Iranian President suggests 9/11 foul play and cover up

[Jazzz]

No it's not. Twice you (foolishly) tried to declare discussion of the nature of claims and evidence out of bounds. So what's left?

And you did that on a thread started by Jazzz. Who brought our unfortunate cold-fusion person into it.

There is nothing unfortunate about 'Steve Jones'.

But, I will agree that I am happy for the diversion jonti. On your thread, you warned me to be careful lest it get binned, not that I did anything wrong. Well here I am more than happy for the diversion.

 

[Jonti]

No it's not. Twice you (foolishly) tried to declare discussion of the nature of claims and evidence out of bounds. So what's left?

And you did that on a thread started by Jazzz. Who brought our unfortunate cold-fusion person into it.

Yes, it is

And no, I didn't -- I haven't declared any discussion of of bounds. These are not my boards.

I've suggested not getting side tracked, that's all. Andreas Von Buelow, Michael Meacher, Ellen Mariani, and Steve Jones were all mentioned in response to this

he's either (a) fantastic truth seeker ... or he's a bullshitter.

Well, maybe he's a politician -- and one who hasn't even heard of any of those people.

Is Jazzz the issue? Or is the issue what the Iranian President said in his letter?

 

[editor]

What is going beyond a joke is your behaviour and hypocrisy (so much for your precious 'peer-review', you don't care about needing it for your evidence, do you?).

This coming from the clown who believes that the WTC was fitted with invisible explosives carried in invisible vans and then invisibly fitted by invisible operatives, while the opinion of the one person who knows more about the structure of the WTC than just about anyone else on the planet is completely disregarded because, err, it doesn't fit with his evidence-free conspirayarn!

Five years on and you still haven't got a scrap of credible evidence for your bonkers, ridiculous bullshit.

 

[Jazzz]

No matter how much you yap editor it's not going to turn your few words from Leslie into scientific evidence.

You aren't claiming he has produced anything 'peer-reviewed' on the collapse are you? Well I suggest you never utter those words again unless you will apply them to yourself. Hypocrite.

 

[Jonti]

Ed,

Jazzz took your bate. You presented him with a false dichotomy (either fantastic or bullshit) and he bit.

I'll have some popcorn, thanks.

 

[editor]

No matter how much you yap editor it's not going to turn your few words from Leslie into scientific evidence.

Kindly highlight the flaws in his analysis of the WTC collapse, please.

Backed by credible evidence, natch.

Oh - and here's a crazy concept for a truth-seeker <guffaw> like you.

Have you actually bothered to ask him for his opinion on your fruitloop evidence-free invisible explosives yarn, or are you preferring to just completely ignore the highly qualified opinion of one of the world's leading structural engineers and an absolute authority on the WTC?

And if so, why?

Why are you ignoring his opinion when it's clear he's infinitely more qualified than, say, Steve Jones?

 

[editor]

Ed,

Jazz took your bate. You presented him with a false dichotomy (either fantastic or bullshit) and he bit.

I'll have some popcorn, thanks.

So whose opinion do you value most concerning the collapse of the WTC?

One of the world's most respected engineers who helped build the towers or Steve Jones? (Has he ever been up on the towers?)

 

[Jonti]

So whose opinion do you value most concerning the collapse of the WTC?

One of the world's most respected engineers who helped build the towers or Steve Jones? (Has he ever been up on the towers?)

The former, of course. Did you seriously expect me to think otherwise?

But I am perfectly happy to discuss

I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

in science and environment.

I'll nip over and start a thread if you like. Then we can get back to that letter.

 

[laptop]

There is nothing unfortunate about 'Steve Jones'.

I have no idea about his personal life, but his research isn't doing too well.

He had a spate of actual journal papers on muon-catalysed fusion in 1985 and 1986. Then there seems to be a gap. Now there are only conference proceedings in the last couple-three years. He doesn't seem to have managed to get anything published recently in an actual journal. Let alone an important one.

scholar.google.com

His own list of his own publications - all three of them, all from the same conference, two of them salami-slicing the same experiment and one arm-waving speculation.

1. Jones, S.E., et al. Charged-particle Emissions from Metal Deuterides. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.
   
   We present evidence for energetic charged particles emanating from partially-deuterided titanium foils (TiDx) subjected to non-equilibrium conditions. To scrutinize emerging evidence for low-temperature nuclear reactions, we investigated particle yields employing three independent types of highly-sensitive, segmented particle detectors over a six-year period....
   
   
2. Jones, S.E. and J. Ellsworth. Geo-fusion and Cold Nucleosynthesis. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.
   
   In our 1986 and 1989 papers, we discussed the hypothesis of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter and particularly in the planets. [This, I say again, is known in the trade as "armwaving"]
   
   
3. Jones, S.E., et al. Neutron Emissions from Metal Deuterides. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.
   
   We present evidence for neutrons emanating from partially-deuterided titanium foils (TiDx) subjected to non-equilibrium conditions.1 A previous paper presented data for complementary charged-particle emissions. Metal processing and establishing non-equilibrium conditions appear to be important keys to achieving significant nuclear-particle yields and repeatability.

That's sad

And not one of his papers or posters demonstrates any connection whatsoever with structural engineering - they are simply no more relevant than, as I said, a knowledge of early Baroque musical notation.

(e2a google link)

 

[editor]

I'll nip over and start a thread if you like. Then we can back to that letter.

No thanks - it'll just be a rerun of the same old speculation-heavy, fact-lite shite.

Edit to add: here's an interesting update from a credible source:

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions

One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building.

When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives.

Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel.

In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Perhaps Jazzz could shed some light on when the beams were cut through prior to the attack and how come no one noticed?

More invisible operatives with invisible power tools perhaps?

 

[Jonti]

No thanks - it'll just be a rerun of the same old speculation-heavy, fact-lite shite.

I'm not so certain. Seriously.

Play the science game, the scientists win. Admittedly, strictly speaking, we don't know what we're going to win, but hey, that's science.

All the same, I do have a hunch how things would (perhaps amazingly slowly) grind out. And we could get to talking about that letter.

 

[editor]

I'm not so certain. Seriously.

You're new here and five years of dealing with the same obsessed handful of individuals tells me that I know you're wrong on this one.

I've no interest in yet another 9/11 thread that offers no new evidence.

 

[Jonti]

You're new here and five years of dealing with the same obsessed handful of individuals tells me that I know you're wrong on this one.

I've no interest in yet another 9/11 thread that offers no new evidence.

You know. Fine.

But in that case, why the false dichotomy gambit that derailed the discussion about Ahmadinejad's letter into yet another 9/11 discussion that offers no new evidence?

 

[Jazzz]

No thanks - it'll just be a rerun of the same old speculation-heavy, fact-lite shite.

Edit to add: here's an interesting update from a credible source:
Perhaps Jazzz could shed some light on when the beams were cut through prior to the attack and how come no one noticed?

More invisible operatives with invisible power tools perhaps?

Well... that's interesting. Demolishing a building is, as you note, incredibly difficult. Even with strategically placed charges throughout the building.

And your link shows it! In fact it suggests slicing through the steels!

Yet we are asked to believe, on 9/11, that relatively small pockets of fire were enough to weaken all this steel to the point of failure... you can't see that we have a problem here? These arguments prove it!

The beams weren't cut through. Another method was used. There is good speculation that it involved frazzling the steel with thermite. This is why we have huge pools of molten steel on the site weeks later - completely unexplained by the official theory, like the proverbial elephant on the sofa.

 

[Jonti]

Well... that's interesting. Demolishing a building is, as you note, incredibly difficult. Even with strategically placed charges throughout the building.

And your link shows it! In fact it suggests slicing through the steels!

Yet we are asked to believe, on 9/11, that relatively small pockets of fire were enough to weaken all this steel to the point of failure... you can't see that we have a problem here? These arguments prove it!

The beams weren't cut through. Another method was used. There is good speculation that it involved frazzling the steel with thermite. This is why we have huge pools of molten steel on the site weeks later - completely unexplained by the official theory, like the proverbial elephant on the sofa.

FFS, take it to science and environment.

I want to discuss the bloody letter here.

 

[laptop]

I want to discuss the bloody letter here.

So what do you want to say about the fucking letter?

There are far more interesting things in it than the 9/11 reference.

Start a thread entitled "Iranian President's letter - no 9/11 stuff here" perhaps?

 

[laptop]

So what do you want to say about the fucking letter?

Silence.

So you don't have anything to say.

 

[editor]

The beams weren't cut through. Another method was used. There is good speculation that it involved frazzling the steel with thermite.

"Good speculation"? That's another phrase for "evidence free fruitloopery", yes?

Good to see you've picked another absolute cracker of a source!
I clicked the 'next story' and was treated to an animation of a chuckling pig and a story about a farmer pushing a donkey down a well. Quality!

So, about the author of this "good speculation". What's his scientific credentials, please?

 

[Jazzz]

No - not evidence free at all, but you exist in a world of opposites. I will show evidence for it, yet in the very next post you will claim there is no evidence for it. Meanwhile you demand 'peer-reviewed evidence' from your opponents, yet see fit to rubbish it when it appears, and claim entirely un peer-reviewed stuff is the be all and end all when fits.

More tomorrow. Goodnight everyone

 

[editor]

This is why we have huge pools of molten steel on the site weeks later - completely unexplained by the official theory, like the proverbial elephant on the sofa.

How do you know it was 'molten steel'? Did anyone test it? And where are the pictures of the melted ends of the steel columns?

Oh, and at least try to be original. You ripped your 'proverbial elephant on the sofa' comment from another fruitloop on this forum (it's worth a read too just to see how they've suffered like us!)

 

[Jonti]

laptop,

I'm tired. You've been insulting. What should I say? Wanna talk about presenting false dichotomies as a debating tactic to derail threads? Want some rational discourse? What? I don't know

Did you have a read of A History of the Car Bomb? I found part one fascinating, in a grisly sort of way. I read it before part two appeared so I'll be giving that a read soon.

An earlier post of mine (this one) mentioned the the Koranic verse quoted in the letter. Looking into that verse led me to Digging deeper on Ahmadinejad’s letter

A snippet

Under Shariah law, before an Islamic leader wages war against an infidel nation, certain precepts must be fulfilled: a kind of Islamic “Due Process”.

This includes:

1 Listing the infidels sins against Allah.
2 Offering Islam as a solution to those sins,
3 If they do not embrace Islam, then dhimminitude (subjugation to the rule of Islam with appropriate taxes and humiliation)
and finally, if this is not accepted,
4 War death and eternal damnation.

Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush conforms to each of these precepts, and whilst not a full declaration of war conforms to all the precepts required before war is waged.

The bits of the letter (all the way up to the 9/11 passage) that I quoted way back in this thread are all in the first category. Each, charge, it seems, is intended to be accurate and defensible in the legal sense. Although my comments were very brief, I think they illustrate that each also is at least arguable. Well, of course.

The letter's misquoted Koranic passage is step #2 of the putative process (but what an odd typo it contains!)

Like I said, Iran and the US have been low level warring since the Iranian Revolution, so it's nothing new really. Nothing to get exited about. Interesting all the same.

G'night.

 

[editor]

I'm tired. You've been insulting. What should I say? Wanna talk about presenting false dichotomies as a debating tactic to derail threads? Want some rational discourse?

This coming from the person who only hours before started an utterly pointless and totally content-free thread in another forum.



Maybe you should try and lead by example?

 

[laptop]

You've been insulting.

You ain't seen nuttin' yet

I merely observe your purely negative efforts to tell people off for discussing the nature of evidence and of the real world.

 

[editor]

Would anyone like to see the laughing piggie from Jazzz's 'thermite' site?

Here you go!

It was a cover up I tell ye! Oink! oink!

 

[Jonti]

I merely observe your purely negative efforts to tell people off for discussing the nature of evidence and of the real world.

No. Not true.

Readers can check for themselves.

 

[laptop]

As far as I can tell, Jonti, you're promoting the views of a blog whose purpose is to get Xtianity a "better" press in the US. That is, for the media to promote their views. I have not yet worked out what sect of US Xtianity they represent.

And, in particular, the posting you quoted above that argues that the letter is saying (and I summarise) "convert to Islam, Amerikkka, or be destroyed"

It'd save us all a lot of time if you spelled your agenda out in plain English now.

We wouldn't want another dwyerfiasco.

 

[Jonti]

As far as I can tell, Jonti, you're promoting the views of a blog whose purpose is to get Xtianity a "better" press in the US. That is, for the media to promote their views. I have not yet worked out what sect of US Xtianity they represent.

And, in particular, the posting you quoted above that argues that the letter is saying (and I summarise) "convert to Islam, Amerikkka, or be destroyed"

It'd save us all a lot of time if you spelled your agenda out in plain English now.

We wouldn't want another dwyerfiasco.

No, I'm sorry, but, no I've no interest in promoting the views of Xtianity. I'm surprised you think that I have. We have discussed religion in the theory/philosophy/history board (in phildwyers thread which attempted a Rational Proof of the Existence of God) so I'm surprised that you would think I would want to promote any type of Deism.

I did suspect the site might have an agenda (which is why I played down the importance of their analysis). Thanks for confirming that.

I thought this might be a good place to talk and learn. Maybe develop ideas. I guess I was wrong.

 

[Jonti]

This coming from the person who only hours before started an utterly pointless and totally content-free thread in another forum.



Maybe you should try and lead by example?

That's this one, right?

 

[laptop]

No, I'm sorry, but, no I've no interest in promoting the views of Xtianity. ... I did suspect the site might have an agenda (which is why I played down the importance of their analysis). Thanks for confirming that.

Did you hunt around enough to find this indication that it's of the Xtian Right?

(The linked posting is rather deeply coded. I spent several weeks last year reading US Xtian sites for work, rigorously, with lawyers on my back, and I say that my reading is correct.)

 

[Jazzz]

molten metal at the WTC site - the evidence

How do you know it was 'molten steel'? Did anyone test it? And where are the pictures of the melted ends of the steel columns?

Oh, and at least try to be original. You ripped your 'proverbial elephant on the sofa' comment from another fruitloop on this forum (it's worth a read too just to see how they've suffered like us!)

The elephant on the sofa has been around a while. I didn't invent it, that's why I said 'proverbial'.

Here's just some evidence of the molten metal at the WTC, taken from Jones' paper (which you appear too darn lazy to even look at)

We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv . The photograph below by Frank Silecchia shows a chunk of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble on September 27, 2001. Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.

Silecchia photo

...

1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.

A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv. The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location.

...

Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower just minutes before its collapse: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9/11. Photographs capture the same significant event, clearly showing liquid metal dropping from the South Tower, still hot as it nears the ground below:

photo - tower dripping molten metal

another photo

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce.

...

Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of molten metal.

We can add the observations by Mark Loizeaux

These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.

Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.

source

There's also the satellite imaging showing the hotspots, but that should be enough for now.