Jonesing on conspiracy theories (another Prof Jones article)

by **Qutb** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:55 am

- NIST's report on WTC7 will be released next year. On what grounds do you say "NIST can't explain that"? They've already released a working hypothesis which is a hell of a lot more plausible than the controlled demolition theory. - WTC7 is not the twin towers. Even if #7 was demolished with explosives - which I think is extremely unlikely - that doesn't mean the towers were. As you've probably noticed, the way in which #7 collapsed is completely different from how the towers collapsed. - If #7 was demolished with explosives, that would probably have been built-in explosives that were there as a security measure. Which means that it doesn't point to foreknowledge of the events of 9/11, and so it isn't a smoking gun. At least the theories that have the Fire Dept involved in the demolition would indicate this (such as the "Silverstein admitted it" theory), as I doubt the FDNY were in on the "big conspiracy".

by **Insider** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:03 pm

Don't sit around waiting for some knight in shining armor to present evidence of controlled demolition and US Gov orchetstration of 9/11... because it already happened about 10 times over! Many impressive people with unimpeachable credentials have laid out enough facts about 9/11 to close the case. Remember: Some people will ALWAYS refuse to see it. (wink wink) who could that be? Do not waste time and effort on these people. The point of the 911 Truth movement (now) is to reach a significant percentage of the population by reaching those that can be reached. Viva Truth

by **Byrne** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:26 pm

Further quotes from the meeting of October 26, 2005 - Full Committee on Science - Hearing - The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations and Next Steps (see <a href="http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/oct%2026/index.htm" target="top">www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/oct%2026/index.htm</a> ) In addition to Professor Glenn Corbett quoted before, below is criticism raised at the meeting by Sally Regenhard, Chairperson, Skyscraper Safety Campaign: (The SSC represents families and survivors of the WTC disaster) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In totality however, while some very valuable results were achieved, the overall mode and findings of the investigation was not what I had hoped for. I had certain hopes regarding NIST & the investigation, but I and others were disillusioned regarding what NIST was willing and able to do. I had hoped for more specific and comprehensive recommendations that could easily be translated into code reform and change, but this is not the case. The recommendations are very general and lack specifics. I feel that the vagueness of the language was influenced by political correctness and a general reluctance or inability to "investigate", use subpoena power, "lay blame", or even point out the deadly mistakes of 9/11 in the WTC. The following are five areas of concern for the Skyscraper Safety Campaign. 1) The role of the Port Authority of NYNJ & its’ exemptions from immunities & codes. The failure of the NIST Investigation to comprehensively examine what role these immunities had in the design, construction, maintenance and ultimate collapse of the WTC is of great concern to me. 2) The lack of more intense emphasis on fireproofing issues, premature disposal of steel evidence, the heavy reliance on computer modeling for fire testing, & the reluctance to focus on cause, blame, and resultant implications are troubling. 3) The reliance on the voluntary cooperation of key figures in the investigation to provide needed information; placing the former WTC chief structural engineer on the payroll to facilitate his involvement in the investigation, utilizing researchers to the exclusion of true investigators going into the field to obtain evidence is problematic to me. On this last point, I have been married to a NYPD detective sergeant for over 30 years, and I can recognize an Investigation when I see one. I feel the inherent character of NIST as a research rather than investigative agency was a factor in this situation. 4) The lack of focus on evacuation issues of the WTC such as remoteness of exits, behavior of fleeing persons in the stairwells, & the avoidance of first person accounts of stairwell evacuation, and length of time it took to evacuate the building was a shortcoming. 5) The relative secrecy of the investigation, and the withholding of all materials and documents used by NIST to arrive at the study's conclusions is very disturbing. These materials should be made available to professionals for further study and analysis, to question and/or duplicate the findings, according to the scientific method, and should not be locked away in the National Archives or anywhere else. I hope I can call on the Science Committee to unlock this information for the American public<hr></blockquote> On reading the executive summary & the other linked documents, there is almost no reference to WTC-7 & certainly no reference to any time schedule of any further issuing of any report relating to WTC-7 (the one that was scheduled for Sept.05). ProfessorGlenn Corbett's remarks raise some doubt (see my previous post) as to whether there will be any WTC-7 report at all!! What d'ya bet that something else will be big news then & the WTC-7 report will be lost in the fog.......... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>They've already released a working hypothesis which is a hell of a lot more plausible than the controlled demolition theory.<hr></blockquote> The NIST promised report for WTC-7 will not consider controlled demolition within the hypothesis, so their is no investigative reasearch into whether that even COULD be a cause of the collapse of WTC-7 (which you are now alluding to yourself(!!) ). As Corbett & Regenhard have stated (& they are amidst it all), the NIST 'investigation' has been more of a Research Project, trying to make the NIST conclusions fit pre-determined suppositions arrived at by 'politically correct' legal attorneys.

by **FourthBase** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Take a look at a video of a controlled demolition. Would it have been possible to construct an alternative explanation for why these buildings fell, which would have been even superficially plausible? No, it wouldn't.<hr></blockquote> More stupid crap from you, I see. If a building about to be demolished was also on fire... And if witnesses were not informed that a CD were about to happen... People would point to the fire as the explanation of a collapse.

by **Qutb** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:35 pm

Fourth Base, if the twin towers had collpased as a result of explosives going off, it would have been immediately obvious to absolutely everone, not just to acid heads and hardcore conspiracy buffs. It wouldn't have looked anything like the collapses we've all seen a million times. This is probably beyond your comprehension, though.

by **st4** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:03 pm

NIST Caught Trying to Bury Evidence <a href="http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=540&#entry34683">forum.physorg.com/index.p...entry34683</a>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:04 am

Notice how many times the dismissive expression 'conspiracy theory' is used to discredit the idea of controlled demolition despite seeming to consider it. Lots of negative framing. "Like any good conspiracy-monger, Jones raises lots of good but unanswerable questions and supplies few answers. He doesn't pretend to know who'd actually do such a terrible thing, or how they managed to pre-place all those explosives without being caught. He doesn't finger the Conspiracy Industry's usual suspects..." Conspiracy Industry???? Nice....not. So this article is brought out dripping with scornful framing as a way to handle the subject with nose held and eyes rolling in bemused skepticism. Means, motive, opportunity. Here's a possibility for "how they managed to pre-place all those explosives without being caught" and Jeff Wells is the one who posted this here at Rigorous Intuition: A massive elevator overhaul project was going on in the months before 9/11- <a href="http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/pdf/0103-002.pdf">www.elevator-world.com/ma...03-002.pdf</a>

by **Byrne** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:26 am

If you read the Chairman's opening statement from the WTC House Committe on Science hearing on the WTC Investigation of 26th Oct 05 <a href="http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/oct%2026/opening.pdf" target="top">(see here)</a>It is VERY revealing.....<blockquote>Quote:<hr>CONGRESSMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT (R-NY) OPENING STATEMENT FOR WTC HEARING October 26, 2005 I want to welcome everyone to this important hearing, this Committee’s third on the tragic collapse of the World Trade Center, but probably not our last. I want to promise (and perhaps warn) everyone at the outset that this Committee will be closely monitoring the follow-up to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the events of September 11.That means we will be watching what NIST does, what other federal agencies do, and what the code writing organizations do. We are obviously not technical experts, but we will be making sure that the recommendations are considered fully and thoroughly, that NIST is doing everything necessary to back up those recommendations, and that any decisions are fully justified by the facts. <snip><hr></blockquote>Why the need for the Chairman to warn the hearing? Perhaps because, of the minimal references to the (forthcoming [or not]) WTC-7 report. From the (Wtiness) Testimony Panel, the only references to the (forthcoming) WTC-7 report are by Dr. William Jeffrey (Director of the NIST) who <a href="http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/oct%2026/Jeffrey.pdf" target="top">states (page 10)</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Our current plans are to release next spring an additional five reports as drafts for public comment on the investigation of WTC 7.<hr></blockquote>Interesting then that Professor Glenn Corbett, as the final member of the panel states that the WTC-7 investigation will likely not be completed next summer. These two statements don't sit square & indicate that Professor Corbett is aware that the WTC-7 reports won't be completed by the summer despite what the chairman stated. As far as I am aware, no reason was given for the delay in the WTC-7 report issue (which was scheduled for Sept. 05). Qutb, Answer me this, if ithe WTC-7 collapse is so straigntforward (& not complicated by CD), why: i) the doubts & criticisms of the whole NIST investigation process, raised by the 2 (most independent) members of the Wtiness Testimony Panel? ii) the need to warn the hearing that follow ups will be pursued? & iii) the overall delay for the issue of the WTC-7 report (that is, if it even arrives at all!) It is so frickin obvious there is a cover up going on.

by **Qutb** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:49 am

It's so frickin obvious this crap is put out there in a desperate attempt to discredit the "new media" at this juncture when it's beginning to have some real influence. White Phosphorous was uncovered by "left-wing" internet media. People are starting to take it more seriously, and, I'm sure, to fear it. Of course there must come a counter-offensive in the form of promoting ridiculous nonsense and hoping that gullible people will swallow it. It's interesting that cd was less prominent in the early days of "9/11 truth". During the first couple of years, several significant facts were uncovered that clearly showed that the "official" story wasn't the full story. How best to "manage" that situation? As Hopsicker put it, "send in the clowns". And voilà, there was an explosion of "physical evidence" sites "arguing" controlled demolition, pods, no planes, holograms etc. So much noise, that the signal is lost. This counter-offensive has been very successful, I think, regarding "9/11 truth". Here's a professor from a Mormon university - Mormons are known to be over-represented in the intelligence community - and his thesis is promoted by a Richard Scaife-owned newspaper. The same guy who funds the think-tanks that groomed the "neo-cons". Hello?! As P.T. Barnum said, "People like to be humbugged". And as he didn't say, but which is incorrectly attributed to him: There's a sucker born every minute. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=qutb>Qutb</A> at: 11/25/05 9:31 am

by **anon** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:54 pm

an interesting facet of yr 'debunking' : you spend much space applying 'rigourousness' [rigourity?rigouritisminess?] to the CD theories. OK, they are not proved, there's space for doubt. However, you have never yet applied that same rigour to the official theories. You accept - and tout - them as gospel truth as part of your theory of disinfo Not sure, but I think you started by using as your rational bonafides the PBS report and the Mechanics Illustrated story and/or the preliminary govt report the name of which escapes me. Now you quote the NIST report. These are, I believe, at evidentiary odds with each other. You deride other posters' musings or belief in CD possibilities. Not just caution against presenting an irrational face but move quickly and adamantly to derision ...at the same time as adamant acceptance of official theory/spin. Even if CD were false, the numerous anomalies in the pursuit of "truth' by the govt commisions seem not to bother you a whit nor to enter into your equation of the whole story. You mock the weak logic constructions of CD adherents, yet present weak logic of your own. But at that, you never really answer subsequent disagreements with evidence or theories. How about actual interchange, pitching into the same problem together - "no, that theory's main point won't work because of such & so, but this one part of it could still be operative... let's throw into the 'still possible' column " and so on and so forth. There may not have been CD, but it seems from your posts that you have no idea of so much of the numerous details , you know like the sherlock Holmes type, "the dog who didn't bark in the night" And there is so much , of which so many have posted. E.G. reference the 2 posts above re industry experts decrying even just one (important - and tellingly so, imho) aspect of NIST, that they failed to address future safety /construction concerns. Anyway, I've read others' posts re this subject in which they had smarter things to do than spend time in 'discussion' with you, and advised others not to bother overmuch. Today, I just failed to follow their wisdom and spent time writing this. Must been the spirit of the holidays!

by **NewKid** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:18 am

Qutb said <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That is nonsense. Have you read the report? On what grounds can you say it hasn't been investigated? NIST didn't devote a lot of time to considering the controlled demolition theory, that's true, but that is because that theory is ridiculous. We've discussed this already, for 20 pages or what, so I don't see any reason to repeat all the many reasons why it is.<hr></blockquote> Qutb, the "it" I was talking about wasn't CD. It was about the possibility of other technologies that might have brought the buildings down. Why are NIST and CD the only alternatives? Yes, it's true I can't prove what technology, but that's not my point. My only point is asking why it has to be CD or NIST? Surely you don't think NIST has conclusively ruled out all other possibilites? And surely you don't think that other technologies are out of the realm of possibility? Do I think NIST has made a better case than CD? Perhaps, but I don't care because I have no interest in CD working out as a theory. I agree with you with many of the problems on CD and that many of its proponents are disinformational, but that doesn't prove up NIST at all. Yes, people are itching for a smoking gun and they can taste it in 7. And since CD looks possible to a lot of people, they go with that. But that's not the only reason people are suspicious of 7. Given the psyop effect of the 3 buildings coming down, coupled with the facial implausibility of that happening and all of the other benefits that may have come from destroying those buildings, I think it's way too early to adopt anybody's conclusions. NIST's report hasn't even been out long enough to have serious professional evaluation. Moreover, I don't have the faith you do in the expert community to seriously scrutinize NIST's work and publicly speak out about it. That said, I do find the Corbett comment intriguing. I remember his name from a year or so ago and I thought he was a pretty solid cheerleader for the official story back then. Maybe his comments are referring to something else and ultimately meaningless, but it will be interesting to see. I don't mean this in a tendentious way at all Qutb, but what do you think of Corbett and or his remarks?

by **FourthBase** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Here's a possibility for "how they managed to pre-place all those explosives without being caught" and Jeff Wells is the one who posted this here at Rigorous Intuition: A massive elevator overhaul project was going on in the months before 9/11- www.elevator-world.com/ma...03-002.pdf<hr></blockquote> Don't forget Sakher "Rocky" Hammad, also. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>February 10, 2002: Driver's License Examiner Dies in Suspicious Circumstances Complete 911 Timeline Katherine Smith is killed one day before her scheduled appearance in court on charges she helped five Islamic men get illegal drivers licenses. According to witnesses, she veered into a utility pole when a fire erupted in her car. She was burned beyond recognition. The FBI later determines that gasoline was poured on her clothing before she died in the fire and find that arson was the cause of death. [Associated Press, 2/15/02 (B)] A suicide note was found, but prosecutors say they are looking for murder suspects. One of the five men, Sakhera Hammad, was found with a pass in his wallet giving access to the restricted areas of the WTC, dated September 5, 2001. Hammad claims he was a plumber and worked on the WTC's sprinkler system that day, but the company with exclusive rights to all WTC plumbing work has never heard of him. Smith was being investigated by the FBI; the five later plead guilty to charges of fraud. [Memphis Commercial Appeal, 2/21/02; Go Memphis, 2/12/02; Associated Press, 2/13/02; Reuters, 2/15/02] One of the five, Khaled Odtllah, drove from New York City to Memphis on 9/11. Tennessee is one of only four US states that doesn't require a Social Security card to get a driver's license. A prosecutor accuses each of the five men of attempting to acquire a “completely false and untraceable identity.” [Associated Press, 2/12/02; Associated Press, 2/15/02 (B)] One month later, the coroner who examines her body is targeted by a bomb, which is defused. Then in June the coroner is attacked, bound with barbed wire, and left with a bomb tied to his body, but he survives. [Memphis Commercial Appeal, 3/14/02] <hr></blockquote>

by **Qutb** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:56 pm

Corbett was asking for more specific recommendations, that's all. What NIST hasn't had the guts to do is to point to specific weaknesses in the design of the twin towers that should be avoided in the future. Hence Corbett's disillusionment. If you read what he wrote, I'm sure you'll have noticed that he doesn't say anything about doubting "the official story". But if you want him to clarify his remarks, why not e-mail him and ask him? I think the collapse of the towers shows that the "tube within a tube" design of very tall skyscrapers is not safe in case of extensive structural damage and large fires. At least when the floors consist of light-weight trusses. The design of WTC7 was also peculiar, the trusses seem to have been the weakest link there as well (and there too, with missing fireproofing), and of course 46,000 gallons of diesel fuel were stored in the building. As for why I'm so convinced, well, I just don't see any reason whatsoever to suspect any kind of exotic science fiction technology causing the collapse. Is it a coincidence that three skyscrapers collapsed in one day? No, it's not a coincidence, you know, there were planes and everything. It seems "too perfect" in retrospect, and that's why people are inclined to believe these theories, I guess. "Too methodical". But I could tell you a story about two giant cargo ships both breaking in half during the same storm, something that's never been seen before or since. This was in the 60s, and they figured out the design flaw that caused it. They don't build ships the same way anymore. Similar causes affecting similar strucutures often equals similar effects. If this incident had been discussed here, I'm sure most posters would argue there must have been bombs in the ships. You can surmise that "the psyops was to make the towers fall on TV", but it's a logical fallacy. Considering the psychological effect it had, you suspect it must have been intentional, so you go looking for how they could have done that, while ignoring the more mundane and obvious causes. When you can't find any evidence of the collapses having been caused by anything else than the planes, you conclude that they're extremely clever and utilize super-secret sci-fi technology, and that the "official" investigation is necessarily a cover-up of this fact. See the logical fallacy there? Sure, the collapse of the towers may have been the "psy-op of 9/11" - I'm sure, considering the design of the towers, clever people would have been able to figure out that the towers would collapse if you crashed airliners into them filled with jet fuel. (Though interestingly, Bin Laden, who is a civil engineer by training, remarked in one of his video tapes that all they had hoped for was for a few floors to collapse. He also said he was grateful for the lack of air response.) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=qutb>Qutb</A> at: 11/26/05 11:17 am

by **FourthBase** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>(Though interestingly, Bin Laden, who is a civil engineer by training, remarked in one of his video tapes that all they had hoped for was for a few floors to collapse. He also said he was grateful for the lack of air response.)<hr></blockquote> Was that the video that wasn't actually him, though?

by **proldic** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He also said he was grateful for the lack of air response<hr></blockquote> Where the fuck is that quote, dude? Please please give me it. That's the bomb. It should be everywhere. It could be a poster by tonight.

Jonesing on conspiracy theories (another Prof Jones article)

Re: The Unmentionable 47-Storey Building

The evidence is in, quible as long as you're entertained

WTC-7 - Lost in the Fog

Re: WTC-7 - Lost in the Fog

Re: WTC-7 - Lost in the Fog

Re: WTC7

conspiracy theory conspiracy theory conspiracy theory conspi

More info from HCS hearing of 26 Oct 05

Re: frickin obvious

qutb/nomo imbalanced debunking

Nonsense

Re: conspiracy theory conspiracy theory conspiracy theory co

Re: Psy-op

Re: Psy-op

Re: HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who is online