Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

Again look at the ENTIRE slide presentation [about half of them with videos embe

ded.

After looking at all that if you can still support the 'official version', I personally suggest

getting into a flat earthr forum. 

Funny you should say that because scientists and engineers especially those in relevan feilds overwhelmingly reject your theory which is embraced by only a handful of people who where there.

Perhaps you can point out a few slides that you think are especially pursuasive and WHY. You do realize that the article that mentioned thermite in the slide you cited was NOT refering to the WTC but to arson fire it said nothing about cutting steel.

Asking us to refute an entire 318 slide presentation would be like us asking you to refute an entire site, i.e. it's an absurd request

[Bernice Moore]

Jack the photos are not uploading......B

911 was an unprecedented and most extraordinary event.

19 arabs used an unknown technology that turned steel to dust.

I wonder why they have not used this technology to destroy

all of our cities. Perhaps we should surrender before they

destroy all of our cities like they did the WTC. I wonder

why they have not yet attacked other cities.

Jack

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s143/Be...piretodust1.jpg

Edited September 27, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Dave Greer]

Bernice/Jack

Look carefully at the third frame: you can see that the tallest, slender piece of the structure has moved downwards, but left dust behind. The steel structure has simply collapsed in the third and fourth frames, leaving some dust behind suspended in the air.

[Jack White]

Bernice/Jack

Look carefully at the third frame: you can see that the tallest, slender piece of the structure has moved downwards, but left dust behind. The steel structure has simply collapsed in the third and fourth frames, leaving some dust behind suspended in the air.

NONSENSE AND BS. Look at the entire video online IN MOTION!

The steel DOES NOT FALL...it turns to dust.

Jack

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire...the%20Spire.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/New_Spire/

and many others.

Edited September 27, 2007 by Jack White

[Dave Greer]

NONSENSE AND BS. Look at the entire video online IN MOTION!

The steel DOES NOT FALL...it turns to dust.

Jack

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire...the%20Spire.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/New_Spire/

and many others.

Sorry Jack, but all the videos you linked to confirm what I thought form the four stills you posted - the spire clearly falls, and leaves some dust behind. I made this GIF suing images found on one of the websites you linked. Quite clearly you can see the spire falling.

GIF made from following images:-

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp1.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp2.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp3.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp4.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp5.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp6.jpg

[Craig Lamson]

NONSENSE AND BS. Look at the entire video online IN MOTION!

The steel DOES NOT FALL...it turns to dust.

Jack

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire...the%20Spire.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/New_Spire/

and many others.

Sorry Jack, but all the videos you linked to confirm what I thought form the four stills you posted - the spire clearly falls, and leaves some dust behind. I made this GIF suing images found on one of the websites you linked. Quite clearly you can see the spire falling.

GIF made from following images:-

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp1.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp2.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp3.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp4.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp5.jpg

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/sp6.jpg

Dave you are watching an amazing thing, Jack White doing the backstroke. Just like clockwork, White, has to resort to posting a 'study' sure to draw attention. And why? Simply because he is in deep trouble on some other thread. Rather than answer the hard (and unanswerable) questions facing him, he runs off to somthing new in hopes his other troubles will fade away to the bottom of the board and out of view.

[Dave Greer]

Dave you are watching an amazing thing, Jack White doing the backstroke. Just like clockwork, White, has to resort to posting a 'study' sure to draw attention. And why? Simply because he is in deep trouble on some other thread. Rather than answer the hard (and unanswerable) questions facing him, he runs off to somthing new in hopes his other troubles will fade away to the bottom of the board and out of view.

No matter Craig. They say silence speaks volumes. It's a shame, because he would at least regain some credibility if he had the humility to admit error, and withdraw the odd Aulis Apollo study.

[Ron Ecker]

Here is the paragraph that stood out for me in the following article by George Lakoff, in light of the current effort to get an "oil-profits sharing agreement" between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds passed by the Iraqi government:

The contracts that the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called "production sharing agreements" (or "PSA's") — a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. ExxonMobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75% of the "cost oil" profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20% of oil profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East country has such an arrangement.

This to me was revelatory. I know little about economics and the oil business, and till reading this I thought that a PSA was a test for prostate cancer. I knew that the invasion of Iraq was about controlling Middle East oil supply, and that 9/11 was the first necessary step (the casus belli, "a new Pearl Harbor"), but I didn’t understand how the payoff was supposed to come, given the present chaos in Iraq. How was the oil to be controlled? Now I see that it is through the PSA process, which will mean not just control of the oil but great oil profits for big oil no matter what happens in the civil war, no matter how long the military has to stay and how many still have to die.

I Googled "production sharing agreements," and found this link to a Global Policy Forum study on PSAs and the "Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth" (a study referred to in the article):

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2...rudedesigns.htm

So this to me is the key to 9/11. In essence, 3,000 people had to die that day for a nice 30-year PSA for big oil in Iraq. The war in Iraq will be a victory for big oil no matter what happens.

Here's the article with the revelatory (for me) PSA paragraph:

Oil and Betrayal in Iraq

Created by george_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Thursday, September 20, 2007 06:13 AM

George Lakoff examines what Alan Greenspan's admission that "the Iraq war is largely about oil" means for America's troops and for the people of Iraq.

Alan Greenspan should know. It was oil all along. The former head of the Federal Reserve writes in his memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Greenspan even advised Bush that "taking Saddam Hussein out was essential" to protect oil supplies.

Yes, we suspected it. In a deep sense, many of us knew it, just as those in Washington did. But now it's in our face. Greenspan put the mother of all facts in front of our noses, and we can no longer be in denial. The US invaded Iraq for the oil.

Think about what it means for our troops and for the people of Iraq. Our troops were told, and believed because they trusted their president, that they were in Iraq to protect America, to protect their families, their homes, their friends and neighbors, our democracy. But they were betrayed. Those troops fought and died and were maimed and had their marriages break up for oil company profits. An utter betrayal of our men and women in uniform and their families, a betrayal of their sacrifices, day after day, month after month, year and year — and for some, forever! Children growing up fatherless or motherless. Men and women without legs or arms or faces — for oil company profits.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, more maimed, and millions made refugees. For oil profits.

And what profits they are! Take a look at the study of Iraqi oil contracts by Global Policy Forum, a consultant to the United Nations Security Council. Or read this editorial from The Daily Times in Pakistan.

The contracts that the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called "production sharing agreements" (or "PSA's") — a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. ExxonMobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75% of the "cost oil" profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20% of oil profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East country has such an arrangement.

Incidentally, polls show the Iraqi people overwhelmingly against "privatization", but "production sharing agreements" were devised so they are technically not "privatization," since the government would still own the oil but not control it. The ruse is there so that the government can claim it is not privatizing.

But none of this will work without military protection for the oil companies. That is what would keep us there indefinitely. The name for this is our "vital interests."

Greenspan's revelation and the contracts need to be discussed openly. The question must be asked, "Is our military there for the sake of oil?"

I have been struck by the use of the word "victory" by the right wing, especially by its propaganda arm, Freedom's Watch. Usually, "victory" is used in reference to a war between countries over territory, where there is a definable enemy. That is not the case in Iraq, where we have for four years had an occupation, not a "war," and there has been no clear enemy. We have mostly been fighting Iraqis we were supposed to be rescuing. "Victory" makes no sense for such an occupation. And even Petraeus has said that only a political, not a military, settlement is possible. In what sense can keeping troops there for 9 or 10 years or longer, as Petraeus has suggested, be a "victory"?

What is most frightening is that they may mean what they say, that they may have a concept of "victory" that makes sense to them but not to the rest of the country. If the goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to guarantee access to Iraqi oil for the next 30 years, then any result guaranteeing oil profits for American oil companies would count as "victory." Suppose the present killing and chaos were to continue, forcing us to keep our troops there indefinitely, but allowing the oil companies to prosper under our protection. That would be a "victory." Or if the Iraqi army and police force were to develop in a few years and keep order there protecting American investments and workers, that too would be "victory." If the country broke up into three distinct states or autonomous governments, that too would be "victory" as long as oil profits were guaranteed and Americans in the oil industry protected. And it doesn't matter if a Republican president keeps the troops there or a Democratic president does. It is still an oil company "victory" — and a victory for Bush.

Indeed, Kurdistan's PSA contract last week with Hunt Oil suggests the latter form of "victory." As Paul Krugman observed in the New York Times on September 14, "the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body." Hunt Oil seems to have had the first taste of "victory."

If that is "victory," what is "defeat" and who is being "defeated?" The troops who would have to stay to protect the oil investments would, person by person, suffer defeat — a defeat of the spirit and, for too many, of the body. And most of America would suffer a defeat, especially our taxpayers who have paid a trillion dollars that could have gone for health care for all, for excellent schools and college educations, for rebuilding Louisiana and Mississippi, for shoring up our infrastructure and bridges, and for protecting our environment. Victory for the oil companies, defeat for most of America.

Is Greenspan right? Is this what "victory" could possibly mean? I do not want to even think that the answers might be "yes." The thought itself is too disgusting. But Greenspan has put the questions before us, and we have a duty to pursue the answers. Because, if the answer is even half "yes," then the troops and most Americans have been, and continue to be, betrayed beyond measure.

Perhaps the most honest and straightforward way to pursue such answers would be for Congress to frame the issue directly in terms of oil, as Greenspan did. Here's a way to do it: The Constitution gives Congress authority over military matters through its power to fund continued military action. Without such funding, the troops cannot continue. Suppose Congress were to pass a bill saying that no funding would be forthcoming for military action in Iraq unless the Iraqi government drops all provisions for PSA's — production sharing agreements — in its legislation. This would actually give the Iraqi government sovereignty over its oil indefinitely and take oil control away from Western oil companies. Even proposing such a bill seriously would have two effects: To raise the constitutional issue: the president has been overriding the constitution. And it would bring the oil issue front and center, so we can all see if "victory" is really about oil interests.

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archiv...etrayal-in-iraq

[Guest David Guyatt]

I found that most interesting, Ron.

I would add that the almost record high price of petrol since the "regime change" in Iraq seems to me to be a covert US-UK imposed global tax to offset the costs of the war.

David

[Evan Burton]

I believe that the US should get out of Iraq post haste... but what do you say to the experienced soldiers who say it is a massive mistake?

Not one or two people, but a significant number. Despite what they say, I'd like to see an orderly handover to Iraqi force - but they are the people who have been on the front edge of the forces.

What do we say to them?

[Ron Ecker]

Evan,

The question you pose is moot, because the U.S. is not going to pull out of Iraq. What president, Democrat or Republican, could pull us out of Iraq after all the trouble the powers that be have gone to to gain control of the oil there?

The U.S. has not built permanent bases in Iraq for nothing. Of course there will be troop reductions, but there will always be a U.S. military force there as long as there is oil there to control and big-oil personnel and property to protect while controlling and exploiting that oil.

Talk of the Democrats winning the White House in 2008 and "getting us out of Iraq" is political clap-trap. But plenty of people will believe it, of course, and vote Democratic.

Ron

[Len Colby]

Asking us to refute an entire 318 slide presentation would be like us asking you to refute an entire site, i.e. it's an absurd request

Put up or shut up.

One stupid request deserves another, this website pretty much debunks all the “truther” misconceptions re: 9/11

http://www.911myths.com

Once you've gone over the whole thing tell us how you can still believe 9/11 was and inside job. “Put up or shut up”. I made areasonable request "Perhaps you can point out a few slides that you think are especially pursuasive and WHY. " you have yet to comply - “Put up or shut up”

Robin Hordon – Former Certified Commercial Pilot. Former Certified Flight Instructor and Certified Ground Instructor. Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981.

See what I saw saying about you spamming the forum with stuff totally irellevant to the threads you post them on? Note when hit stopped being a flight controller over 20 before 9/11. Evan if we can assume he is honestly and accurately recount what the situation was in 1981 there is no reason to assume the situation was the same over 2 decades later

It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing "IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES" such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers.

he should use past tense if he was refering to the period when he was an ATC i.e. 1970 - 81. The only known intercept of a plane over the US in the decade prior to 9/11 was Payne Stewart's plave it took over an hour and the plane was flying in a straight line with its transponder ON

The entire "national defense-first responder" intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem.

See above

This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years. ...

Funny then that truthers cn't cite a single cse in the decade before 9/11. Perhaps this was routine during the cold war when he was an ATC

---------------------------------------------------------------

Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering – Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978.

[...]

Essay Painful 9/11 Truth 9/4/07: "Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. More difficult than discovering the truth, however, is convincing most of the public to accept the bitter truth. ...

When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of the three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the twin towers. Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

If correct, the immediate reaction is like a cosmic big bang.

Seems well qualified but there are no signs he has done his own analysis or read the NIST report but rather depends on that of others. Thus we have no idea if his doubts have anything to do with his area of expertise. He doesn't even sem 100% sure the towers were CD'ed

[Jack White]

CIVIL ENGINEER DEBUNKS

OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story

Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at

nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton's Law of

Conservation of Momentum that would require that as

the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by

being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the

free-fall speed decreases. Even if Newton's Law is

ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe

that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed

upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each

floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the

100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel

framework underneath didn't exist. Controlled

demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media

not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules

and debunks the message rather than provide

investigative reporting.

--William Rice, PE,

Registered Professional Civil Engineer

who worked on structural steel and concrete

buildings in Boston, New York and Philadelphia.

Former professor at Vermont Technical College where

he taught engineering materials, structures lab and

other building related courses.

[Michael Hogan]

CIVIL ENGINEER DEBUNKS

OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story

Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at

nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton's Law of

Conservation of Momentum that would require that as

the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by

being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the

free-fall speed decreases. Even if Newton's Law is

ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe

that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed

upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each

floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the

100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel

framework underneath didn't exist. Controlled

demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media

not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules

and debunks the message rather than provide

investigative reporting.

--William Rice, PE,

Registered Professional Civil Engineer

who worked on structural steel and concrete

buildings in Boston, New York and Philadelphia.

Former professor at Vermont Technical College where

he taught engineering materials, structures lab and

other building related courses.

Len Colby has thoroughly debunked this notion numerous times in the past. How many times does he have to post this link? http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

Plus Len has provided his opinions about the qualifications or lack thereof of professors at small schools.

So the guy was a Civil Engineer. So are a lot of other "truthers." Some people still believe Elvis is alive.

When are you going to start believing Len Colby?

Edited September 28, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Len Colby]

Mr. Rice isn’t a STRUCTURAL engineer and has already been the subject of a thread where I debunked him*. He doesn’t seem to have read the NIST report. The fact that he taught at some crappy school doesn’t especially qualify him. If the collapses without the aid of demolition charges “super thermate” etc were as impossible as he and other truthers make out how come only 1 – 3 structural engineers, NONE of whom seems to have worked on steel framed buildings more than 3 stories tall, seems to think so? Why haven’t any structural engineers from Iran, Cuba, Venezuela etc said anything

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8183

PETER WROTE:

I'd suggest a remedial course in Physics and then Logic, followed by Ethics. It is more likely that space aliens blasted the WTC and Pentagon with weapons we know nothing about, than to believe the official fiction....the official version is based on not only bad science - but IMPOSSIBLE science and engineering principles. The fact they can find professional prostitutes to back it up is nothing new and no surprise. It is a story that will soon be relegated to these like a flat earth.

Ditto above re: the lack of concurring opinions by people qualified on the subject

The fact they STILL haven't addressed WTC7 [to me] is proof they haven't yet figured out a modified limited hangout that keeps the truth hidden enough [for their purposes] and conforms with the laws of Physice

Actually they have as has been pointed out more than once