Iranian President suggests 9/11 foul play and cover up

[Jonti]

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.)

Well, the name GetReligion.org is something of a clue, I'd say, not nearly enough for a lawyer, I grant you. What's in a name?

But the piece is laden with literary tricks that any decent writer would, in all good faith, recognise as more suited to the business of crafting emotional affect, rather the pursuit of truth in the strict manner that Paine or Locke might understand. Again, not nearly enough for a lawyer. Heck, it's a magazine article, not a philosphical debunking of Xtianity, or of the divine right of kings.

Biblical authority indeed! Uhh, which parts of the Bible would that be then? Penn and Teller to the rescue*.

It will be interesting to see what people here who are knowledgable about Islam have to say about Ahmadinejad's letter, and GetReligion.org's take on it.

* link is to a half-hour video

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Unless I am much mistaken, Newton didn't have any single 'field of expertise', he was a mathematician and physicist, and chemist, and probably loads else. If Einstein had such a field, he created it.

Well, Jazzz, that's the point, isn't it? Newton was a great scientist in an age before specialiation of fields and he made himself into a giant of science because of the brilliance and rigour of his work.

Now, has Steve Jones done this? He has not.

As I say, you have absolutely no sense of what a proper comparison is. Instead, you rest on a manoeuvre which is specious, but which is nevertheless typical of conspiracy theorists and other peddlers of ludicrous theories (see The New Apocrypha by the late John Sladek for a comprehensive exposition of this fact). It basically goes like this:

1. Somebody in the past who later turned out to be great was initially rubbished.
2. Therefore we have no business rubbishing somebody now in case they might be right.

What this allows you to do is avoid any need for anybody to possess any qualifications or for their work to be convincing to anybody working in the field on the off-chance that they might be right and everybody else wrong`. It's simply no basis for proceeding scientifically: it's just an excuse for you to present any old shite as long as it backs you up. Indeee, the crazier it is, the better it is, because the more isolated the proponent of the theory will be and therefore the more or a martyr you can make them.

Incidentally, it rests on a falsification of the case anyway. People like Newton and Einstien were not treated as isolated loons within the scientific comunity. They overturned (or in Newton's case, created) established thinking and tnhey had to fight hard to do so: rightly so, too, because that's the only way science properly progresses, by making people prove their case. But they were understood to be experts within their field and their work, threough its brilliance and rigour, won over their contemporaries.

How many of his scientific contemporaries has Steve Jones won over? If none-to-fuck-all, might that be because his science is not convincing?
The answer, in you case, is that you don't care. But I do.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You are making no argument beyond an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy - and it is an extremely weak one at that.

Jazz wants to rad his own link. Here is what it says:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. (My emphasis - DF)More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

 

[editor]

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)

You said there were "huge pools of molten steel."

Was the metal tested by a suitably qualified authority and found to be steel then?

Could you give me a source for this testing please?

 

[zArk]

hi, soz to jump in.
has anybody mentioned this video of molten metal dripping from the WTC building?

thermite ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9/11

 

[kyser_soze]

Jazzz...have you or professor Jones got any evidence of work crews entering the WTC buildings to carry out the prep work for this controlled demolition? Are there any significant accounts from workers above and below the floors that were 'blown up' of mysterious goings on; are there any traces of say, explosives being bought (demolition explosives being a controlled product in the US)...indeed, is there any evidence whatsoever of any of the usual work that goes into prepping a building for demolition at all?

If you want an example of how long and how much prep work goes into setting up a demolition, I'd suggest you go to Controlled Demolition Inc and click on the Kingdome Implosion to see how much needs to be done to bring down a large structure safely.

If you, or Dr Jones, can provide some evidence of a paper trail leading to such a thing you and he would be on more credible ground. As it is you're flailing with a lack of any supprting evidence of the activity required to plan and set explosives...not to mentoin the 000s of workers in the WTC who utterly failed to notice anything beforehand...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I think they were actually blown over by a Giant Invisible Big Bad Wolf.

 

[editor]

hi, soz to jump in.
has anybody mentioned this video of molten metal dripping from the WTC building?

thermite ?

FFS: read the thread before wasting everyone's time.

Have you any evidence that it was thermite? How was it intalled? By whom?
How come no one noticed? How come all these evil bad people were happy to blow up their own citizens and have kept silence forever?
How come the security guards didn't notice the xplosives coming in? What about the office managers? Office staff? Lift workers? The drivers? Cleaners?

Any evidence for anything?

 

[zArk]

FFS: read the thread before wasting everyone's time.

Have you any evidence that it was thermite? How was it intalled? By whom?
How come no one noticed? How come all these evil bad people were happy to blow up their own citizens and have kept silence forever?
How come the security guards didn't notice the xplosives coming in? What about the office managers? Office staff? Lift workers? The drivers? Cleaners?

Any evidence for anything?

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
The idea that molten aluminum-thermite reactions may have been involved in the collapse of the Twin Towers is not new. It was first proposed by S. Ashley in an October 2001 article published in Scientific American.

The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius

So Prof. Greening explains the molten metal at the base of WTC saying it is molten aluminium and concludes that explosions did collapse the WTC.
saying --- "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions."

now alternatively

Prof Jones says that the molten metal is not the correct colour (not white hot but actually yellow--- colour chart ) therefore is evidence of molten iron - through thermate reaction - and explains the molten metal at the base of WTC.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

futhermore Jones bolsters his analysis by showing that;

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2002; see also, http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.)



Both analysis have evidence and the science to back it up, yet Jones pips the post through the colour analysis of the globs and the metallurgy report but alternatively Greening states explosions caused the collapse-- no ifs or buts..

 

[kyser_soze]

Both analysis have evidence and the science to back it up, yet Jones pips the post through the colour analysis of the globs and the metallurgy report but alternatively Greening states explosions caused the collapse-- no ifs or buts..

And yet...none can supply any evidence of HOW enough explosives to bring down a building in a controlled fashion were placed in offices which were being fully utilised...again, go look at the Controlled Demoliton website and get some kind of idea as to how much work has to go into setting a demolition up...

 

[nino_savatte]

And yet...none can supply any evidence of HOW enough explosives to bring down a building in a controlled fashion were placed in offices which were being fully utilised...again, go look at the Controlled Demoliton website and get some kind of idea as to how much work has to go into setting a demolition up...

Maybe it was pixies or elves or other little people? I find these conspiracy theories have become more and more exaggerated and more ridiculous as time goes on. How many of these folk are structural engineers? None of them.

 

[editor]

Prof Jones says that the molten metal is not the correct colour (not white hot but actually yellow---

Oh dear. Apart from managing to avoid answering all of my questions regarding how this thermite was invisibly installed into the building, you haven't produced any evidence for molten steel.

I do hope Jones has a little more credible evidence than the colour of a fire he's seen in one photograph (I'm sure he's fully considered colour shift, film type etc... hasn't he?).

 

[editor]

How many of these folk are structural engineers? None of them.

And what do they do when a world leading structural engineer comes along and offers his analysis? Why, they completely ignore it of course - even when that expert turns out to be the guy who built the WTC!

Apparently, despite winning endless academic accolades, quaifications and awards he was too damn stupid to notice the explosives going off and destroying his building - despite the evidence being 'obvious' to clueless, totally unqualified, spoddy bedroom 'truth seekers' looking at a squinty video!

 

[nino_savatte]

And what do they do when a world leading structural engineer comes along and offers his analysis? Why, they completely ignore it of course - even when that expert turns out to be the guy who built the WTC!

Apparently, despite winning endless academic accolades, quaifications and awards he was too damn stupid to notice the explosives going off and destroying his building - despite the evidence being 'obvious' to clueless, totally unqualified, spoddy bedroom 'truth seekers' looking at a squinty video!

Of course, structural engineers are working for "them". Only Alex Jones possesses the power to tell us what really happened.

But how do these people reckon bombs were planted in offices where people were working? I've seen more facts in a Warner Brothers cartoon than from these 'truthseekers'.

 

[JHE]

Maybe it was pixies or elves or other little people?

Quite. The Jazzzians keep very quiet about the role of pixies. Who's bribed them to cover up for the real culprits?

 

[zArk]

Oh dear. Apart from managing to avoid answering all of my questions regarding how this thermite was invisibly installed into the building, you haven't produced any evidence for molten steel.

I do hope Jones has a little more credible evidence than the colour of a fire he's seen in one photograph (I'm sure he's fully considered colour shift, film type etc... hasn't he?).

mr editor, the footage i posted to view shows molten metal, not fire.

Greening says it is molten aluminium.
Jones says it is molten steel .

You ask how it was installed into the building, by whom etc etc, but you must agree that the video shows molten metal. So the questions of whom, when and how should be investigated by an Independant Investigation who have the priviledges of access to whatever information is required.
Obviously i cannot access that material, i dont even know what material is needed to investigate those questions, but an Investigation group can.

 

[nino_savatte]

mr editor, the footage i posted to view shows molten metal, not fire.

Greening says it is molten aluminium.
Jones says it is molten steel due to the colour of it
.

No, it's neither of thsoe things; it's ice cream.

 

[editor]

You ask how it was installed into the building, by whom etc etc, but you must agree that the video shows molten metal.

I don't know what it shows.

And neither do you, clearly.

But unless you can come up with a credible way in which the building was invisibly installed with invisible explosives to coincide with a supposed state-sponsored self-attack and produce some evidence of all these nefarious goings-on, then I fancy I'll go along with the analysis of the most qualified person around: the WTC's engineer - a man knows infinitely more about the towers than Jones and the loonspud gang.

 

[zArk]

I don't know what it shows.

clearly, as you stated initially it was a fire, when it is clearly not. [also the mocking abuse Jazz had to endure over his initial mention of Thermite... shame on you Editor]

there is an unaccounted substance present, that hasnt been 'officially' recognised and as such i am in favour of an Full Independant Investigation.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Gods, thermite, don't get me started on that bullshit.

Thermite is not used in cutting charges, it's easier, faster and safer to use standard plastic explosives than thermite reactions. Thermite is used in military roles as an incendary grendade, but the emphasis is not on cutting at all, it's to weld things. In fact to use thermite to cut through something you'd really want a vertical feed which kind of limits your application to horizontal bars, it might be possible to cut through vertical members with it, but i can't see how. I've seen thermite used to cut through a metal bar, you need a drip feed system to do so.

Also thermite is a thermally triggered reaction (note, reaction, not an explosion), you have to get it very hot to set it off. While conventional plastic explosives can literally be set on fire and used to cook your food (other than the toxic gases given off) thermite would be one of the most stupid choices for demolishing a building that's going to have large amounts of burning kerosene in the area.

It's also notoriously hard to set off, generally it's done by having a more reactive fuse fitted to it, magnesium for example. Electrical ignition is not used in any case i've heard of (although an ISFE would let you use a remote ignition system). Either way you run the risk of accidental ignition or failing to ignite at all.

Now, problems. If it were set off by the fire it would have gone a lot faster than the buildings really did. It'd ignite with the inital kerosene flash and take a matter of minutes (very few of them) to burn through the support members.

The entire idea of thermite being used is based upon the same intellectual laziness as the idea the the WTC 7 building was demolished. Seeing something and then leaping to the first conclusion that you like the look of. All we know is that there is signs of intense heat in the building, we do not know the cause and we do not know the exact temperatures.

There is no reason to use thermite to demolish the building, it's inefficent, difficult to control, more sensitive to thermal issues than plastique and inappropriate for deomolition.

 

[editor]

there is an unaccounted substance present, that hasnt been 'officially' recognised and as such i am in favour of an Full Independant Investigation.

So why not leap to a fact free conclusion, ignore the analysis of one of the greatest structural engineers and declare it to be invisibly installed "I'm not here, right?" thermite because it fits the latest loonspud theory?!!

 

[zArk]

Gods, thermite, don't get me started on that bullshit.

well, that video shows that the probability of thermite or thermate was involved is extremely high.

the globs are not hearsay, they are clearly seen.

 

[editor]

well, that video shows that the probability of thermite or thermate was involved is extremely high.

Classic, evidence-free, conclusion-leaping looonspuddery in action!

 

[zArk]

So why not leap to a fact free conclusion, ignore the analysis of one of the greatest structural engineers and declare it to be invisibly installed "I'm not here, right?" thermite because it fits the latest loonspud theory?!!

I am in favour of gathering every expert available to study and analyse fully, on the record, all the events of that day as a Full Independant Investigation.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

well, that video shows that the probability of thermite or thermate was involved is extremely high.

the globs are not hearsay, they are clearly seen.

What globs are we talking about and why do they show that there was thermite?

We know there was high temperatures, but you're yet to explain why they are obviously generated by aluminium oxide and iron filings.

 

[zArk]

Classic, evidence-free, conclusion-leaping looonspuddery in action!

ermm ?????

I dont think you will find a single expert who would deny that it is molten metal.

 

[zArk]

What globs are we talking about and why do they show that there was thermite?

We know there was high temperatures, but you're yet to explain why they are obviously generated by aluminium oxide and iron filings.

oh, i see.

Jones argues that the colour of the globs indicate the temperature of approx. 1000 centigrade. Aluminium would not reach the yellow colour observed. Aluminium is ruled out with high probability.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Molten2Low.JPG

<editor FAQ busting image removed>

** apologies.. the pic was over 75k. my bad***

the entire article is here

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

[Bob_the_lost]

oh, i see.

Jones argues that the colour of the globs indicate the temperature of approx. 1000 centigrade. Aluminium would not reach the yellow colour observed. Aluminium is ruled out with high probability.

That's not all of what i asked, if you could answer this bit:

"explain why they are obviously generated by aluminium oxide and iron filings."

(That's thermite by the way)

 

[zArk]

That's not all of what i asked, if you could answer this bit:

"explain why they are obviously generated by aluminium oxide and iron filings."

(That's thermite by the way)

well, as with the last page of this thread, the questions over the molten metal observed in the basement areas of the rubble of all three buildings provoked investigation into how that came about.

 

[editor]

I dont think you will find a single expert who would deny that it is molten metal.

And how many experts are saying that the "probability of thermite or thermate" being involved "is extremely high," as you just stated?



Oh, and read the FAQ before posting up another massive image.