have or would have' seen and reported something ever actually went into the bowels of the building where the steel columns were raw and accessible? A very small percentage, I'd wager, for any of the above.
I met someone online who claimed that their wife died in the south tower, was trapped in the stairwell around the 70th floor, and called him claiming to have seen explosions- hearsay, of course, but it illustrates a point- how many possible eyewitnesses WHO MIGHT HAVE SEEN AND REPORTED EXPLOSIVES, of those 100,000 employees, were killed that day? Who knows if some of the 3000+ dead people might have seen something, like any good cover-up the most plausible witnesses are not alive to testify, everyone in the building during the final collapse (when explosives would have been most noticeable) died then and there.
The 'activity' that no one noticed? There was construction every day in the WTC, entire floors were vacant and being renovated before being leased again. That no one noticed 'unusual' activity in the WTC would be like saying that "someone would have noticed the marine loading the gun he was about to use to kill his platoon inside the barracks" where at any given time 100 marines are loading and unloading their firearms without similar malicious intent. In order for activity to be considered 'unusual' it has to be outside the norm, and construction was an everyday thing at the WTC, employees did not take notice of construction, and more than likely intentionally ignored it.
Of course you also presume the 'controlled demo' theory to have been undertaken as if a professional demo company was taking the building down as a hired job, in which they go in and do cutting with torches before RDX takes out the building- of COURSE they couldn't do such a thing IF the WTC was rigged to blow, of COURSE that would be too obvious. We are talking about a conspiracy, which would require clandestine demolition. Untruthers should understand that the building is NOT going to fit every classic sign of demolition- for very obvious reasons- and should stop denying the possibility of controlled demo simply because it was an unorthodox and unconventional-looking demolition.
Controlled demotiontions have two goals- bring the building down safely and completely, regardless of the noise created or extensive fail-safes needed. Demo companies over-rig a building to blow, to make sure that once they set off the charges the building is going to come down FOR SURE. If the charges go off and the building doesn't come all the way down, that is a HUGE problem- now someone has to go in and rig it again, hoping that it doesn't collapse on them, an extremely dangerous task. For this reason, CD companies over-rig their demolitions, and they do so with the idea that they want the building to come down in it's footprint. Again, for this event the safety of the demolition was not priority (if it was CD). The only priority is to bring down the building, and to do so as clandestinely as possible. Of course it therefore wouldn't look like a controlled demo in alot of ways- RDX would be avoided (it is loud and leaves tale-tell chemical signatures).
Absence of typical explosive devices
Another point you bring up is the absence of 'wiring', presumably you are referring to detcord, a type of electrical fuse-wire, which has to be connected to every charge and trace back to the sequence computer or trigger box. Detcord does not burn hot enough to initiate a thermite reaction, so if the charges were thermitic then detcord would not have been used. In fact, the presumption that any kind of 'wiring' at all would have been used is also inconsistent with the Modus Operandi a clandestine controlled demo- of course they wouldn't use typical demolition materials that would have obvious controlled demolition implications in the rubble! That would be a glaring oversight! The more exotic and unrecognizable the explosive materials and triggers used, the higher likelihood of not only having it not discovered in planning and execution phases, but engaging in plausible deniability when it is discovered..I can't count the number of times I've seen people ridiculed for mentioning 'superdooperthermite' and it's 'magical ability to cut sideways' (not the words of a truther but one of you guys)..none of which of course is as implausible as it sounds when treated with such juvenile dismissal.
Superthermite exists, it isn't some magical thing, it isn't conjecture like a gamma-ray-bomb or mini-nuke. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory wrote extensively on nano- and super-thermite in the late 90s.
Atypical detonators could include, but are not limited to, radio-frequency devices like RC hardware or cell-phone technology. Terrorists use atypical detonators all the time like cell phones for multiple obvious reasons, the foremost being the lack of wires that will trace back to the detonator and allow greater distance between the person detonating and the explosive device. If your contention is that terrorists, and not the US Government, attacked the building on 9/11, then terrorists having access to RDX and detcord and thinking it wise to use them would be unlikely..cell-phone or other remote detonation means could have been exploited, especially since destroyed cell-phones would be commonplace in the rubble and would not raise alarm.
How do you demolish a building without making it look like a controlled demolition?
A few well-placed shaped charges of thermite COULD have cut through steel that would have otherwise been cut with a torch in a professional demolition. The claim that the collapse would have taken 'hundreds of people' and 'hundreds of explosives' seems counter intuitive, considering the official story, the one you believe, only required 10-15 floors worth of fire damage, with out even cutting any columns, before the entire building fell to dust.
If that is your theory, that NO explosives were required yet 90% of the building, which was intact, was compromised and destroyed by the failure of the other 10%, then by YOUR theory, only enough demolition charges would be needed to do minimal damage to 10-15 floors to initiate a global collapse.
Hell, a group of 5 people can lay charges on 10 floors in the elevator shafts without anyone noticing.
Think about it- if the intent of the CD is to make it appear that the building gradually weakened until it failed catastrophically from fire damage, what type of explosive/incendiary would be best? Obviously, a slow-acting (relative to RDX) incendiary device that would gradually weaken the structure until catastrophic failure would be better than loud and fast-acting explosives- what fits this description? Certainly not RDX or other typical controlled demolition materials.
In fact, logically, if the building were demolished in a controlled fashion they would CERTAINLY not use typical controlled demolition materiel. Doing so would be asking to get caught..the fact that no one found explosive residue (like detcord, blasting caps and traces of RDX or other common CD explosive) is not surprising and does not rule out clandestine demo at all, and in fact is to the contrary; consistent with clandestine controlled demo. The use of thermite to demolish a building would have the appearance that the structure was weakened by fire, as essentially it IS weakening the structure with fire, albeit fires hotter than office fires and jet fuel will burn.
Here is your favorite discussion of iron spherules, and why the points made aren't entirely consistent, relevant or factual;
"As discussed previously, there is no evidence at all for large amounts of melted
steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or
some other highly localized process."
Appendix C of the FEMA report clearly shows steel I-beams that have been melted through and reduced in thickness by nearly 50%. This 'sulfidation' is explained away as mere contact with gypsum board or acid rain..both just as unlikely as thermite to have caused the damage, and a hypothesis that has not been successfully replicated. The second sentence is just as much conjecture as the belief that thermite was used, considering the first is not factually accurate and there is evidence of melted steel, large amounts being irrelevant considering ANY melted steel should not be present; the steel should not melt AT ALL. ANYWHERE.
"It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group
report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain
that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some,
if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples."
Here we have the author insomuch admitting that the iron spheres COULD have (and even likely may have) come from steel beams, even though they identify the mechanism behind creating them as 'cutting torches' after the collapse, it acknowledges that the spheres from the beams "contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples." Of course, now they must explain why the samples collected before the rescue operations contain exactly the same amount of iron spheres as dust collected later, if their contention is that 'some, if not all' of the spheres were created during rescue and clean up.
The chain of custody for some of the dust includes having been collected, in some cases 10 minutes, immediately after the towers collapsed. The iron spheres in this dust are clearly not a result of cleanup, so the other excuse is;
"There appear to be several plausible candidate sources of the iron spherules in
office materials or other building contents. Perhaps the most obvious is the fly
ash itself used in structural concrete, a residue of combusted coal, which contains
iron spheres in a variety of sizes that would have been liberated as the concrete
was destroyed. Another example is magnetic printer toner, used to print financial
instruments, that could have been present in printer cartridges or found in a large
volume of paper documents. This candidate has the advantage of matching the
size, shape, uniformity, and elemental composition of the observed spherules
from one report . We also cannot discount their origin in building contents,
rather than building structure, without much more careful study."
Fly ash is iron oxide spheres, not pure iron. The report clearly says the spheres were almost PURE iron, not iron oxide. If it was toner ink, they have to explain how it got so far away so quickly, all the way to the Brooklyn Bridge in less than 10 minutes where Jones' first sample was collected on the hand rail of the pedestrian walkway. That is a hell of alot of toner to have made it all the way on the pyroclastic wave out to the Brooklyn Bridge, when theoretically the concrete and steel should have been FALLING ONTO the printers and crushing them under the rubble, rather than exploding them outward nearly a mile away. Likewise, the explanation that the spheres could come from combusted paper holds little weight, as we clearly saw most of the paper was liberated from the building without so much as being singed, and clearly would not account for the wealth of microspheres in the dust.
I could go on about this report's inconsistencies and misconceptions, but I don't think I have to. The point is proven that this report raises as many, if not more, questions than it answers. You seem eager to stop asking questions..
Perhaps you should know that I am not a conspiracy theorist for the sake of being a conspiracy theorist. I hate stupid conspiracies, the 'fake' moon landing, the 'jesus wasn't real' or the 'ancient atomic bombs' crap. I dig you there. I also hated 9/11 conspiracy theorists for a long time and argued vehemently against the prospect, a close friend of mine disappointed me greatly when he tried to show me the Loose Change video some many years ago. Yet, as more science and literature is published, more research is done, and the more the government lies, obfuscates and covers up, I find it increasingly difficult to be dismissive. If, at this point, you are still dismissive too, then you regrettably do not understand the science; how can we expect a nation in which 2/3 of the population don't believe in evolution to understand the science involved in the WTC disaster? If it was a conspiracy of such magnitude, no doubt this nations lack of scientific understanding was to be counted on.
Academia and Conspiracies
Why aren't other academics coming to the foreground in support? Nevermind the 1300+ licensed and degreed architects and engineers who signed the AE911truth petition, they obviously don't count as 'academia' to you.
It is public taboo to even question 9/11, and even moreso to claim the official story is a lie. Partly because people died, and we 'never speak ill of the dead' out of respect for the living. Yet, here we have many many 'official' lies. First, the claims that only 180 mph tests of 707s flying into the WTC had ever been conducted, (no one could have predicted a full-speed collision, only 'lost in a fog, landing aircraft'). Then, even NIST had to admit that they did test a 600mph collision in 1964, and the WTC would have survived the impact according to these tests, even though resulting fire was apparently not considered.
Another lie by untruthers is that there are no confirmed reports of molten metal, yet there is eyewitness testimony, photographic and video evidence to the contrary. What caused temperatures capable of turning steel i-beams into salmon-hot glowing material? No one explains this process 'officially'. What caused the shower of 'aluminum' to come from the 80th floor? Why was it so hot it was yellow and stayed glowing while it fell 60+ stories? What caused such temperatures? Aluminum doesn't glow at it's melting temperature, so if it was aluminum it was way above it's melting temperature, by nearly 1000 degrees. Why would it pool, in liquid form, for nearly 45 minutes and get superheated before running out of the building? Wouldn't there have also been some metallic-looking, non-glowing molten aluminum falling, perhaps earlier, or at least along with the super-heated, glowing-hot material? No official explanation here..
Yet another lie was that the buildings did not fall at free-fall acceleration, which again is a claim that NIST was forced to correct after being forced to view the work of David Chandler, specifically WTC7. NIST and FEMA and the 9/11 Commission are all flawed. Some of the data was treated properly, while other data is wholly ignored.
The argument that Niels Harret's or Steven Jones' paper is not 'peer-reviewed' seems hypocritical when you realize that NIST's computer models of the collapses were not peer-reviewed; the software is available but they won't reveal the specs and data that they plugged into the program to create a global collapse, effectively making it impossible to check their work and independently verify it. Of course, anyone who wants to review Jones' work is free to do so, they simply have not done so yet, except for those who agree with him which you also label as 'pseudoscientists' too..what does a scientist have to do to both agree with Jones and not be considered a 'pseudoscientist' by you? Or is that the definition of pseudoscience, that they agree with Steven Jones?
If you respect science over government authority, you should be questioning the official story of the events of 9/11.
If you aren't, well, we know why. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
At the very least, 9/11 deserves a new investigation. The canards you lay out, that it didn't look like a controlled demo, that there are no (obvious) evidence to suggest controlled demo, that CD would have been impossible because of the number of explosive devices needed and people to set them up, none of those are any more factual and logically-fool-proof ideas than any of the theories you try to dismiss with them.
You should correct your hit-piece..example, Isaac Newton believed in Astrology, even rebuking someone for ridiculing astrology by saying "I have studied astrology, you sir have NOT!" Does the fact that Newton believed that the phases of the moon and mars affected human biology and relations make his rules of motion less valid? Does not every action have equal and opposite reaction still? Objects in motion remain in motion, and stationary objects remain stationary, until an outside force acts on them, even now? What does it matter what Newton thought about Astrology, or anything else for that matter, if his theory of motion was correct? What does it matter what a scientist believes if when he commits something to science he does so with respect to the scientific method?
Then why are you bringing up all the old shit Jones did to discredit him? It is obvious that you have serious concerns that his science has dangerous implications, but that you are also incapable of defeating the science by scientific merits alone instead resorting to propaganda tactics and character assassination. Discredit the science, not the scientist. The fact that you attack the messenger and not the message clearly shows you are not scientific yourself. Scientists are not superhuman, and will make mistakes and even believe lies themselves occasionally. They are not perfect people and should not be expected to be, no one is. Science, though, is insulated from influence of the beliefs and faults of scientists by engaging in peer-review and sticking to the scientific method. Discrediting Jones isn't going to discredit his science, and if you think you can do that, you can do better than by attacking Jones' career history.
PS. I don't think referring me to an article you wrote is going to clear anything up, as it is evident that you are misinformed EVEN OF THE OFFICIAL STORY, as evidenced by this statement;
"(Also an interesting general demonstration of how debris fell onto other buildings, which is relevant to collapse of WTC7)."
First, no debris from either plane was capable of reaching 7, the flight paths did not intersect with building 7..WTC 1 was hit from north to south, WTC7 is north of WTC1, and thus on the opposite side from the debris that was ejected from WTC1, and WTC2 was hit with the plane flying northeast, and WTC7 was due north from this building, also keeping WTC7 out of the debris field from either plane impact. Not to mention, even the NIST report claims that column 79, a column that was on the opposite side of the building from the WTC complex and the damage caused by WTC1's collapse, is the culprit for the collapse. There was no damage to WTC7 from aircraft, ergo the fact that aircraft debris fell onto WTC5, the building closer to WTC2 and NE from it when WTC 7 was across another street and NorthWEST of WTC5 (and the direction of aircraft debris) is IRRELEVANT to the collapse of WTC7.
THE FIRES caused WTC7 to collapse, not the damage to the building or aircraft debris. Now, how did the fires in WTC7 weaken the steel sufficiently considering it didn't have the benefit of having the explanation that the plane impact knocked off all the fire-proofing material? I'll leave that to your next uninformed hit piece on the matter.
Wow. In the over 4,000 words of your response, you've managed to hit every
trope and cliche used by conspiracy theorists to discredit those who attack
their asinine theories. To the extent this is a request to withdraw or rewrite
what you characterize as "hit pieces," which is I assume your main purpose in
writing me, don't hold your breath. My characterization of Jones and his
theories is accurate.
I'm not a scientist, but rather a historian. Nevertheless I'm not ignorant of the academic process as applied to science or unable to recognize bad science when I see it. Jones and his theories are simply wrong and have been proven so many times. How do I know this? Well, aside from the fact that in order for him to be correct, everything else that we know for certain about 9/11 must necessarily be wrong. But in case that doesn't sway you...
Well, try this refutation for one: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/commentsonstevenjones'hypothesesbydavero
This for another: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3385636&postcount=96
Or this: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/911-steven-jones-and-me/
Or perhaps this comprehensive, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of why "controlled demolition" on 9/11 is impossible: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf
You also make the classic mistake that 9/11 Truthers often fall for: trumpeting one piece of so-called "scientific evidence" as conclusive, as if it, by itself, can overcome the mountains of other evidence that indicate 9/11 happened as a result of Osama's hijackers, and not as part of any "controlled demolition." It is this mountain of evidence, which Jones utterly refuses to address, that is by itself conclusive--meaning that we can prove what happened on 9/11 without ever once mentioning "iron microspheres."
Can your theory explain, without resorting to conjecture, why Osama bin Laden confessed to conceiving and planning 9/11? Mine can. Yours can't.
Can your theory explain, without resorting to conjecture, why there is so much evidence of the guilt of the Al Qaeda hijackers? Mine can. Yours can't.
Can your theory explain why observers on-site predicted that the towers would collapse before they did? Mine can. Yours can't.
If you accept that there was a conspiracy to blow up the main WTC towers, you must necessarily accept that WTC7 was also intentionally demolished. Can you explain why? My theory fully explains WTC7. Yours can't; you have to resort to conjecture to argue why WTC7 would even be a target.
Can your theory explain, without resorting to conjecture, what happened to the Pentagon and flight 93? Mine can. Yours can't.
Can your theory explain, without resorting to conjecture, who did in the first place? Mine can. Yours can't.
Can your theory explain why the plot to carry out 9/11 could be kept contained, intact and secret, without leaks and without being discovered, long enough to actually be carried out? Mine can. Yours can't. You have to resort to ridiculous tautologies like "no one saw the detonators or explosives because the conspirators hid them really, really well."
Can you explain why your theory, considered in total, is illogical, implausible, internally inconsistent, and unsupported by any empirical evidence? You can't. I can: it's illogical, implausible, internally inconsistent, and unsupported by any empirical evidence because it never happened.
Yours and Jones's theory rests on one very slender reed: iron microspheres. If those iron microspheres came from any other source OTHER than super-duper-mega-secret-Buck-Rogers-nano-thermate, you're out of business. That's it. That's your whole theory. Iron microspheres MUST be evidence of explosives.
Conversely, take what I say happened, and take away from it any single piece of what I rest my case upon--hijacker confessions, phone calls from the planes, eyewitness reports, documents, bodies of the hijackers, pieces of the plane wreckage, Osama's political pronouncements, hijackers training at flight school, photos, videos, etc.--and you STILL have a conclusive case that what you term "the official story" is in fact what happened. That's even WITHOUT scientific analyses such as the NIST report, the Bazant paper, etc. Even if the science of how and why the plane strikes and fires caused the WTC collapses was a total mystery--which it very clearly is not--there is still such an insurmountable mountain of evidence about what happened on 9/11 that we would STILL be forced to conclude that what you term "the official story" is in fact what happened.
I've got Osama's confession, the voluntary confessions of the other hijackers, thousands of eyewitnesses, numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers, literally tons of wreckage, reams of documents, DNA evidence (from the hijackers, passengers and WTC victims), and a vast array of respected scientific opinion on my side.
What have you got? A couple of paint chips, and the opinion of some discredited scientist who believes in cold fusion. That's it. That's all you have.
It doesn't help your case that you throw at me every trope in the conspiracy theorist's well-used chest of cliches, and that you exhibit the usual mental incapacities of conspiracy theorists, in spades. You accuse me of "propaganda." You say I just don't understand. You egregiously abuse the concept of logical fallacies. You are incapable of distinguishing a legitimate questioning of someone's credibility from an "ad hominem attack." ("Ad hominem" are a conspiracy theorist's favorite Latin words, even outstripping "cui buono," which they also don't understand). Most of all, you simply can't tell the difference between a good source and a bad one. Consequently, you engage entirely in result-driven thinking. If it supports the "official story" (and no one except conspiracy theorists ever uses those words), it must be wrong, by definition. If it supports your crackpot conspiracy theory, it must be correct, also by definition.
I used to be a conspiracy theorist myself. I used to believe in toxic shit like this. This garbage corrodes peoples' minds and destroys their lives. Nothing good can come of it. Hopefully you can climb out of this rabbit hole. It starts with thinking about how colossally idiotic the belief is that you've signed onto and how impossible it is that it actually happened. It's a difficult position to come back from, but I hope you do someday.
I'm not talking about "No plane" theories. I'm not saying hijackers didn't run
planes into the buildings. No one is, except the morons.
Can your theory also explain why Osama Bin Laden also initially denied having been behind the attacks, and why the FBI has not charged him with the WTC attacks?
If so many people correctly predicted that the towers would collapse, why were so many news media and civilians allowed so close to it prior to it's collapse? Explain this..First, that's not at all what I said. IF they were there, no one saw thembecause;
1. they were in the recesses of the building when most building employees, apart from maintenance, never saw the core columns, the perimeter columns etc close up. It wasn't a new building- those areas had been off-limits to most of the 100,000 employees
2. Of the 100,000 employees who might have had access to and reason to enter areas of the building that would need to be rigged with explosives, you have to presume that they would know what they were looking at, presuming they even saw it.
3. In the case of unconventional explosives (PETN, for example, is a simple white putty-who, lacking explosives experience, would think a white putty suspicious?) the more exotic the explosive material, the less conspicuous the item would be. Everyone who watched looney tunes would recognize a bundle of dynamite with a ticking alarm clock on it, fewer would recognize a satchel of RDX, and even fewer still would recognize a steel box with thermite in it.
4. Even if someone had seen something resembling an explosive charge, the fact that it was in a working skyrise would have caused them to immediately question if what they were seeing was an explosive device; if you don't expect it to be there, you are less likely to see it, and more likely to doubt that it is what it looks like if it isn't supposed to be there. The fact that no one (who lived to tell) saw ACTUAL explosive charges in the building doesn't mean SHIT. Again, this would not contradict a clandestine controlled demolition, it would coincide with a clandestine controlled demo.
WHY THE FUCK, if they are going to blow up the WTC, WOULD THEY PUT RECOGNIZABLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES IN PLAIN SIGHT!? ARE WE PRESUMING THEY ARE STUPID TOO?!
I'm not.WTC7 housed many government offices that, in the event that the WTC was demolished with inside help, might have held files/documents that would implicate individuals. Motives are always conjecture, BTW. Even explicitly stated motives are not necessarily true, ergo when you try to ask 'WHY' someone 'WOULD' do something, you are resorting to conjecture even about Osama Bin Laden or Mohammed Atta's 'claims' of 'motivation'. There are plenty of reasons it would be targeted..it was the FBI and CIA headquarters for NYC, as well as having financial offices that were later tied to Lehman Bros and the global economic collapse. We know that Morgan Stanley and Goldmann Sachs used 9/11 to 'lose' documents that would have implicated them in insider trading etc. There are many possible motivations, but as I said- you cannot divine someone's motivation any more than I can. No one can.No, it also includes; witness testimony and photographs of molten and orange/salmon-hot metal, something that does not occur in run-of-the-mill fires, video evidence of anomalies familiar to controlled demo and unfamiliar to gravity-driven collapses, the fact that the roofline of the buildings did not decelerate suggesting that there was never an impact with the lower 90% of the building, and THE PRESENCE OF NANO-THERMITE IN THE DUST. Explain that?
Note; the nanothermite is not paint, it does not contain chromium as WTC paint does, and it reacts violently in a calorimeter (a very narrow and high peak) where paint does not react and has a low and wide peak. It also creates nano-spheres of iron when burned, whereas paint simply turns to ash.
Not all of my cockamamie theories are totally devoid of evidence. I don't believe in theories that are devoid of evidence, that's why I'm an agnostic.
Perhaps you should read Neils Harret's paper on nanothermite, you clearly have not.
You seem to have missed my point in its entirety. You appear to be a very
standard issue Truther, engaging in entirely result-driven analysis that leads
you to the conclusion you desperately want to believe rather than the one
warranted by the totality of the evidence.
You suggest I should make a distinction between your theories and the "no planers." Why? There's not very much practical difference between you.
You both believe in a vast conspiracy headed by shadowy all-powerful figures with unlimited capability to finance, coerce, persuade and conceal--which is totally contrary to how real conspiracies work in the real world.
You both believe 9/11 was committed with fantasy weapons that do not exist--in your case, super-duper-Buck-Rogers-thermite, and the no-planers case, ray guns from outer space.
You both follow crackpot junk scientists whose conclusions have been rejected by mainstream science--in your case Steven Jones, in the no-planers case Judy Wood.
You both ignore the serious logical flaws in your theories, such as why, if the whole thing was a conspiracy, airplanes would have been necessary to the cover story at all, when the same exact result could have been achieved with a far less risky and complicated plan.
You both ignore the obvious culpability of the real architects of 9/11, like Osama bin Laden, by resorting to ludicrous "sacred list" arguments like "why wasn't Osama indicted by the FBI?" (Discussed here, incidentally: http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/2010/07/18/the-sacred-list-an-illustration-of-the-illogic-of-conspiracy-theorists/)
You both rely on erroneous pseudoscientific arguments to support what is, at its heart, nothing more than a paranoid conspiracy theory with no evidence in its favor.
Why, then, should I treat you any differently than some other Truther who believes in some other demonstrably false theory? Whether you think there were bombs in the towers or whether beam weapons from space were used, both are equally ridiculous, equally irrational, and equally false. There is no meaningful difference between what you believe and the "no-plane" theories you dismiss as moronic. Yes, only morons believe in no-plane theories. But your own theory is equally moronic. What's the difference?
And yeah, regarding WTC7, I'm sure that the conspirators decided to blow up the building to hide documents. Because, whenever I need to get rid of incriminating documents, I just destroy the building they're housed in, instead of using a paper shredder.
I will not change a word of what I wrote simply because some conspiracy theorist disagrees with it. The fact that conspiracy theorists disagree with it means I'm doing something right. ConspiracyScience exists for the purpose of exposing the fraud, illogic, paranoia and irrationality of theories such as yours and to speak the truth about charlatans like Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Richard Gage, Alex Jones and Peter Merola. My essays are quite effective in serving that purpose. Thanks for your feedback.