Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[Blotan Hunka]

As to the "molten metal" a quick google search explains that. The collapsed pile of debris with the fire still burning inside it could reach blast furnace temperatures. The firemen were putting out fires for weeks. In the heart of the pile it was probably like a forge. They get into all kinds of details..

So MIT is in with the gvt. huh? The conspiracy deepns. All those BYU nut jobs MUST know more than the MIT eggheads.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well. I ahve been doing my own "research" as you can see and I noticed Eric Hufschmid on the list of members. Is he the apollo hoax Eric Hufschmid?

Yes.

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/apollohoax.html


Watch the vid clip. LOL

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=ct
LOL

Can anyone say ad hominem?

And heres another one of Prof. Jones's theories.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

So, you'd dismiss him because of his religion? He's morman. That is what they believe. Would you dis someone for being a jew? How about for believing in the historical jesus?

Hes also the guy who was involved in some "cold fusion" claims that he couldnt repeat or prove and was criticized pretty harshly for it.

Science at its best there folks! Woah.

More ad hominem and irrelevent attacks. We could discuss the research presented, but instead you post this stuff. What is our motive for posting on this thread? To get to the bottom of this or to prove it wrong and protect your own assumptions. If its the latter then take a look at my signature.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I have read the 9/11 site. Its a bunch of unqualified nut's backing up a "scientist" that thinks Christ visited the Aztecs/Incas...wierd.

 

[Makalakumu]

I would have written my own post on this but Im not a very good writer. This guy says what I was going to say anyways so Im justs going to post a little piece of it. The rest of his blog is a good read too.

http://citizenjo.blogspot.com/

More ad hominems. No real substance.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Can anyone say ad hominem?



So, you'd dismiss him because of his religion? He's morman. That is what they believe. Would you dis someone for being a jew? How about for believing in the historical jesus?



More ad hominem and irrelevent attacks. We could discuss the research presented, but instead you post this stuff. What is our motive for posting on this thread? To get to the bottom of this or to prove it wrong and protect your own assumptions. If its the latter then take a look at my signature.

Add whatever you want, Im not inclined to believe nutjobs who use science to back up their wierd beliefs. Theyre unqualified kooks.

 

[Makalakumu]

As to the "molten metal" a quick google search explains that. The collapsed pile of debris with the fire still burning inside it could reach blast furnace temperatures. The firemen were putting out fires for weeks. In the heart of the pile it was probably like a forge. They get into all kinds of details..

This is true. The question is how those fires got that hot when the building falling and the fires in the buildings could not have gotten hot enough to melt copious amounts of metal, much less evaporate entire sections of the beams.

So MIT is in with the gvt. huh? The conspiracy deepns. All those BYU nut jobs MUST know more than the MIT eggheads.

This is your assumption that he is part of the conspiracy, when in fact there are a number of more probably reasons as to why he wrote the paper on the NIST findings that he did.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm not inclined to believe nutjobs who use science to back up their wierd beliefs. Theyre unqualified kooks.

And both of these assumptions are not allowing you to really take a look at this stuff and actually consider it on the basis of its evidence. You are pasting your assumptions on the evidence whether they fit there or not.

All I'm trying to do is honestly take a look at these arguments and compare them to the evidence. I'm convinced by the evidence that there are huge holes in the official story, but I am not totally buying into the government implosion theory...although I think the evidence is compelling. It doesn't help to litter this thread with a bunch of ad hominems and juvenile attacks on someones personal blog.

Just be skeptical and take the argument to their claims. That is what I'm doing right now...checking facts and trying to verify certain bits of information. It is possible that we could both contribute productively in this way.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Can anyone say ad hominem?

So you're suggesting that a history of ridiculous claims, isn't relavent to further ridiculous claims? Can you say 'Spinning'?

So, you'd dismiss him because of his religion? He's morman. That is what they believe. Would you dis someone for being a jew? How about for believing in the historical jesus?

I would 'dis' someone if their religious views were guiding their science.

More ad hominem and irrelevent attacks. We could discuss the research presented, but instead you post this stuff. What is our motive for posting on this thread? To get to the bottom of this or to prove it wrong and protect your own assumptions. If its the latter then take a look at my signature.

It's very relavent, if it's more evidence that the alleged 'research' is bogus, and simply made up.

 

[sgtmac_46]

And both of these assumptions are not allowing you to really take a look at this stuff and actually consider it on the basis of its evidence. You are pasting your assumptions on the evidence whether they fit there or not.

Translation: "So what if their noted liars and kooks, they could be telling the truth....this time. You should give them a chance!"

All I'm trying to do is honestly take a look at these arguments and compare them to the evidence. I'm convinced by the evidence that there are huge holes in the official story, but I am not totally buying into the government implosion theory...although I think the evidence is compelling. It doesn't help to litter this thread with a bunch of ad hominems and juvenile attacks on someones personal blog.

So you're saying that we should not consider the fact that these men have a history of questionable science, questionable research and highly DUBIOUS claims? That's your statement?

Just be skeptical and take the argument to their claims. That is what I'm doing right now...checking facts and trying to verify certain bits of information. It is possible that we could both contribute productively in this way.

He is checking facts. What you're doing right now is imploding. Your 'Fortress of Truth' has become a deck of cards in a heavy cross-wind.

 

[Makalakumu]

There's no chance that you can look at this stuff objectively. That's fine, I knew it go down that like that for alot of folks here.

And I think that you are right. This is too controversial and I don't want it to reflect poorly on MT.

upnorthkyosa

ps - the second comment is directed towards an anonymous comment.

 

[Makalakumu]

I dont mean to attack you, upnorth. You seem like a nice guy. But your profile says you are a science teacher?

I didn't see this before. Yes, I am a science teacher. However, I teach at the secondary level so I have a degree in all of the subjects I teacher. Biology, Geology, and Physics. In college, I also minored in Chem. When I finally pay off my loans, I'm going to go back to school and get my Phd so I can teach at the college level and do more research.

 

[kid]

I think that a lot of this has real substance. I watched the buildings fall over and over again. I remember seeing it happen that horrible morning and thinking, damn that was fast. I didn't think much of it at the time. That was before I had much schooling in physics or in any area. Now I am going to school to become a pilot and I asked my instructor about plane crashes, and asked a lot of questions about them. we looked at a lot of videos that he has of them. And a lot of what what he said coincides with what these scholars are saying. These facts right here make me want to hear more. There were people standin in the whole where the planes entered the buildings. that proves right there that the tempetures where not hot enough the MELT molten steel. I have to agree with upnorthkyosa here that to just through away this theory is ridiculous, and not to be cowards. For one moment try this, imagine that the world is round and not flat? Sound familiar? Some people chose not to beleive what they were told. How about if witches weigh as much as ducks and ducks float on water than the witch will also float. All I am saying now is try for one second to beleive that what they say could have substance.


Mark

 

[Makalakumu]

I think that a lot of this has real substance. I watched the buildings fall over and over again. I remember seeing it happen that horrible morning and thinking, damn that was fast. I didn't think much of it at the time. That was before I had much schooling in physics or in any area. Now I am going to school to become a pilot and I asked my instructor about plane crashes, and asked a lot of questions about them. we looked at a lot of videos that he has of them. And a lot of what what he said coincides with what these scholars are saying. These facts right here make me want to hear more. There were people standin in the whole where the planes entered the buildings. that proves right there that the tempetures where not hot enough the MELT steel.

One of the things I thought about before I posted this material was that some people, especially people in the military or people who have great zeal for this country, would find this material extremely offensive. I'm not sure there is any good way to talk about this stuff without a few people blowing up. I suppose I could post the equations that I've been working out...checking on Dr. Jones' work, but that would get really boring really quick...

Anyway, it might be best to leave this one be and discuss it in person or we may very well end up with a flame fest...

 

[kid]

Yes, I guess you are right. It just disappoints me sometimes when the majority of the ppl are to scared to try and make sense of these things. But I guess we all better listen to big brother. (no pun intended upnorth)


Mark

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Robert Bowman: Another one of the "Scholars"

He was a 1980's peace-in-space activist whose main strategy was Soviet admiration. He once even argued that the USSR was justified in locking its own citizens inside their country because they had been bought and paid for via 'free education' and 'free health care' and thus were legitimate assets of the state, not to be wasted by losing them.

Such a perfectly executed plan yet the whistle blowers havent meet gruesome ends at the hands of CIA assassins like the witnesses to the Government assassination of President Kennedy. The smoking men are slipping. I can only assume Mr. "Kid" is one of Mr. "Upnorths" students based on location and MA system. That must be an interesting school, what with all the black helicopters flying around it. Make sure you check the basement for demolitions.

Just teasing, this has been one of the most interesting (and wierd) discussions I have ever had, and probably the most typing too.

It takes all kinds. And the fact that people here are able to present stuff like this says good things about this country. Nobody is out protesting with "Death to BYU" or "Behead the Scholars for 9/11 truth" signs. Although some of the anti-Bush protesters remind me of Muhammad cartoon protesters with their hatred and spite..but thats another topic.

Enjoy the freedom.

 

[sgtmac_46]

There's no chance that you can look at this stuff objectively. That's fine, I knew it go down that like that for alot of folks here.

And I think that you are right. This is too controversial and I don't want it to reflect poorly on MT.

upnorthkyosa

ps - the second comment is directed towards an anonymous comment.

Well, upnorth, i've agreed with you in the past, but when you start getting in to conspiracy theories, I think you're wandering off the reservation.

As for as not giving it an objective chance, this 'stuff' is not objectively reasonable to begin with.

 

[sgtmac_46]

One of the things I thought about before I posted this material was that some people, especially people in the military or people who have great zeal for this country, would find this material extremely offensive. I'm not sure there is any good way to talk about this stuff without a few people blowing up. I suppose I could post the equations that I've been working out...checking on Dr. Jones' work, but that would get really boring really quick...

Anyway, it might be best to leave this one be and discuss it in person or we may very well end up with a flame fest...

Come one, up, you're adding 2 + 2 and getting 4,245. 'It doesn't make sense the steal melted = VAST CONSPIRACY!!!!!' You've got very little evidence of the former, yet you LEAP to the LATTER! That's the BIG problem.

Again, it's not unlike 'Intelligent Design'. You start with a conclusion, and then work to find only the evidence that supports. Then you accuse everyone else of being closed minded when they point out that the Emperor is naked.

 

[Makalakumu]

Robert Bowman: Another one of the "Scholars"

He was a 1980's peace-in-space activist whose main strategy was Soviet admiration. He once even argued that the USSR was justified in locking its own citizens inside their country because they had been bought and paid for via 'free education' and 'free health care' and thus were legitimate assets of the state, not to be wasted by losing them.

It's easy to poke a little fun at some of these guys, I agree. However, it is just as easy to poke fun at people like Leo Strauss...who once argued that regular people can't handle the truth so it is just fine for the government to lie to them in order to "get the job done."

People have all kinds of sides, but in science, ideally, that shouldn't matter.

Such a perfectly executed plan yet the whistle blowers havent meet gruesome ends at the hands of CIA assassins like the witnesses to the Government assassination of President Kennedy. The smoking men are slipping.

If the evidence shows that the event could have happened, then there must have been a way to pull it off, no matter how improbable. One thing to keep in mind is how elaborate some drug smuggling conspiracies become. The ones that actually get busted often end up netting dozens, if not hundreds of individuals as this stuff changes hands. Thus, I would say, the chances of pulling of an elaborate conspiracy of any kind are at least...possible.

I can only assume Mr. "Kid" is one of Mr. "Upnorths" students based on location and MA system. That must be an interesting school, what with all the black helicopters flying around it. Make sure you check the basement for demolitions.

Yup. He is a student of mine, he's also my brother. Our school is particularly adept at using our chi to blast the black helicopters from the sky. Currently the CIA is trying to enlist us, despite our beliefs, to see if we can zonk people over the internet with chi. They have assured us that only our enemies will be the targets of our most super secret power...for some reason, I'm not buying it.

It takes all kinds. And the fact that people here are able to present stuff like this says good things about this country. Nobody is out protesting with "Death to BYU" or "Behead the Scholars for 9/11 truth" signs. Although some of the anti-Bush protesters remind me of Muhammad cartoon protesters with their hatred and spite..but thats another topic.

Enjoy the freedom.

This is a good point. Nobody is going out and trying to take these guys down for putting their arguments out...and we can really thank our way of life for that. This information will make it or break it on how well it explains the observed evidence. Basically, we have two competing theories...

1. The "official" fire theory - which states that the buildings collapsed because of the fire.

2. The controlled implosion theory - which states that WTC 1,2 and 7 were demolished on purpose (for whatever reason).

It is entirely possible that neither "theories" fit the evidence and that something else occured. However, I think that the one benefit that can be garnered from this research is that it shows that there are some serious questions about theory number one...and that in and of itself is troubling.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Robert Bowman: Another one of the "Scholars"

He was a 1980's peace-in-space activist whose main strategy was Soviet admiration. He once even argued that the USSR was justified in locking its own citizens inside their country because they had been bought and paid for via 'free education' and 'free health care' and thus were legitimate assets of the state, not to be wasted by losing them.

Such a perfectly executed plan yet the whistle blowers havent meet gruesome ends at the hands of CIA assassins like the witnesses to the Government assassination of President Kennedy. The smoking men are slipping. I can only assume Mr. "Kid" is one of Mr. "Upnorths" students based on location and MA system. That must be an interesting school, what with all the black helicopters flying around it. Make sure you check the basement for demolitions.

Just teasing, this has been one of the most interesting (and wierd) discussions I have ever had, and probably the most typing too.

It takes all kinds. And the fact that people here are able to present stuff like this says good things about this country. Nobody is out protesting with "Death to BYU" or "Behead the Scholars for 9/11 truth" signs. Although some of the anti-Bush protesters remind me of Muhammad cartoon protesters with their hatred and spite..but thats another topic.

Enjoy the freedom.

Yes, God bless America....here, you can be as KOOKY and wierd, and paranoid as you want, and the government won't intefer. Hell, they even keep giving you grants to conduct your 'Kooky' research.

Ask the enemies of Stalin what a REAL conspiracy looked like from the inside......if you can find where they're buried.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, upnorth, i've agreed with you in the past, but when you start getting in to conspiracy theories, I think you're wandering off the reservation.

As for as not giving it an objective chance, this 'stuff' is not objectively reasonable to begin with.

I'll disagree with you here. And this is why...

You can take the equations

1. d = .5 gt^2
2. v = gt
3. m(t)v(t) = [m(1)v(1) + m(2)v(2)]

And show that WTC 1 and 2 fell far to fast for the official theory to explain. And this is assuming that there is absolutely nothing but the law of intertia between the floors.

You can also use equations that describe the 2nd law of thermodynamics and tumbling objects and come to the conclusion that the towers would have fallen away from the path of most resistence, which was straight down.

Does this alone prove that it was a conspiracy by the government to commit mass murder? No.

However, there is more...melted and evaporated steel, sulfidation as explosive residue, and measured steel temps far above what could be caused by a fire and collapse...and it is presented in such a way that one can check the authenticity.

The official version does not address these things. Could there be another reason why this stuff was ignored? Could these buildings have been demolished for reasons that were not political? Could a better theory then both of these come along and explain the evidence?

All of these are valid questions and will take time to answer.