.......which again calls into question the officail 9/11 story?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Some good peer reviewed work here by some very qualified professionals.NIST and FEMA wont touch this stuff
2007-04-24 09:21:43 · 9 answers · asked by Paul I 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Agh! More 9-11 conspiracy crap posing as a question.
Well, since you bring up NIST, this is what NIST said about the "molten metal" found at the WTC:
"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. "
So much for the thermite theory. Also, thermite doesn't explode or is set off by explosions. So, what were the "explosions" that people heard & the puffs of air? All their "facts" contradict each other.
This is just a tiny example or how easy it is poke holes in the the conspiracy story. There's nothing in the whole 9-11 conspiracy that's not explainable.
2007-04-27 16:16:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is very clear that all of the responders to your question have yet to do the research themselves. For them ignorance is bliss. I love how they say the journal is socialist and ppl distanced themselves from Jones. Well, they may have but they refuse to debate or give scientific reasons as to why he is wrong. Jones, and Kevin Ryan along with Griffin would totally destroy NIST in a debate. Even ppl that do not understand science can clearly see the inconsistencies in NIST and Popular mechanics reports. For example NIST even admits in their report that the beams had three inches of sagging and only 3 steel beams were heated over 250 Celsius. In their computer models they had to use 48 inches of sagging to get their desired effect. Not to mention they only describe how the collapse initiated and refuse to look at the anomalies in the collapse sequense. Overall, the NIST report is anti-science. They start with a conclusion and attempt to build their case without looking at other hypothesis.
2007-04-24 17:04:56 · answer #2 · answered by Luke F 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Our government can't keep secret that Bill Clinton got a BJ in the oval office. How on God's green earth can the government keep this a secret.
GIVE ME A BREAK
2007-04-25 09:54:25 · answer #3 · answered by buckeyefrank100 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well that's what they do they just keep parroting some unknown
( and for good reason ) useless individual, thereby imparting some false sense of importance to what they say, the "if I say it
enough it'll become true" school of thought, or the " if I quote this person or that enough it'll make them and what they say sound important and thereby justify my quoting them" circular school of thought.
2007-04-24 16:54:28 · answer #4 · answered by booboo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I read some of the first article, I recognized the name Steven E. Jones. When he made these reports, other physists distanced themselves from him, along with many scholars... if all this physics was so obvious, why would he be standing alone?
He shortly retired after making these reports, wonder why?
2007-04-24 16:35:23 · answer #5 · answered by heavy_cow 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
"Peer review" should be peer reviewed by experts in the field. Jones' work has only been published and reviewed by a socialist economics journal.
That doesn't cut it.
2007-04-24 16:37:49 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You should really seek professional help. And stop degrading the names of all those who perished with your conspiracy crap!
2007-04-24 16:30:02 · answer #7 · answered by baby1 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
You know, the more you carry on, the more of a crackhead you look like... right?
2007-04-24 16:30:30 · answer #8 · answered by Brian I 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No. That would involve using logic and allowing their brain to think freely and openly.
2007-04-24 16:34:50 · answer #9 · answered by V 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋