Best 9/11 documentaries

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by bknapple32

 

For there to have been a controlled demolition, there would have had to have been THOUSANDS of charges placed throughout the structures, entailing offices being ripped apart to get to the structural support of the building. Each of these charges would have had blasting caps, each of these charges would have had wiring running to the panel to initiate the charges. During the cleanup, those wires would STILL be there. The columns would have shown the evidence of the charges.

No wiring was found. No columns were found showing evidence of being severed explosively. No employees of ANY of the companies reported their walls being torn apart that would have facilitated placing the charges.

So, absolutely no physical evidence of any kind....and you base your beliefs on, " I heard it go boom"


p.s. you really dont want to bring up Scott Forbes and his power down fables.....that one is way to easy to tear apart.

Honestly, this is one thing I don't get. People say it would have required thousands of charges etc., but fire on a couple of floors achieved the same result and people aren't surprised. So, theoretically, one charge placed on column 79 would have brought building 7 down in exactly the same fashion?

reply to post by Flatcoat


this is so true . According to the os all you would need to do is cut the columns on one floor and let gravity do the rest.

The reason I don't like the os or cd collapse theories is the pulverization of the core "spires" of both wtc1 and 2.

The spires collapsed post building collapse. And the concrete was still pulverized.

How does that work ?

I have watched plenty over the years but more recently

The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy

Decade of Deception( Toronto Hearings)

Loose Change: An American Coup


and have found Follow The Money by Robert Corbett( he made that great 5 minute, satire of 911 official story)

and have begun watching this, 3 part set

www.luogocomune.net...

I tired a few of the other links, but many are terminated it seems, owing to copyright claims on you tube

will have to find, Core of Corruption link somewhere

The best I've watched, as yet is ;
' 9/11. The great American psy-opera '

I've tried posting the video but having trouble. Hopefully I can post a link.

m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: lambros56
The best I've watched, as yet is ;
' 9/11. The great American psy-opera '

I've tried posting the video but having trouble. Hopefully I can post a link.

m.youtube.com...

I watched your link in it's entirety bc somehow I've never heard of this doc before.

Well put together. I had never entertained the no plane theory before and am still very skeptical of it, but i gotta say, there's a lot of convincing arguments put forward.

His music videos are God awful though.

a reply to: bknapple32



Just saw your thread, here we go:

- September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor
(very long but detailed and highly recommended)


- September 11th Revisited


- 9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception


All for free to watch & share.

Hands down The Toronto Hearings
entitled 9/11 Ten years of deception.
On YouTube and Hulu I believe.
Emeritus Professors Engineers and other scholars
do a fantastic job and it won't hurt your intelligence one bit.

This is a great documentary on the proffessor who was attacked by mainstream media, and constantly threatened by emails. His crime? Publishing papers that went against the official narrative using science.

originally posted by: Debunkology
This is a great documentary on the proffessor who was attacked by mainstream media, and constantly threatened by emails. His crime? Publishing papers that went against the official narrative using science.

His error was publishing a paper that was internally inconsistent. The thermodynamics of his supposed discovery that he touts in his own data disprove his thermitic material theory. Goodbye, Stevie Jones.
In fact, thermite is untimable in its effect which is why it is not used for building demolition.

originally posted by: pteridine
His error was publishing a paper that was internally inconsistent.

Please elaborate.

originally posted by: pteridine
The thermodynamics of his supposed discovery that he touts in his own data disprove his thermitic material theory.

Please elaborate.

originally posted by: pteridine
Goodbye. Stevie Jones

It is not necessary to attack someone because they simply published scientific papers that were peer reviewed prior to publication. He was attacked immediately in the mainstream, and was sent threatening emails. This is not fair treatment of a respected physicist in a supposed free and democratic society. The fact he was also offered bribes not to publish his work is alarming.

In saying “Goodbye stevie jones”, you use condescending language. This, I simply do not understand.
If he made errors in his work, then please point out this information. But do not make snide remarks about it. I’m sick of reading remarks like this on the 9/11 forum.

It’s time for grown-ups on here.

BYU were criticized by the American Association of Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education on their treatment of Steven Jones and BYU’s record of academic freedom.

originally posted by: Debunkology
It is not necessary to attack someone because they simply published scientific papers that were peer reviewed prior to publication.

Jone's paper was NOT peer reviewed, it was published in a "pay to publish" journal, and remember the editor of that journal resigned as she did not know about it!

An article on explosives in the World Trace Center was published in a scientific journal without the editor in chief knowing about it. Now she is resigning, she tells Videnskab.dk ([science.denmark]) By Thomas Hoffman ([email protected]).

screwloosechange.blogspot.com.au...

FAILING GRADES TO THE JOURANL The editor-in-chief’s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article’s conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.

Big deal, she did not know and she was not qualified to judge.. sounds like a political hit piece to me..

Furthermore the paper was not just Jones, it included four or five others.. I am not defending Jones just making an observation.

Hellobruce, thanks for providing the link. What is interesting is that you claim that "Jone's paper was NOT peer reviewed" and yet the link you provide states that his paper did infact have referees.

It does state that the editor in chief resigned simply because she did not authorise it's publication. It does not state that she resigned because it was not peer reviewed.

What is interesting is that the link you provide also presents the followng information

"“Her departure doesn’t change our conclusions, for it is a purely personnel related thing she his angry about.

I still believe that we have carried out chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our study, she is welcome to criticize us for it,” says Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the Institute of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen."

"It is Niels Harrit’s co-author Steven Jones who was in charge of contact to Bentham, and therefore the Danish researcher is presently not aware which responsible assistant editor the group has been communicating with."

"However, he does know the names of the two researchers –so-called referees—who have reviewed the article, but he will not give their names because they ‘are in principle anonymous’"


Gathering more information on this it seems that one of the anonymous referees was Dr. David Griscom, who admitted it in his blog.

impactglassman.blogspot.co.uk...

The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”

Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review.

Absolutely false!

I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions.

ADMIN EDIT
Massive copy and past from external source has been removed.
This is against our terms and conditions and specifically pointed out in the new 9/11 Forum Rules. Continuing to do this may result in account suspension or termination.

a reply to: Debunkology

Good work ! Thanks for posting that..

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: pteridine
His error was publishing a paper that was internally inconsistent.

Please elaborate.

originally posted by: pteridine
The thermodynamics of his supposed discovery that he touts in his own data disprove his thermitic material theory.

Please elaborate.

originally posted by: pteridine
Goodbye. Stevie Jones

It is not necessary to attack someone because they simply published scientific papers that were peer reviewed prior to publication. He was attacked immediately in the mainstream, and was sent threatening emails. This is not fair treatment of a respected physicist in a supposed free and democratic society. The fact he was also offered bribes not to publish his work is alarming.

In saying “Goodbye stevie jones”, you use condescending language. This, I simply do not understand.
If he made errors in his work, then please point out this information. But do not make snide remarks about it. I’m sick of reading remarks like this on the 9/11 forum.

It’s time for grown-ups on here.

BYU were criticized by the American Association of Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education on their treatment of Steven Jones and BYU’s record of academic freedom.

I have pointed out this information since the paper was published. This paper was a conclusion looking for a rationale and was poorly thought out. Aside from an unknown provenance of the sample, none of the authors understand the ramifications of their DSC data and the SEM looks amazingly like red paint. The entire concept of thermite, painted on during construction many years ago, is a stretch. Thin layers of thermite would do very little to the structure if they could be ignited at all on a thermal sink many orders of magnitude more massive. According to Jones, ten tons of "unreacted thermitic material" [paint] was in the dust. The "thermitic material" DSC was run in a stream of oxygen so the paint binder burned with an exotherm and was claimed as evidence of thermite. Unfortunately, the key test that escaped the notice of this crew was that an actual thermite reaction would occur in the absence of air. When questioned on this, Jones said that he was going to do that test soon and publish it. That was five or so years ago. Apparently, it didn't show thermite, so with all the scientific integrity he could muster, Jones just kept promoting his completely unsubstantiated conclusion to accolades from all those duped by the paper.

I will look through my old posts for the thermodynamic details but the gist is that the heat of combustion of the paint chips far exceeds that of thermite simply because the oxidizer in the paint is air [not weighed] and the oxidizer in Thermite is iron oxide [significant fraction of the weight.]

It is unfortunate that you do not appreciate my succinct conclusion "Goodbye, Stevie Jones" so I will reword it. Steven Jones is a man of no integrity who will subvert the scientific method for his own ends, cheat the peer review system, and sell bad science to the unsuspecting.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

a reply to: pteridine

It is unfortunate that you do not appreciate my succinct conclusion "Goodbye, Stevie Jones" so I will reword it. Steven Jones is a man of no integrity who will subvert the scientific method for his own ends, cheat the peer review system, and sell bad science to the unsuspecting.

Why would he do that, destroy his life and career, reputation ? Sell bad science to who, I don't know much about him but I have yet to see him selling anything to anyone, unlike Guage..

originally posted by: Debunkology
Hellobruce, thanks for providing the link. What is interesting is that you claim that "Jone's paper was NOT peer reviewed" and yet the link you provide states that his paper did infact have referees.

It does state that the editor in chief resigned simply because she did not authorise it's publication. It does not state that she resigned because it was not peer reviewed.

What is interesting is that the link you provide also presents the followng information

"“Her departure doesn’t change our conclusions, for it is a purely personnel related thing she his angry about.

I still believe that we have carried out chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our study, she is welcome to criticize us for it,” says Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the Institute of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen."

"It is Niels Harrit’s co-author Steven Jones who was in charge of contact to Bentham, and therefore the Danish researcher is presently not aware which responsible assistant editor the group has been communicating with."

"However, he does know the names of the two researchers –so-called referees—who have reviewed the article, but he will not give their names because they ‘are in principle anonymous’"


Gathering more information on this it seems that one of the anonymous referees was Dr. David Griscom, who admitted it in his blog.

impactglassman.blogspot.co.uk...

The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”

Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review.

Absolutely false!

I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions.

Still, some skeptical readers may ask how anyone can rate a scientific paper as “fabulous.” Well, I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty.

Harrit et al. (2009) report extensive materials-science investigations of “red/gray chips” originally discovered by co-author Prof. Steven Jones in samples of dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Specifically, they examined red/gray chips from four separate sites in lower Manhattan, collected just 10 minutes, one day, one day, and one week after the collapse of WTC 1, each one uncontaminated by clean-up operations which began later. Their experimental methods included optical microscopy (see photomicrographs below), scanning electron microscopy (SEM; see images below the photomicrographs), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to determine elemental compositions, and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). By these means they determined the red material to contain (1) faceted grains consistently 100 nm (0.1 micrometer) in size which are largely ferric-iron oxide, (2) metallic aluminum in the form of platelets approximately 40 nm thick and about 1 micrometer broad, and (3) a binder matrix consisting of silicon dioxide and some sort of organic material.

Yes, his publications have appeared here and there. He then thinks that thermite burns slowly [it does not] and has no concept of underground fires.

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

It is unfortunate that you do not appreciate my succinct conclusion "Goodbye, Stevie Jones" so I will reword it. Steven Jones is a man of no integrity who will subvert the scientific method for his own ends, cheat the peer review system, and sell bad science to the unsuspecting.

Why would he do that, destroy his life and career, reputation ? Sell bad science to who, I don't know much about him but I have yet to see him selling anything to anyone, unlike Guage..

He sells the idea but not for money. He likes the attention and admiration. His career is over; he is retired and writing whatever strikes his fancy.

a reply to: pteridine

He sells the idea but not for money. He likes the attention and admiration. His career is over; he is retired and writing whatever strikes his fancy.

I don't know about that, getting attention as a 911 CTer is not a desirable road to follow.. not without purpose.. IMHO.

But thanks for your reply..

a reply to: pteridine

That was five or so years ago. Apparently, it didn't show thermite, so with all the scientific integrity he could muster, Jones just kept promoting his completely unsubstantiated conclusion to accolades from all those duped by the paper.

This is your "opinion" and not a fact.

Jones was able to separate the red paint chip from the thermite and ran different heat flash test. The fact is, the panel of scientist sitting on the Peer Revive Board asked Jones to run the test again, the outcome was the same.

It is in the report.