Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

reply to post by Varemia

Go to school. Heck, a lot of stuff gets learned that way.,

Just trying to help.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Varemia

 

Go to school. Heck, a lot of stuff gets learned that way.,

Just trying to help.

Yeah, not helping at all, especially if you're joking. I could search my university's research facilities, but honestly I don't see the merit in putting that much effort into this. If I was getting paid to research it, yeah, I'd do it. But I have other responsibilities, and doing so much work that would likely get me scoffed at anyway by people who don't have ears, it's just not appealing.

reply to post by airspoon


What you are saying is that because evidence contradicts the use of any known material, it must have been an unknown material kept secret to the public. This way you can make any theory work, but usually it means your theory is wrong and needs a revision. The normal procedure is to examine the evidence and based on that come to a conclusion. And not like you are doing start off with a conclusion and make up things that are not known to exist only to make your conclusion possible, not even proven.

Originally posted by Varemia
Yeah, not helping at all, especially if you're joking. I could search my university's research facilities, but honestly I don't see the merit in putting that much effort into this. If I was getting paid to research it, yeah, I'd do it. But I have other responsibilities, and doing so much work that would likely get me scoffed at anyway by people who don't have ears, it's just not appealing.

Give this a read: etd.lib.ttu.edu...

It's a good primer. It was also completed 4 years after 911, so you can imagine just how poor the state of nanothermite production was even back then.

reply to post by -PLB-

What you are saying is that because evidence contradicts the use of any known material, it must have been an unknown material kept secret to the public.

No, what I'm saying is that thermitic materials can be engineered for a wide spectrum of reactions and uses, most of them new as the science has recently taken off and DARPA has rigorously financed the field in the last 20 or so years. So, you can't really say that because it didn't react like thermate, thermitic materials weren't used. So, it's not that the evidence contradicts any known materials because they are known materials, they just aren't coneventional materials. Thermate is not the only military grade thermite applications, though it is the most known. You can;t rule out thermitic materials because it doesn't behave like thermite.

With funding from the U.S. government, Sandia National Laboratories, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are researching how to manipulate the flow of energy within and between molecules, a field known as nanoenergentics, which enables building more lethal weapons such as "cave-buster bombs" that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs such as the "daisy cutter" or MOAB (mother of all bombs).

Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.

Source: www.technologyreview.com...

and...

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.

However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.

Source: www.technologyreview.com...

So again, just because thermitic materials don't behave or react like thermate, doesn't mean that they aren't thermitic. We know that there are thermitic applications that are unconventional and we know that the science is pretty advanced so why would we limit our world-view in such a way? That is the very essence of ignorance.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Thermitic materials not behaving like thermite might make them some other type of material. In the case of Jones paper, that material is paint. The thermite advances that you refer to improve and tailor the reaction, not stop it altogether, and many of those developments have occurred since 9/11.

Significant amounts of molten steel/iron would have required significant amounts of thermite. There is no evidence for such.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by -PLB-

 

We know that there are thermitic applications that are unconventional and we know that the science is pretty advanced so why would we limit our world-view in such a way? That is the very essence of ignorance.

We should not limit out world view, but in the process of accepting or rejecting a theory we do need to check whether this theory is supported by available evidence. There is no thermitic material known to exist that has an energy density high enough to produce pools of molten steel while not requiring massive amounts of it. There also is no thermitic material known to exist that that does not show any signs of intensive thermal reactions, such as massive smoke production (that even seems impossible). Of course I may be wrong, and if you can show the existence of such material, your case would be a lot stronger. Until that time it is pure fantasy, and by no means any good to base your theory on.

reply to post by pteridine

Thermitic materials not behaving like thermite might make them some other type of material.

They just might, though that doesn't mean they aren't thermitic. We are talking about nano-aliminum particles, not necessarily Thermate. I don't recall anyone suggesting that Thermate was used, at least anyone credible.

In the case of Jones paper, that material is paint.

You keep saying that and I would love to beat on the old dead horse with you but the fact remains that Jones is an established scientist who still garners a lot of respect in the field of physics and he has a peer-reviewed paper, regardless of whether you think the publisher isn't credible. To my knowledge, you don't and if you do, you havn't yet produced it.

I work at a University and I can't find one scientist who seems to think that the publisher in question is a fly-by-night or a publish for profit only publication, though I have talked to two people who seem to think that the publisher was very credible until [only] rumors abound in the last four years or so, presumably in an effort to discredit Jones' paper. Before that, there wasn't even a doubt as to the credibility of the publication, apparently, even having published studies cited in well respected educational institutions such as Georgetown University. To this day, not one single person can produce a single piece of evidence otherwise, save for a blogger who makes an unsupported claim without providing proof.

No offense, but you are an anonymous internet discussion board member, without a paper, while Jones is a very credible and established scientist with a paper. Do you see why people may take Jones' paper and even Jones himself, a little more serious?

If you think that Jones' paper is flawed (beyond what he has already addressed), why not offer a rebuttal and send it through the same peer-review process, even the same publisher? People, including myself, may then put a little more stock in your claims and we/I are/am much much more likely to then change my opinion.

If I saw a paper or study that adequately proves Jones' paper wrong, then I have no problems with changing my opinion. If I see a paper or study that adequately proves Jones' paper could be wrong, then again, I have no problems with changing my opinion or level of confidence in Jones' study. However, to date, I have not seen that study, only an anonymous poster on an internet messaging board who says that it is wrong.

With that being said, I'm under no illusion that such a study couldn't materialize in the future, but until then, I'm going to go with the evidence that is most credible and makes the most sense. At the same time, I'm under no illusion that the OS is correct, which puts more plausibility in Jones' study, even if a competing study comes close, so long as it doesn't disprove Jones' study.

I would love for nothing more than to have the OS proven to me. The last thing in the world that I want, is to believe that elements within my government could have been involved with the attacks of that day. I spent a good amount of time trying to prove to myself that the OS could be right and only after great inner-turmoil that I had to cede defeat.

In short, by saying "no, Jones' is wrong", it isn't going to cut it. We can beat this dead horse all we want but if you feel he is wrong, do a study disproving Jones' and then get it published. I would love nothing more than to change my opinion.


--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
No offense, but you are an anonymous internet discussion board member, without a paper, while Jones is a very credible and established scientist with a paper. Do you see why people may take Jones' paper and even Jones himself, a little more serious?

Except that when papers are presented that support the 'official story', people will take the word of anyone on a website over it. Very few truthers have read the NIST report and even fewer have understood what is in it, and that's just the start of the story.

If you think that Jones' paper is flawed (beyond what he has already addressed), why not offer a rebuttal and send it through the same peer-review process, even the same publisher? People, including myself, may then put a little more stock in your claims and we/I are/am much much more likely to then change my opinion.

There's some argument to be made that addressing the paper adds legitimacy, but the problem is that even if the paper was peer reviewed, nobody can reproduce his experiments. A french researcher tried and did not get a single 'thermite' reaction, and Dr Jones has steadfastly refused to take any criticisms onboard.

If I saw a paper or study that adequately proves Jones' paper wrong, then I have no problems with changing my opinion. If I see a paper or study that adequately proves Jones' paper could be wrong, then again, I have no problems with changing my opinion or level of confidence in Jones' study. However, to date, I have not seen that study, only an anonymous poster on an internet messaging board who says that it is wrong.

Give this a read for a start: www.darksideofgravity.com...

With that being said, I'm under no illusion that such a study couldn't materialize in the future, but until then, I'm going to go with the evidence that is most credible and makes the most sense. At the same time, I'm under no illusion that the OS is correct, which puts more plausibility in Jones' study, even if a competing study comes close, so long as it doesn't disprove Jones' study.

I would love for nothing more than to have the OS proven to me. The last thing in the world that I want, is to believe that elements within my government could have been involved with the attacks of that day. I spent a good amount of time trying to prove to myself that the OS could be right and only after great inner-turmoil that I had to cede defeat.

This also seems contradictory. You say you want to go with the evidence which is most credible and makes the most sense, yet there is not even a working hypothesis for any of the towers to explain how nano thermite was involved.

In fact, there is not even adequate speculation about how such a material can be constructed into a device to damage steel!

The 'nanothermite' theory in its entirety (and I am not being unfair and ignoring evidence here, I have tried very hard to collect it) is the following:
1. Nanothermites or other similar nanoscale energetic material consisting of iron, aluminium, oxygen and perhaps silicon were used
2. They might have produced a lot of molten metal through an unknown process, which also stayed molten for weeks through an unknown process
3. They might also be like explosives but quieter but doing the same damage through an unknown process.

That's it. I really have a hard time believing that you think that is either credible or makes a lot of sense. If you actually know of a better theory I would love to hear it, but I have yet to find one and I've been posting on 911 forums for a few years now.

In short, by saying "no, Jones' is wrong", it isn't going to cut it. We can beat this dead horse all we want but if you feel he is wrong, do a study disproving Jones' and then get it published. I would love nothing more than to change my opinion.

I would also like to see this done, but it probably isn't going to happen. For example, how do I get hold of these red/grey chips? Has anyone successfully asked for them? I know Dr Jones promised some time ago to have them sent for independent testing, but the single paper showing his results from a bunch of people who already believed in 911 truth.

I don't find that particularly reassuring, convincing or credible, and I know damn well that the 'official story' at the very least has a pretty complete narrative for the events of the whole day which do not require a lot of 'unknown mechanisms'.

The points being made here are very simple in my opinion and there seems to be an effort to diverge this debate into an obfuscation of truth. Using the term "truther", as an example (a newly created word btw), is nothing more than a propaganda tool intended to provoke people into an emotional response. This is simply a manner of deception, it serves no other purpose.

The issue in this thread is whether there was molten material or not and, if there was, what was this material and what caused it. The existence of molten material falling out of the south tower is not in question, we can physically see it in the videos. To question the existence of molten material found under the pile of rubble is to question the eyewitnesses. Are these people lying? Perhaps they are delusional? Either there was molten material found under the pile of debris or there was not.

The idea that this could have been molten lead or aluminum spilling out of the south tower has the same problem that molten iron does. The temperatures needed to produce these effects should not have been present in office fires. I am aware that lead and aluminum melt at lower temperatures than iron but to get them 'yellow hot' requires more heat than what these fires should have produced.

If the material seen falling out of the south tower was lead or aluminum then there is the added problem of containment while it was somehow heated above its melting point to become yellow hot.

Either way there remain questions as to what this molten material was and what caused it to become so hot. How does the NIST report address these questions? Was there any effort to look for evidence of explosives? What good does it do to speculate on the types of explosives that might have been used if nobody actually looks for any evidence? What we end up doing is arguing in circles when the only true answers would be found in an official investigation, an investigation that actually looks for this stuff.

Originally posted by Devino
Either way there remain questions as to what this molten material was and what caused it to become so hot. How does the NIST report address these questions? Was there any effort to look for evidence of explosives? What good does it do to speculate on the types of explosives that might have been used if nobody actually looks for any evidence? What we end up doing is arguing in circles when the only true answers would be found in an official investigation, an investigation that actually looks for this stuff.

The argument goes like this:

1) The premises is that there is molten steel.
2) Someone argues this is caused by the material used in a controlled demolition.

Then you say we should not examine if this is a valid scenario? Why not? I assume you are saying we should accept it by default? But if it turns out that no type of material that can be used for controlled demolition can produce pools of molten steel, then we can remove it from the list of possible causes for the molten steel. So far, nobody has been able to come up with a material that can. So we are not arguing in circles, we come to the conclusion it is not a likely scenario.

We are left with a couple of people that claim an unknown material with mysterious properties that is not know to the public to exist must have been used. And that is circular reasoning. As long as these people are unable to come with proof that such material exists, we should assume it doesn't.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

thre is a range of colors that steel progresses through, as it is heated up:

Tool Steel Color vs Temperature
2000°F Bright yellow 1093°C
1900°F Dark yellow 1038°C
1800°F Orange yellow 982°C
1700°F Orange 927°C
1600°F Orange red 871°C
1500°F Bright red 816°C
1400°F Red 760°C
1300°F Medium red 704°C
1200°F Dull red 649°C
1100°F Slight red 593°C
1000°F Very slight red, mostly grey 538°C
0800°F Dark grey 427°C
0575°F Blue 302°C
0540°F Dark Purple 282°C
0520°F Purple 271°C
0500°F Brown/Purple 260°C
0480°F Brown 249°C
0465°F Dark Straw 241°C
0445°F Light Straw 229°C
0390°F Faint Straw 199°C

And what temperature does steel melt at? 2700 degrees F?

There is a vast misunderstanding of the difference between hot steel and molten steel in this thread. And what color is steel at 2700 degrees F? 2800 degrees F? Is there some reason you left the color of steel at these temperatures off your chart? Because it would be nearly white? Which might prove that all the claimed pictures of molten steel are not molten steel?

All of the colors you listed are BELOW the temperature of molten steel, which is why this is NOT molten steel, your temperature chart proves it:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc3caaee374b.jpg[/atsimg]
The colors seen here are all on your chart, and are all below the melting temperature of steel.

Originally posted by Devino
Either way there remain questions as to what this molten material was and what caused it to become so hot. How does the NIST report address these questions?

Here is the NIST response to question 7a which is sort of the topic of this thread:

wtc.nist.gov...

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

They don't address the fact that people are seeing molten lead or aluminum and claiming it's molten steel, but then why should they? We know there was lead used in lead-acid batteries. Now your question about how lead was contained long enough to get hot enough to glow that color is an interesting one, there are several possibilities. But at least you realize several things:
1. It's not molten steel, it's not the right color for that.
2. Contrary to the video you posted on page 16 showing lead doesn't glow when molten, you have apparently figured out that lead CAN be molten at a wide range of temperatures, some of which it can make it glow and the lowest of which will not make it glow. Since office fires can get to 1800 degrees F, the color of lead at that temperature could be exactly what we see pouring out of the building. While I can't be sure it's lead, I can be pretty sure it's not steel, see the temperature chart in the prior post. Steel isn't molten at those colors or temperatures.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The picture of the item the backhoe
bucket is holding is a piece of or lump of hot steel.

reply to post by slugger9787
Hot, but not hot enough to be called molten, which is the claim of this thread, right?

There shouldn't be any debate about fires getting hot enough to make steel hot.

The claim was that steel was molten which requires a higher temperature than just getting the steel "hot".

Reviewing this thread and others like it, I can find little evidence that conclusively points to molten steel. Some people who were there say they saw molten steel, but it's not at all clear that they have the expertise to differentiate it from some other type of liquified metal.

Is there anything besides hearsay that suggests that there was indeed molten steel at ground zero?

reply to post by exponent

Except that when papers are presented that support the 'official story', people will take the word of anyone on a website over it.

You should speak for yourself, as just about everyone I know, evaluates each piece of evidence for what it is. Are there some people who believe in a conpsiracy just to believe in a conspiracy, especially one without evidence? Absolutely, as is often evident in the UFO field. As is also evident with the OS. Baasically, almost the entire OS is the government saying "trust us". Regardless, that is somebody else and irrlevant to the discussion here. I can't speak for everyone, nor can I speak for the "truth movement", though I think that the term "truth movement" is often confused (and sometimes intentionally) with people who come up with either wild or unsubstantiated claims and theories as to what happened. This often leads the media or even official conspiracy theorists to claim that they have debunked the "truth movement" when they have only debunked one of these wild and unsubstantiated theories.

The "truth movement" does not advocate a theory as to what happened, as the movement only advocates that the official conspiracy theory is wrong, therefore a real, independent and transparent investigation is needed. Now some people in the "truth movement" like to theorize about what could have happened but they are certainly not speaking for the "truth movement". So, if you are looking for one thing that "truthers" have in common, it's that they want the truth and believe that the OS or official conspiracy theory is wrong. As the quote in my signature suggests, it's not that truthers have the truth, it's that they want the truth.

I think that the larger picture of the movement, is simply Americans and citizens of the planet who want a real and independent investigation into what had happened and what is happening. It is simply a portion of the public who does not believe the OS or who does not trust the government when they feed us the OS. Furthermore, to believe the OS, you basically have to trust the word of the government, the same government who brought us Iraq, which is a whole package of lies in of itself. First that Al Qeada was affiliated with Saddam, then with the WMD and even with the financing of the war. This is the same government that lied to us about the air quality in New York after the attacks.

I don't know about you, but I'm not simply going to trust them that they are telling us the truth, especially when the motive is there, as is a precedent (actually, many), as is also a ton of red flags with the story that they feed us.

I'll tell you, most of the "truthers" that I know, would simply go away if there was a real and independent investiagtion, whatever the findings of that investigation reveal. In fact, I personally would be extremely happy if a real investigation was done and the evidence revealed that certain elements within government were shown to be nothing more than unintentionally negligent.

Very few truthers have read the NIST report and even fewer have understood what is in it, and that's just the start of the story.

The problem with NIST and why people may not hold them as credible as other experts who have come out against NIST and their findings, is the response of NIST itself. For instance, take this exchange between a Hartford Advocate reporter, Jennifer Abel and a NIST spokesperson, Michael Neuman:

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….

It is this kind of attitude that makes people less inclined to take the organization seriously. It appears as if NIST is trying to bend the evidence to meet a predetrmined outcome, instead of the other way around, especially when they admit that their own explanation is rare and actually a first. So, if you can't find an explanation, would you not at least consider a cause that could explain the outcome or do you ignore it all together and invent a new one?

It would be like a homicide detective coming upon a mutilated body and ruling out murder right away (because it implicates their boss). Instead of saying "well, this could be murder so lets investigate it", they simply say "spontaneous combustion" without even considering that it may have been a homicide. Then when asked why they didn't look for evidence of foul play, they simply respond "there is no need to because it didn't happen". Do you think people are going to take that homicide detective seriously, especially when it is his boss that is implicated?

Furthermore, we have all seen what happens to people who even merely question the OS, they lose their careers and livelihoods and they become chastised. This leads most experts to simply stay quiet on the issue. There has been an obvious effort to demonize those who dare ask a simply question or even suggest that we look into the events, past what the government has told us and even with this very clear effort, many experts have spoken out anyway. That in of itself is not normal, to demonize or chatise those who merely ask questions or demand proof of something and is telling in its own right. I know at least one person that has been turned on to the "truth movement" for this very reason. I honestly can't name on person in RL who has actually taken the time to look into the events of that day and then conclude that the OS is wrong, though I know many who dare not speak up or out for fear of losing their jobs, funding and livelihoods. Most people who actually look into the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent cover-up stay quiet and shy away from the subject all together, at least the people who I know in RL and don't have any connection to the government or the companies and institutions who are connected and/or dependent on the government.

Finally, it's not just this one piece of evidence [Jones' paper], rather it is everything, to include the circumstantial evidence. When you add everything up, it certainly doesn't look for the official conspiracy theory. Remember, we shouldn't have to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official conspiracy theory is wrong, though that criteria has been met in my opinion, rather we should only have to prove that it could be wrong, thus warranting an investigation. Because an independent investigation was not done and many questions have been intentoinally ignored, then certainly an independent investigtion is more than warranted, especially seeing the extremely heavy price that this country has paid and not just from the attacks themselves but also from the resulting policies. The people of the world, especially Americans and even the British, deserve to know what happened and why it happened.

As long as there are valid question, there should be an attempt to answer those questions, instead of just ignoring them. There really is no viable reason that we should ignore them or not investigate them.


--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
I'll tell you, most of the "truthers" that I know, would simply go away if there was a real and independent investiagtion, whatever the findings of that investigation reveal. In fact, I personally would be extremely happy if a real investigation was done and the evidence revealed that certain elements within government were shown to be nothing more than unintentionally negligent.

I'm sure that's true for you, but it is not, I sense, the case for the vast majority of Truthers. Many seem to positively enjoy the idea that entities more powerful than themselves are pulling the strings and they go out of their way not to upset that worldview. How often does one read on these boards sentiments of total pessimism and admissions that posters have not bothered to do independent research "because TPTB always win in the end anyway"?

Also I don't accept you characterisation of what constitutes a Truther. I'd like to see a new investigation - although I'm not that bothered, it's not my country - because I think there were some monumental lapses. But I emphatically don't exist in the same camp as Pentagon noplaners or demolition advocates. Indeed I think they harm the chances of a new investigation with their outlandish ideas.

Furthermore I don't agree that all that needs to be done is to "prove the OS wrong". I think some sort of opposing theory has to be formulated in order for a counter narrative to be taken seriously. I don't think this because I'm an arbiter of what should happen, or out of personal taste, but just because that's how the world of ideas in common currency works. A new model tends to replace an old one.

reply to post by airspoon

A "truther" is likely someone that understands that the world is not as it appears to be on the television. They have been exposed to the fact that their government is, and has been engaged in criminal behavior to further the power interests of the few at the expense of the many, and the events of 911 fit neatly within this reality. The truther kept the JFK murder in the news, while being called a conspiracy nut, until a certain Mr. Hunt validated the conspiracy. The truther made many people aware of the USS Liberty attack by Israel, while pointing out that our government did NOTHING. The truther put the spotlight on Waco, Ruby Ridge, the OKC bombing, and others.
Truthers research the hidden networks to answer the WHO? and the WHY? Truthers provide theories for discussion and debate against an opposition of lies and silence and intimidation.
A truther is dedicated to the pursuit of truth. That history shall not always be written by the victors.

reply to post by Stewie


Thank you for the lesson on "truthers" but I was really only discussing the "truth movement" as it pertains to 9/11 and not really even as it is percieved by the public. Again, the only thing that the "truth movement" (as it pertains to 9/11) has in common, is that they reject the official conspiracy theory and what to expose the truth, therefore you can't really group the movement together in any other respect.

In other words, you can't viably claim that you have debunked the truth movement because you have debunked the "no-planes" theory or "space-alien death-ray" theory. The "truth movement" is sadly not an organized movement and thus shouldn't be regarded as such, though it is regarded as an organized movement which hampers the message.

When people regard the "truth movement" as an organized movement, what I believe the official conspiracy theorists want us to believe, then discrediting the movement becomes easy, because their is no official rebuttal of the claims. It would be like someone making outrageous claims against the Republican party or someone making outrageous claims in the name of the Republican (or Democratic) party without that party either denying it or distancing themselves from it.

If the truth movement becomes organized and focuses on only the issue that we have in common, such as not being satisfied with the OS or wanting a new investigation, then we could have a clear voice that says the wild theories are not made in the name of the "truth movement". This doesn't mean that the theories are wrong - or right- it just means that this person/s doesn't speak for the "truth movement" as a whole. Organizing would greatly combat disinformation. It would dispell the myth that "no-planes" or "alien death-rays" is the official theory of truthers and it would also dispell myths such as the Holocaust shooter was a hero to the "truth movement". By not organizing, we are essentially allowing our opposition to speak for us and that is extremely dangerous to the goal that we do have in common.

--airspoon