You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

9/11 warnings [List Edits]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » Research Forum Donate to DU
 
Open Edit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 11:28 PM
Original message
9/11 warnings
Edited on Mon Nov-21-05 12:04 PM by papau
This new topic is awaiting edits. It was started by jfern.

Cooperative Research has a number of interesting timelines, including a very long and detailed timeline called The Complete 9/11 timeline. It has a large section on pre-9/11 warning signs.

August 6th, 2001 PBX
Cooperative research link
DKosopedia link




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445 /

Questioning what happened on 9/11
Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC

Nov. 14: Did planes really bring down the World Trade Center? The Situation's Tucker Carlson talks to one professor who says he has evidence that bombs might have been planted in the towers. Tucker Carlson Anchor, 'The Situation'


Tucker Carlson welcomed Brigham Young University Professor Steven Jones, a professor of physics, believes that the hijackers may not have brought down the towers by themselves....an excerpt of their conversation is below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STEVEN JONES, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY: ... What I'm doing, Tucker, is presenting evidence, but it's a hypothesis to be tested. That's a big difference from a conclusion, and so I just wanted to clarify that. But to sum up that I have looked at the official reports by FEMA, and so on... regarding the collapse of-yes, of these buildings. ...

I'd like to look at the collapse of building seven in just a minute. It was not even hit by a jet. So we'll look at that one.

CARLSON: The two towers. The explanation has been that the fire inside was so intense that it weakened the structural steel and that each floor collapsed down upon the next in a pancake fashion, and they imploded in on themselves. That's essentially, I think, what people think.<snip>

JONES:....I would like to do a little experiment with you, Tucker, if I could. I sent out a video clip of the collapse of Building seven, because most people haven't actually seen that one, and that's the crux of the argument...... There are two hypotheses here. One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse..
JONES: The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse. And so, then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I've done that in my 25-page paper. ....Let's start with the collapse of Building seven...It's smaller than the other two it was not hit by a plane....as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course. "The best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of occurrence. Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this issue, and I agree with that."...But they admit there's only a low probability, and if you look at the collapse, you see what I have studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle. That's called the kink. Which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition...one other thing I want to mention...Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings....yet all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal? It's direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product....read the paper, then I talk about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.

CARLSON: Professor, we are going to have to leave it to our viewers who are interested enough to follow up to do just that. We appreciate you coming on, even if I don't understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them. Thanks.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » Research Forum Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC