Yes, had 97-99 percentile in my ASVAB also. That was in 10th grade when you were not supposed to take it yet but since i was in JROTC it was OK.

93 to me crashed there, and the ground was softer there because there was an abandoned mine. However, i do believe that it was shot down. There is too much evidence to support that rather than mutiny in the skies.

That is the problem i have with the truthers is that i do not believe the official story in its entirety. I still believe and always will feel that the WTC craziness is to keep people from looking closer into 93 and also 587.

I equate this paper to his Cold Fusion papers. Look it up on google and read some of the news articles from the early 90's.

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Funny you say that about 93, because that is what got me into the 9/11 conspiracy in the first place.

[...]

From the POV of someone like me, its ludicrous to think a plane crashed there. I kinda hate it when those who agree with me get trashed on for thinking that, because in all honesty...it really doesnt look like a plane crashed there.

I don't know about others, but I don't buy into what's called around here the Official Story, and I don't think many do.

I have my reservations about 93.

The focus has shifted to controlled demolition which I think very much is a research dead end. The building were hit by airplanes, there was incredible damage and death. If the shells of the buildings remained standing not all that much would be different.

The fixation with measuring collapse timing and hunt for chimera explosives only serves the perpetrators in taking the heat off them.

I buy into NIST's evaluation for now, because there is no alternative explanation with anything approaching the weight and depth of it's analysis.


Mike

Originally posted by esdad71
93 to me crashed there, and the ground was softer there because there was an abandoned mine. However, i do believe that it was shot down. There is too much evidence to support that rather than mutiny in the skies.

Being shot down is my personal thought there as well. The debris field is way too big for a crash if you ask me. Surely you've read Rewey's thoughts on the soil there? Although I don't know his background either, his analysis is decent, and he brings up a lot a valid points as well.

That is the problem i have with the truthers is that i do not believe the official story in its entirety. I still believe and always will feel that the WTC craziness is to keep people from looking closer into 93 and also 587.

This is a good point. When I heard that certain authorities wanted to purchase..what was it..1200 acres or so, at the crash site, that just seemed very strange.

I equate this paper to his Cold Fusion papers. Look it up on google and read some of the news articles from the early 90's.

I've seen you bring that up. I'll just say this, that I won't discredit the man for what happened in the past. A failure before certainly doesnt mean failure now by any means, but hey, to each his own

Originally posted by mmiichael

I don't know about others, but I don't buy into what's called around here the Official Story, and I don't think many do.

I have my reservations about 93.

Well then we agree on something

The focus has shifted to controlled demolition which I think very much is a research dead end. The building were hit by airplanes, there was incredible damage and death. If the shells of the buildings remained standing not all that much would be different.

If the shells of the building remained standing, I doubt anyone would have given the collapse a 2nd thought. As for it being a dead end, I'd go 50/50 with you there.

I think there is potential for the scientists all over the world who are looking into this stuff to provide solid results. However, I think the hardest part is not the research, it's the issue of how would they convince Congress to have a new investigation?

When you REALLY think about the ramifications of such an investigation..I mean it could include multiple Presidential Administrations...FBI...CIA... I mean those 3 ALONE...just think about it, and thats probably only the tip of the iceberg.

The fixation with measuring collapse timing and hunt for chimera explosives only serves the perpetrators in taking the heat off them.

I have no idea what you mean here...?

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
I think there is potential for the scientists all over the world who are looking into this stuff to provide solid results. However, I think the hardest part is not the research, it's the issue of how would they convince Congress to have a new investigation?

When you REALLY think about the ramifications of such an investigation..I mean it could include multiple Presidential Administrations...FBI...CIA... I mean those 3 ALONE...just think about it, and thats probably only the tip of the iceberg.

I look at things like what I consider the theft of the 2000 election and how it got shoved under the rug. Few may remember but there was to be a release of a press funded reinvestigation of the discrepancies which was called of after 9/11.

The Supreme Court allowed that one to slip by. And they're the least politicized branch of the govt.

So 9/11 is out in the cold with Congress from what I can see. That doesn't stop the writers and researchers from coming up with answers. There desperately needs to be a "Deep Throat" to supply in situ testimony, name names, etc. That one has not emerged so far may be telling.


I said: "The fixation with measuring collapse timing and hunt for chimera explosives only serves the perpetrators in taking the heat off them."

Translation:

The search for explosives that made those destroyed building even more destroyed has become a distraction of choice from the search for the people behind it all. Who knew what, who acted as facilitator, why? Should be the primary focus.


Mike

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by turbofan
The science speaks. Nobody has offered a challange to the paper yet;
it's all just unfounded, weak excuse. Jones, Harrit and Gage will continue
to spread the news and grow their list while you all complain about 'paint'

So can you answer my questions or not? Cheerleading for Jones et al is irrelevant when their results are questionable.

Why must I answer your questions when you continue to dodge mine,
'exponent'? Have you not viewed the video evidence of the tower collapses?

Have you not viewed the still frame captures and studied the destruction
of the top sections of the twins breaking apart before the support structure
descends? This is NOT possible with a gravitational collapse.

If I must give you an answer while you continue to deny the evidence, I
will reply with (ask) this much:

What is the total mass of all three towers (1,2 and 7)?

What is the efficiency of the grade of thermite used at the WTC?
IE: 100 pounds of thermite for every 10,000 pounds of mass

How was the thermite applied, and/or what mechanism was used to
accelerate the thermite?

IE: RF triggered device?

We can assume the efficiency is not 100% because there are unreacted
chips in the dust.

Other than that, I cannot answer your question because it would only
be speculation. What I can tell you based on studying the photos and
video is that gravity did not destroy the towers alone.

What I can tell you is that nine scientists have provided an acceptable
paper which satisfies the following:

- rapid rate of destruction
- sounds and feelings of explosions from witnesses
- flowing (liquid) metal at all three towers as per first responders
- video of flowing molten metal from tower
- powdered dust covering a large radius of the WTC many inches thick
- iron spheres found in dust which are also attached to partially ignited chips
- intense heat measured by infra-red instrumentation several weeks after 9/11
that is higher that jet fuel and/or office fires
- destruction of upper block of towers above impact area
- acceleration of collapse for all towers
- angle cut core beams photographed at WTC
- energy release of 'chips' exceeding that of a known nano-thermite

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Alone, or a few grouped together
may be excused for "coincidence", however the probability of all of these
phenomenon together being anything but a controlled demo is slim to none.

Now, 'exponent' I kindly ask you to view the photos / video and explain
how the top section of WTC2 breaks apart before the remaining tower
descends.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by turbofan]

Being shot down is my personal thought there as well. The debris field is way too big for a crash if you ask me.

Then, you have never seen the results of a shoot down. Flight 93's crash site is nowhere near the size of what one would see had it been shot down. Not to mention the data recorders show that the engines were intact as well as the fuselage until the moment of impact.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]