Did Journalist Christopher Bollyn Solve 9-11?

If they were really sent to document the attack don't you think they would have chosen a better vantage point?

Sam and Dave singing the same old tune. Let's all watch and see how long it takes for them to wreck another potentially informative thread.

Thank you. It means our logic is defeating suposion. One more person rescued from the depths of conspiracy is a fight worth fighting.

If they were really sent to document the attack don't you think they would have chosen a better vantage point?

Sounds logical to me!

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer

When the firemen there on the scene, experienced professionals, and true hero's say it was a controlled demolition I believe them, look closely at these guys who have just experienced the worst horror most of us can imagine, are they liars? Or should I believe people like you who do nothing but attack the integrity of anyone who questions the official line?

...but that contradicts everything that other poster was saying on how we can't believe firefighters' testimony because they don't have professional experience in demolitions. Why are you picking and choosing which firefighters you can believe and which ones you can't...or to be more precise, what criteria are you using to accept or deny the validity of eyewitness accounts? From what I'm seeing, your criteria is based entirely on what helps you push these controlled demolitions claims and what doesn't.

I fully accept these firefighters' testimony that they heard explosions. Noone is denying there were explosions. We even heard explosions ourselves, as the television crews were recording the final hours of the towers and we heard the explosions as we sat watching at home. Where your claims fall apart is that you're failing to accept there are more legitimate reasons for the explosions we heard- flammable objects like fuel tanks, motors and electrical transformers exploding as the fires reached them, pressurized pipes bursting, large sections of the building collapsing internally which sounded like explosions, and the like. From the building schematics we know there was a mechanical floor chock full of electrical transformers, motors, etc immediately below the impact area of WTC 2 which would have been the first floor the flaming jet fuel would have been dumped into, so how the heck could something *not* have blown up?

The facts that the collage kids who made the movie smoke dope makes no difference, Bill Gates smoked dope, still one of the most successful men in the world, but anyway it makes no difference, call these Firemen liars

Nope, you conspiracy mongors are the ones who accuse people who are saying things you don't want to be true of being liars. At one time or another I've seen you people accuse literally everyone connected to 9/11 of lying, from Ted Olson to Red Cross workers to people picking through junkyards in Shanksville to even an immigrant from El Salvador watering the lawn in front of the Pentagon. Honestly, dude, what kind of world do you live in where you genuinely think hordes of people are deliberately lying to you about what they saw on 9/11? Why is it written in stone there has to be anyone lying to you about what they saw on 9/11?

Whatever Bollyn concluded from his analysis of 9/11, he certainly was wrong in his proposal that the thermate which he believed was used that day was secretly stored in empty lead batteries on the 81st floor used by Fuji bank as a UPS power backup for their computers.

Not only was he plain wrong but the idea was preposterous. The molten metal that leaked out of cracks in the wall of the South Tower five minutes before it collapsed was not molten steel heated by thermite/thermate but a mixture of lead (M.P. = 327.5 degrees Centigrade) from the tons of batteries housed on the 81st floor (since confirmed by FEMA) and aluminium from the plane that hit the tower, its nose entering the very computer room of Fuji Bank, according to one of its ex-employees, Stanley Praimnath.
www.erichufschmid.net...
Bollyn collaborated with Dr Steven E. Jones
www.bollyn.com...
and his understanding of the TV footage of the towers was warped by Jones' misidentification of the molten metal as molten steel, an error that made his thermite hypothesis redundant.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

If you're referring to the building collapses, you should believe neither, since this is not their field of expertise.

So what is the field of expertise of FDNY?

Consider that I took a seminar in building collapse instructed by the some of same people in command on 9/11

FDNY has a special collapse unit housed with Rescue 3

Their job is to respond to either building collapses or structures in danger of collapse

When has a steel framed building ever completely collapses before?

What do you bet they mostly study wood buildings?

Even the difference in the heights of WTC 7 and 1 & 2 would make for significant differences.

That is why this business belongs in the department of physics. But the Fire Department and Fire Protection Engineers should want to know a lot about how fire could weaken enough steel in less than TWO HOURS.

But how can they figure that out if they don't even know HOW MUCH STEEL was on each level? So even people that are not experts should be able to understand some of the basic relevant issues about this.

So it is the people who want to believe airliners could do it that have the problem. They don't want the data that might PROVE that what the want to believe is nonsense. But physicists should want that information no matter what.

psik

Originally posted by micpsi
The molten metal that leaked out of cracks in the wall of the South Tower five minutes before it collapsed was not molten steel heated by thermite/thermate but a mixture of lead (M.P. = 327.5 degrees Centigrade) from the tons of batteries housed on the 81st floor (since confirmed by FEMA) and aluminium from the plane that hit the tower...

Neither lead nor aluminum glow bright red when molten.







If you see pics of red molten aluminum or lead it is simply reflecting that colour from other sources.

Molten steel...



Look familiar?...

Originally posted by waypastvne
If they were really sent to document the attack don't you think they would have chosen a better vantage point?

@ samkent also....


By your choice of words I can't help wondering if you actually knew there were mossad agents video recording the attack and that these same agents (3 of them) later went on Israeli tv and openly said they were sent to document the event.


This is well documented so it's not a case of "If they were really sent to document..." They did document the attack (and also celebrated by giving each other high-fives). So if we can get back to my origional question, How do you explain this?? Because obviously someone (with Israeli/Zionist connections?) knew it was going to happen (and it "made their day"!!).

reply to post by micpsi



It's my understanding that Sulphur was found in the debris dust, a componant of Thermite.

This paper is simply another attempt to keep people from looking into why we had to shoot down Flight 93 and why no one looks at flight 587. Let's create a HUGE conspiracy so everyone looks at that. We have 1000 people post in WTC forums, 400 in the Pentagon and perpetuate the fact 93 could not have been shot down and then play the opposite side.

You think you understand conspiracy. Conspiracy comes from covering your ass and not preparing to get away. It involves 3 or 4 people. Look into 93. Mineta and Cheney and an anonymous airman. No one asked any more questions. However, millions of dollars and years later the WTC has been reviewed to death, had commissions assigned and even built a new building at ground zero with recommendations from NIST.

Make you enemy look at one thing while you sneak with another...works in anything.

Also, Mr Jones was a huge Bush supporter and his cold fusion issues may have let him cut a deal..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

think about it...

reply to post by GoodOlDave



Since when does having a joint make a person a liar? I really can't see the connection.

reply to post by ANOK


I think the White smoke says something about this too....'related to the thermite question.

reply to post by esdad71


"....Conspiracy comes from covering your ass and not preparing to get away. It involves 3 or 4 people..."


No, conspiricy comes from Hiding The Truth and until all questions regarding the 9/11 issue have been answered there will always be a Conspiricy.

not flagged and not starred. Is the op blind or something? Even construction workers that build buildings like that don't buy the official story because they can rationally examine the blue prints and figure out loads being distributed across the structure to know how impossible the official cover story is.

reply to post by skem64


that's one of those cointelpro deferral crutches, since the system has defined pot heads as totally not credible they are no credible and thus make excellent cover when deferring someone's opinion even if it does have some merit. the disinformation crew has had quite some time to build up their online profile library and persona's here.

Originally posted by skem64
reply to post by micpsi

 

It's my understanding that Sulphur was found in the debris dust, a componant of Thermite.

Thermate. Though to be fair, it's difficult to keep up with which version of (super)/(nano)therm*te is being peddled for the time being.

Sulphur is also component of drywall amongst other things.

reply to post by roboe



What? In the plasterboard? 'cause that would certainly explain the presence of sulphur.....alas, it doesn't explai why and how 5 Israeli mossad agents were there to document the attack.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
First of all, that's another bit of drivel those damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing out; there's no such thing as a "official story".

Out of interest, what would you call it? The British government, for example, investigated the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attacks in London on 7th July, 2005 and published a Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005. Would you be more comfortable if, when discussing 9/11, we referred to the 'Offical Account of the Terrorist Attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11th September 2001'? Or, why not simply cut us some slack and let us abbreviate it to the 'Offical Account'?

It'd save a lot of time arguing over something so utterly pointless.

Originally posted by skem64

Since when does having a joint make a person a liar? I really can't see the connection.

Simply smoking a joint doesn't make the Loose Change people liars, no. Their passing off lies makes the Loose Change people liars. Flight 93 didn't land in Ohio- that was a false report that was retracted almost immediately- and that secret blue tarp covered thing those people were sneaking out of the Pentagon in that photo was really a triage tent being brought into the Pentagon. Don't even get me started on their "missile pod" theory.

I mention the "arrested for dealing drugs" bit becuase you need to know these people aren't honest researchers into the events of 9/11. They're out to make a buck off our expense and they don't care how sleazy they need to be to do it.

Originally posted by coughymachine
Out of interest, what would you call it? The British government, for example, investigated the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attacks in London on 7th July, 2005 and published a Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005. Would you be more comfortable if, when discussing 9/11, we referred to the 'Offical Account of the Terrorist Attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11th September 2001'? Or, why not simply cut us some slack and let us abbreviate it to the 'Offical Account'?

No, I would call it what it's actually called- the 9/11 Commission report. That's what it is; a report released by the 9/11 commission, and the 9/11 commission got all its information in the report from the witnesses they talked to.

That way, I'd know that you actually read the thing and actually know what the supposed falsehoods actually are before you accuse it of being full of falsehoods. I can then look up the bibliography and see precisely which one of the witnesses you're accusing of being a liar.