Hello, I was looking at your website and was wondering what some of the undeniable evidence was that you refer to. I am new to your idea and to be honest I dont believe it. But, I am open to any factual information.

As well if anyone can help me out I have been looking everywhere for a source list for Loose Change Final Cut. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I dont want to piss anyone off im just trying to get a better grasp of your side of it. Thanks

Here you go bud. Here are some peer reviewed articles

Then start looking at the molten metal found in the basements of towers 1 2 and 7

Start with that and go from there. I'm sure there are better sites, but I found this one right away. I've met Steven Jones and read his papers. He seemed sincere to me.

Hi, Thanks for the link I am semi-familiar with Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones. I do have some problems with there work maybe you could help clear some of it up, I will get to that later though.

There are also a couple of problems that I have found with this website. These do not seem to be traditional peer reviewed articles, The articles are not written by experts in the field they are writing about nor are they reviewed by experts in the field. I will give you a couple of examples I saw right away.

- Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1
Written by a Electric and Computer Engineer, no apparent peer review
- 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
Written by a Chemist and a Mechanical Engineer, no apparent peer review

If they could produce a peer reviewed paper that could be published in a respectable journal I think it would help there cause. This current work I dont think would make the cut.

As for problems I see with Ryan and Jones. I am not sure if some of these are just made up to discredit them or if they are actually true.

- Kevin Ryan said that UL tested the structural steel for the towers. UL does not test structural steel they test steel configurations and fire proofing.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

- Both Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones have said that a B-52 bomber hit the Empire State Building when is was a B-25. (No big deal but you would think they would look into this)

- Neither of the two has a structural engineering background but they call the NIST report a "fallacy".

- Jones disputes aluminum alloy melting and mixing with organics and hydro carbon based materials then pouring out of the towers window at the lowest point of impact.
He tried to refute this by melting "pure aluminum" and then trying to mix this with organics and hydro carbon based materials. As well he stated that when he poured it onto steel it instantly solidified making it impossible for it to fall in a molten state. He poured it onto cold steel.

- Jones also tried his hand at concrete pulverization by dropping a piece of concrete onto another 12 feet below. The result was no pulverization. I dont think I have to point out the problems with this test.

As for the Molten Metal, I can accept that this would be found because under the debris because it would have become almost like a furnace, melting glass and metals. I would be a little hesitant to accept that Molten Steel was present.

I am still open to this, I realize that this is only a small fraction of the people in the movement and my understanding of them might even be wrong. If there is anyone who can clear this up it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again

For a guy that says he's new to this, you seem to have a firm grasp on what's going on :wink:

I hope what you're saying comes true. I'd like to see some people peer reviewing their work.

These guys are probably more to your liking. They're architects and engineers talking about the architecture and engineering of the WTC complex. 245 and counting

Thanks for the link, I will take a good look at this tonight.

I have a half decent grip on this, my friend showed me Zietgiest? about a month ago, and since then I have watched the loose change movies. As well about a year ago I read The Looming Towers so I had a little background informtion. I was also fresh off of researching the Young Earth Creationist movement (my friends are all born again Christians). Most of this was Kent Hovind's thesis so the research process was fresh in my mind.

Anyways, thank you again for the link and if you have more info please let me know.

Take it easy

Hello again. Sorry I have not posted back for a while. I was wondering if someone could help me with the Richard Gage? fellow. I downloaded his audio off of the website I was told about. He claims right off the bat that all of the concrete was crushed to dust and repeats it a couple of times. I have looked at a lot of pictures and I can see lots of small to large sized chunks as well as plenty that was reduced to rubble I would not say it was all dust. I was wondering if anyone can elaborate on this a bit. One other thing was he used the word pyroclastic flow, from my understanding of the word I would say it is awfully deceptive to use to describe the dust plumes coming from the collapse of the building. If somone could help me out on that aswell I would appreciate it.

Thanks again guys

I think the issue regarding the dust is not something to squabble about. The fact of the matter is, yes there was chunks of debris, but most of these huge buildings were scattered around New York in a dust cloud.

You're getting caught up in sympathetics and not looking at the larger picture. If this was a collapse as they say it was, there should be NO signs of controlled demolition and a pile up of floors in the debris... not everything completely busted to smithereens.

When people say 'EVERYTHING was busted to dust', the word everything doesn't not have to be taken literally. It just means that MOST of these HUGE buildings were busted to dust... when technically VERY LITTLE of it should have been in the collapse explanation that has been fed to us.

Symantics. See the full picture.

Welcome aboard!

_________________
Canada Wants 9/11 Truth
http://canadawantsthetruth911.blogspot.com

Thankyou for the friendly welcome.

The reason I would asked about the "crushed to dust" comment is because he dramatically states it about 3-5 times in a row. I would guess that almost everyone at that presentation got the same impression I did.

I see from your comments that you obviously dont believe the "crushed to dust" to be litteral so I feel better that were on the same page.

I noticed you commented that for the the building to collapse as it did there should not have been as much dust as we saw. I see where your coming from but have you considered the amount of sheetrock in the building aswell? It could have easily been crushed entirely to dust and there would have been a lot of it. As well there would have been a small precentage of concrete pulverized to dust aswell.

You say...........to be honest I don't believe it. But I am open to any factual information.

You sound like someone who likes to play it safe.........lets see the peer reviewed reports.........well, maybe you haven't noticed but much of the information that should be forthcoming from the government is not available.

Or is it a case of denial, which is pretty common.........denial can keep you feeling safe, but it does not keep you safe.

You might be interested to know that denial is a common response.........no one likes to be threatened or scared.

But denial is a very dangerous game...........it can prove fatal sometimes.

Don't be afraid to consider the possibility that your government can and will kill innocent people to attain political goals. They have been doing it for a very long time......and because most people choose to live in denial the scope and the breadth of their ability to hide the truth and escape prosecution has increased proportionally over the years.

It's easy to dismiss a conspiracy as a wacko notion...........until you have met the enemy face to face......unfortunately that kind of a meeting only occurs in what they consider to be a secure environment.......its a one sided encounter.

But as long as you don't believe it you can consider yourself safe.........it is doubtful you will ever find yourself in such a situation.

Well now, you didn't look too hard there did you now.
If you look all the papers on that site are peer reviewed, they would not be put up if they were not!
My wife is one of the said schollars who wrote papers on that site and I assure you that what she has written has been reviewed by minumun of 3 peers in her field. It was hard for her to get respected people to put their names on her paper because of backlash these people get from sceptics like yourself and "the system". Yes, their names(peers) are associated to the paper they review and I do not think that someone who is trying to get their career off the ground is going to put their name on something that they do not agree with scientifically.
With that said...happy awakening!
.............................................................9/11 was an inside job!

By the way...what is your educational background to be hacking up the hard work of these great schollars?

_________________
In times of change, the Patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.

Mark Twain

Truckin_With_Christ,

A lot of the claims you're interested in are not at all new. As for "I think the issue regarding the dust is not something to squabble about." - it is something to squabble about. The quantity that is relevant here is the kinetic energy that was applied to the building. In fact, Richard Gage had to debate this with an expert. And this brings me to the "journal of 9/11 studies". You're perfectly correct to point out that it's not peer-review in the traditional sense (and I'm being kind here). These papers go straight to an activist journal, and a lot you'll find won't be very dense in scientific data and hence won't be falsifiable. In fact the aluminum claim is consistent with where the plane hit and the schematics of the tower, as the pouring aluminum likely came from the plane. I'm not going to take up too much of your time and ask you to go over numerous websites and/or make Google video your home page, but there is really one website that debunks all these claims - http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/. That is Mark Roberts' website. He should be debating Richard Gage today. I would debunk all this myself right now, but I have to go to class. I also have a website, however it is barely finished.

http://deadmovement.googlepages.com/

Look over it only if you have time,
ED

"911 Truth Movement is Dead"? Oh Ed that is so cold. =( and you are very wrong.

Global 911 Inquiry
http://truthwire.wordpress.com/2008/06/ ... ts-global/

Hi ED,
I guess you believe the MSM/Government theory of what happend. I did to until the Shock wore off! It seems like you have done some research by mentioning a true Patriot like "Richard Gage". Good Luck de-bunking Richard Gage, your going to need it, because he has Truth on his side. Maybe research again and look through a different lense than the one created for you! If you want to De-bunk something try the laws of gravity. How did they fall at the speed of gravity into their own footprint? And please dont give me the pancake theory, cause that does not explain the steel frame collapsing.

This is no collapse, This is explosions!!

_________________
Survival of freedom requires a moral people. Absent this, the Constitution has no meaning, no matter how well written. ~ Ron Paul
http://kitchener911truth.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/Steeper33

What I will do is respond to the two previous posts separately:

blackwaters,

The article you posted mentions all the regulars in the 9/11 truth movement, at which point I declared it to be dead, and then just adds one person - Yukihisa Fujita. I doubt one Japanese official could resuscitate this movement. However, who am I to stop you from having faith. Notice that the article indicates: "Besides Meacher, few politicians have publicly questioned America's official 9/11 narrative— until Diet member Yukihisa Fujita." So now you have "few" + Fujita. Also, his case hasn't even been made yet and yet this is your strong point. This argument will retain most of its strength until Fujita is laughed out of court. Keep in mind, technical education is much more common in Japan, so they will know what "free fall" refers to.

Oh Canada,

We stand on guard for thee.

"I guess you believe the MSM/Government theory of what happened."

Not sure what you mean by MSM, then again I may not be the best at acronyms. If any of those M's have to do with "mason", just leave it out of the discussion. Otherwise, please expand the acronym. However, if you happen to be referring to the NIST report, yes I do "believe" it.

" I did to until the Shock wore off! "

I feel for you.

"It seems like you have done some research by mentioning a true Patriot like "Richard Gage"."

I'm mostly concerned with Gage's science as opposed to his patriotism, so I'll leave you to judge that.

"Good Luck de-bunking Richard Gage, your going to need it, because he has Truth on his side."

He does have the "Truth" movement on his side. As for scientific veracity, hes far from it. He can't explain why something as weak as thermate was used to "demolish" the buildings, considering the amount of it that would be required. Compare it to the amount found, therein lies a big problem. He attempts to solve this problem by suggesting the addition of "semi-silent" explosives. He first plays the "God of the gaps" game. He then simply plays God. In order to minimize the condition of WTC7, he ignores the fires on floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11366 - Gage's ignorance
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitn ... fwtc7fires - The reality of the situation (eye witness testimonials)
http://s3.video.blip.tv/1640001116016/M ... aig984.wmv - debate: Gage vs. an explosives expert

"Maybe research again and look through a different lense than the one created for you! "

This is typical truther rhetoric. When people use the metaphor of looking through a lens, the presence of the lens is contrasted with the absence of a lens. The mere presence is meant to imply a skewed perspective. This is one of the only times I've seen it contrasted with a different lens, specifically "the one created for you[me]!". It ends up sounding very silly and desperate. I suggest reading Orwell's "Politics and the English Language".

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm - pay attention to the section on "dying metaphors"

"If you want to De-bunk something try the laws of gravity."

"Laws of gravity"? Would that mean gravitation? Principles of gravitation are argued all the time, especially in quantum field theory, perhaps you mean "the law of gravity"? Yes, I can also be a smart-ass. I'm also better at it. So let's stick to the issue.

"How did they fall at the speed of gravity into their own footprint?"

Demonstrate this. Show that a) the buildings "fall at the speed of gravity" and b) that they fall "into their own footprint"

"And please dont give me the pancake theory"

Depends on what you think "the pancake theory" is. Check the description NIST gives to the collapse.

" cause that does not explain the steel frame collapsing. "

Again, this depends on what you consider to be "the pancake theory"

"This is no collapse, This is explosions!! "

You see explosions? I see the devil coming out of the dust. You see the problem with using a picture to prove "explosions"? This is where linguistics might clash with physics. Technically, there are explosions, as the glass is being exploded due to air pressure etc. But this is the effect of the collapse, as the collapse compresses the air.

By the way, I noticed that you wished me luck - thanks!

ED

ED, I've said it before and I'll say it again...

YOU MISSED THE POINT!!!!

Not my problem you didn't understand the video and the article.

911 Truth Movement is not dead, it's growing exponentially in grassroots action and it's gaining more and more press exposure every day.

911 was an inside job and the world is waking up to it.

Pay attention!