Only 11 comments there so far but this one made me lol:
"well that looks remarkably like the world? trade center ,holy shit i think that china superimposed this video over the world trade center to confuse us - damn commies"
I don't find the arguments made by JREF (which is just not a good source, imo) terribly convincing. This is not to say that the "nanothermite" angle may not be some kind of trap, and that AE911truth could be controlled opposition--that would not shock me (surprise perhaps bt not shock) I don't think we gain much by leaning heavily on any current research--for many reasons we KNOW the official story cannot possibly be true. when enough people know this we will be in a much better position to demand and get real investigations into all these issues.
edit: plus, I think that the debris trailing white smoke that Chnadler points out is very different from a regular plume as seen in other parts of the twin tower collapse and in the chinese video. it is not dragging pulverized concrete through the air, it seems to be producing its own white smoke--I'm with Chandler on this one.
1. Unqualified JREF dismissal makes as much sense when WE do it, as it does when debunkers do it to us...
I don't like having to quote JREF as a source either. But where else are you going to find any kind of educated serious discussion on the matter? 911Blogger? Fox News? Even DemocraticUnderground is prone to histrionics and hysterics when this subject is brought up. At least on JREF (if you don't just dismiss everything there right off the bat) you can pick through the obvious trolls (on BOTH sides) and glean a little scientific info from the discussion.
Lets not forget that the discussions at the JREF forum have had an impact on the entire debate; now Harris and Jones have to admit that the primer paint used in the Towers is remarkably similar to their "red'grey chips"... so much so, they are now trying to say that the paint itself was the explosive nanothermite... so apparently SOMEONE thought there was at least SOME validity to their argument
JREF is mainly "skeptics" not "debunkers"...
2. How do you tell whether debris is emitting dust or "smoke"?
3. What is the difference between the color of lightweight concrete like that which was used in the floors of the towers, and the high-density concrete that they use in Shear Walls like those in the China demo?
4. Why doesn't Chandler also admit that other explosives create "white smoke" in his video?
5. Why doesn't Chandler also admit there are MANY other explanations for the change of direction in that piece of debris?
6. Why doesn't Chandler at least mention that piece of debris that looks like it makes contact with the one that changes direction?
7. What color would the smoke be from a burning, white, ceiling tile?
8. Do you think telling people what to say and what to think about their "nanothermite" hypothesis is kinda the definition of "controlled opposition"?
9. Do you find the other information that I posted about the dishonesty, troubling? At all?
10. Do you actually think that the idea that "100s and 100s of tons" of explosives were used to bring down the towers is going to create any credibility within this movement? You think that is going to bring people around to our line of reasoning? Because that is what Harrit said in the RT interview that I linked to.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
9/11 TV News Archive Streaming video of all major network news coverage on 9/11/01
Dr. David Ray Griffin A website documenting the work of the most credible and widely respected author on the truth about 9/11.
9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud Free PDF of an excellent and concise book summarizing the case against the official story.
David Chandler's YouTube Channel Must watch videos analyzing the explosive demolition of the twin towers and WTC7, produced by high school physics teacher David Chandler whose work forced a revision to NIST's final report on the WTC.
Center for an Informed America Excellent analysis by Dave McGowan on 9/11 and other controversial subjects. This link is to McGowan's 2004 analysis of 9/11 and the state of the truth movement at that time.
Council for the National Interest Group founded by Congressmen Paul Findley and Paul McCloskey to promote pro-American (instead of exclusively pro-Israeli) middle east policies in the U.S. government.
Popular Mechanics: "Debunking 9/11 Myths" The most often cited critique of 9/11 Truth, or defense of the official version of events. Fails to address most real concerns adequately.
Money Masters Documentary on the corrupt money system
Time to check out the
Time to check out the comments on youtube...
Only 11 comments there so
Only 11 comments there so far but this one made me lol:
"well that looks remarkably like the world? trade center ,holy shit i think that china superimposed this video over the world trade center to confuse us - damn commies"
compare the banana peels...
in the video of the Chinese building you see that the plume trails don't persist like they do in the twin towers...
I would like you guys to read this...
... article I just wrote, and let me know what you think.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more-bad-science-surrounding-...
We need to get the hell away from the "nanothermite" bomb before it blows our movement out of the water...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
while I would agree that caution is in order...
I don't find the arguments made by JREF (which is just not a good source, imo) terribly convincing. This is not to say that the "nanothermite" angle may not be some kind of trap, and that AE911truth could be controlled opposition--that would not shock me (surprise perhaps bt not shock) I don't think we gain much by leaning heavily on any current research--for many reasons we KNOW the official story cannot possibly be true. when enough people know this we will be in a much better position to demand and get real investigations into all these issues.
edit: plus, I think that the debris trailing white smoke that Chnadler points out is very different from a regular plume as seen in other parts of the twin tower collapse and in the chinese video. it is not dragging pulverized concrete through the air, it seems to be producing its own white smoke--I'm with Chandler on this one.
A few things
1. Unqualified JREF dismissal makes as much sense when WE do it, as it does when debunkers do it to us...
I don't like having to quote JREF as a source either. But where else are you going to find any kind of educated serious discussion on the matter? 911Blogger? Fox News? Even DemocraticUnderground is prone to histrionics and hysterics when this subject is brought up. At least on JREF (if you don't just dismiss everything there right off the bat) you can pick through the obvious trolls (on BOTH sides) and glean a little scientific info from the discussion.
Lets not forget that the discussions at the JREF forum have had an impact on the entire debate; now Harris and Jones have to admit that the primer paint used in the Towers is remarkably similar to their "red'grey chips"... so much so, they are now trying to say that the paint itself was the explosive nanothermite... so apparently SOMEONE thought there was at least SOME validity to their argument
JREF is mainly "skeptics" not "debunkers"...
2. How do you tell whether debris is emitting dust or "smoke"?
3. What is the difference between the color of lightweight concrete like that which was used in the floors of the towers, and the high-density concrete that they use in Shear Walls like those in the China demo?
4. Why doesn't Chandler also admit that other explosives create "white smoke" in his video?
5. Why doesn't Chandler also admit there are MANY other explanations for the change of direction in that piece of debris?
6. Why doesn't Chandler at least mention that piece of debris that looks like it makes contact with the one that changes direction?
7. What color would the smoke be from a burning, white, ceiling tile?
8. Do you think telling people what to say and what to think about their "nanothermite" hypothesis is kinda the definition of "controlled opposition"?
9. Do you find the other information that I posted about the dishonesty, troubling? At all?
10. Do you actually think that the idea that "100s and 100s of tons" of explosives were used to bring down the towers is going to create any credibility within this movement? You think that is going to bring people around to our line of reasoning? Because that is what Harrit said in the RT interview that I linked to.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK