[Judas]

Professor Steven Jones, from BYU, says the government's version
of events defies physics.

He notes that Building 7, which was NOT hit by an airplane,
collapsed in classic demolition style. Also, the Twin Towers
collapse at near free fall speed... 10 seconds each!
The government's version says all three building's collapsed from "fire".


Jones is co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://st911.org


Jones has given two seminars to HUNDREDS of people the past few weeks.
Watch his Feb 1st seminar on Google Video!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2002408586

See the PowerPoint Presentation in various formats:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones

See original PowerPoint Presentation with moving video and PP viewer:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy (scrolldown)


His paper put out for peer review on controlled demolitions at the WTC has
been updated several times the past few months. More and more experts have
been contacting Jones, and he has been updating his paper accordingly.
It is now more scientifically accurate than ever!
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html



Dr Jones is NOT the only person speaking up about 9/11!


see these sites for more info:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://st911.org

200+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' Found in the Mainstream Media
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

9/11 WTC 'Controlled Demolition Theory' Analysis Thread
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

http://www.911Blogger.com
http://www.NY911Truth.org
http://www.911Busters.com
http://www.question911.com/links.php


NOTE REGARDING FOOLS:
Undoubtedly, some people will respond to this post with childish comments,
including words like "kook", "tin foil hat", "loony", or other immature
nonsense. Those people not only show themselves to be incapable of looking
at evidence properly, but also silly fools who blindly accept a government
version that has no proof. Those people are subjects of government brainwashing.
Those who know how to think obviously need not resort to immature replies.



Here a few 9/11 FACTS for additional assistance.
(Most can be verified via the links above.)


FACT: Never before in world history has a steel framed building
completely collapsed from fire. Not before 9/11, not after 9/11.
Never!

FACT: WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane!

FACT: WTC 7 collapsed from "fire and debris", according to the government

FACT: The WTC 7 collapse mimicked controlled demolition, as did the
Towers. They all collapsed almost symmetrically, near free fall speed,
into their own footprints.

FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.

FACT: Explosives expert Van Romero said just days after 9/11 that he
could tell all three buildings collapsed from controlled demolition just
by watching the video footage

FACT: Romero recanted just a few days later without giving any scientific
explanation as to why. He was then promoted.

FACT: WTC 7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought a 99 yr lease on the
entire WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, which just happened
to include terrorist attack insurance

FACT: The structural engineer that worked for Silverstein's insurance
company told the Discovery Channel that all the Towers' massive vertical
columns failed simultaneously, and mimicked controlled demolition

FACT: Silverstein said WTC7 was "pulled" on a PBS documentary

FACT: In that same documentary, a construction worker used the word
"pull" as slang for "professionally demolish"

FACT: The WTC7 fire alarm was put into "test mode" the morning of 9/11

FACT: Silverstein was absent from his 88th floor office in the
North Tower on the morning of 9/11 due to a "doctors appointment"

FACT: Over a hundred witnesses have made statements of explosions

FACT: The FBI was going under the assumption that bombs were in the
buildings.

FACT: The FDNY Chief Of Safely told an NBC reporter there might be a
secondary device in the building

FACT: FDNY personnel (including Fire Commissioners, Fire Marshals,
Captains, and Lieutenants) reported flashes, bombs, and explosions
that they compared to controlled demolitions.

FACT: Many of the FDNY personnel above stated that controlled demolition
was their gut instinct.

FACT: The NIST investigators made the assumption that collapse initiation
would "inevitably" lead to global collapse, despite the fact that it never
happened before in world history.

FACT: The NIST investigators performed little analysis of the structural
behavior of the Towers when global collapse became "inevitable" following
collapse initiation

FACT: The NIST investigators altered the data for their computer simulations

FACT: The NIST investigators refuse to show their computer simulation model
despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.[/code]

[Jesters8]

Fascinating.

So what's the government's motive? Pretense for war?

[Nyck]

ninty stop hacking accounts

[Machette]

This isn't particularly a new and ground breaking theory..but it is still interesting none the less.

[Judas]

first ive seen of it since ive pretty much not given 2 shits about it since it happened.

[c312]

there have also been studies to counter all of those claims, but whichever you chose to beleive...

[Machette]

Links? Just want to see what they have to say.

[ninty]

Originally Posted by c312

there have also been studies to counter all of those claims, but whichever you chose to beleive...

Please post them.

And there really is quite a large 911 Truth Movement throughout the US and really internationally, however it doesn't get much press.

The sad thing is that people will relegate others to being consiracy theorists for believeing something other than what has officially been declared. All I really see it as is an analysis and different conclusion of the facts.


Anyway, i've gotten into this discussion enough times here. I would be glad to discuss anything like this with anyone here and would also be happy to refer you to materials avaliable for research.

I would consider myself extremly versed in this subject, probably moreso than anyone else on this board as far as I can tell.

This is an extremly tough subject, so i'll leace it at that. I'll be happy to answer any PM's I get, although it takes a week for my pms to get out of my outbox, so if anyone wants to include their email address, it may be easier that way.

[c312]

well there's the [url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y:d67e9]Popular Mechanics[/url:d67e9] article for one. There are more, they are just harder to find amid all the podunk websites with pictures of missiles and fireballs and all that nonsense.

[ninty]

Ah yes, the famous PM article.

As you might have guessed, there are MANY rebuttles to the PM article, as i'm sure there are probably rebuttles to the rebuttles.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/ ... hanics.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
http://911review.com/pm/markup/

Listen, there are A LOT of theories out there from the "pod people" to lizzards and such. There isn't one theory that everyone conforms to. What these people all have in common is that they realize something is not right about 911. How far that is taken is up to the individual.

I posted this in another topic and I believe it is extremly relevant:

"David Ray Griffin breaks down the way people think about the attacks into four categories which I think are very appropriate. You just have to figure out where you are:
1) The US was totally blindsighted by the attack and had no prior knowledge.
2) The US did not know of the attack, but are now using it to their advantage in foreign policy and in the US itself.
3) The US knew the attacks were coming and allowed them to happen, much like pearl harbour, in order to garner the support of the citizens to carry out certain goals.
4) The US was complicit in organizing and carrying out the attacks. "

When you look at that and decide where you fall, ask yourself why you fall into that category. Then, with an open mind, research.

[c312]

yeah but researching this subject is difficult because of the sheer number of all the underground sites with all their "information"

[ninty]

Yes, I agree.

There are some horrible sites that put out a lot of misinformation. This is what scares a lot of people away from these types of things.

When people say "no plane hit the pentagon" or "there were pods on the planes that slammes into the WTC" these statements turn people off right away because they seem to most people to be extremly silly. As a result, all 9/11 truth seekers are lumped into one category and labeled as being crazy or conspiracy theorists.

Do I believe in the "pod" theory? No.
Do I believe a missile hit the pentagon? I'm not sure. I cannot say one way or another what hit the pentagon. But I can tell you the easiest way for the government to prove all doubters wrong is to release one of the many tapes that caught the impact. Unfortunatley, all they have released is those five frames where you can not tell what hit the pentagon. Until it is proven that a plane hit, you will have many people saying it wasn't a plane. That's just the way it goes.

If people like I can list a number of "good" 9/11 sites that encourage open thought on the situation.

[elstatec]

are there any documentaries on this?

[ninty]

Yes, a ton.

One very well done doc is Loose Change Second Edition.

[url=http://www.loosechange911.com/trailer.wmv:98384]Trailer[/url:98384]
http://www.loosechange911.com/

Can also watch it on Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nd+Edition

It can be found on all torrent sites, but make sure you get the second edition. They added about 20 minutes, and it is excellent. I don't think I agree with everything the doc presents, but I think it's probably the most comprehensive and well done doc out there.

I would also recommend any of David Ray Griffins speeches. They don't have the visual aspects like other docs, because it's just him standing and delivering a lecture, however what he does is analyse the entire 9/11 comission report. He can also be found on torrent sites.

[Eight Ace]

Originally Posted by ninty

I would consider myself extremly versed in this subject, probably moreso than anyone else on this board as far as I can tell.

I never reasearched this as such, I've read a bit and I wonder, seeing as this attack did so much to create
a rift between islam and the west, do you know if any of these theories explain why people who are linked
to al qaeda or militant islam didn't and still don't deny responsibility? but in fact claim it, and also seem to
know all about the planning and the people who carried it out.

for example I know bin laden is called an American invention due to US support during the Afghan/Soviet
conflict, but these theories would seem to insinuate that that all of "al qaeda" is in the pay of America..?

They all seem to support each others stories still, what do you know about that aspect of events?