My name is Dom Shenher and I am very proud to belong to the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
I'm sure they're proud to count you as a member as well.
This message is for all those who realize that the story we are being given is wrought with lies and contrary evidence, yet somehow dismiss completely the theory of controlled demolition concerning WTC Towers 1,2, and 7.
Then you're in the wrong place. Hardly anyone "realizes" such nonsense, particularly here.
First, please stop speculating on how much bomb material would be required. This does nothing to debunk the notion that explosives or incendiaries could have been used along with the airplanes.
Wrong. Constructing a hypothesis is at the very heart of science. To reject this, is to reject science. It's quite telling that not only do you not have a hypothesis, but that you actually discourage finding one.
In 1993, it is agreed by the mainstream community as well as all the alternative theorists that someone indeed managed to not only plant, but detonate a bomb within the WTC buildings. We know this.
Correct. But what you miss is
how we know this. We know this because of the evidence left behind. Similar evidence does not exist for the fantasy 2001 bombing you cling to, yet refuse to define with any detail.
Furthermore it has been well established that the intention of the
terrorists who perpetrated this crime was to knock down both buildings:
"The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a car bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[2][3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World ... 98-02-24-1
Please pay close attention to the references marked 2 and 3. The reference marked 2 is US Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/childers.htm.
So if we know this why oh why does everyone say it is so inconceivable that whoever attacked America on 9/11 would or could have used explosive devices? Look at the damage that this one truck bomb did (that happened to be planted too far from any of the core collumns for whatever reason.)
Nobody denies that it would be possible to destroy a World Trade Center building with explosives. Heck, with enough explosives, one could theoretically destroy the Earth itself. However, just because such a thing is
possible does not mean it
happened. It is
possible that you will realize your entire belief structure is utter nonsense, but I have little hope that it will occur.
I'm tired of other people being so heavily critical of 9/11 Truth members and even professionals in relevant fields regarding the theory that explosives or incendiaries may have been used in addition to the aircrafts.
We are critical because there is no evidence -- at best your "theory" is wild speculation and willful ignorance, at worst it is pseudoscience, lying, war profiteering, and potentially treason. Get used to criticism. It's not our fault that your side refuses to conduct itself with any vestige of integrity.
If you haven't researched the witness testimonies yet, not just William Rodriguez but many others, then I suggest you do so. Sure, many witnesses could be mistaking an explosion (by a bomb) for other loud collapsing noises but why assume it?
It's been handled in print for years now. None of the witnesses actually believes they heard bombs going off -- with the exception of Mr. Rodriguez, who heard something hours before collapse, and is consistent with the official story. His belief fits into no coherent alternative narrative of any kind, even if he hadn't changed his story several times.
Brent Blanchard (a writer for a construction company) is one of these guys that spreads his indignant emotions about the notion of explosives yet says the reason NIST didnt test for explosives was that there was no evidence found (like det. cord or blasting caps) Does anyone remember how much debris there was or how few people had access to it, or how totally all the office contents and cement was turned to dust. Is this guy actually serious about finding blasting caps???
Yes, he is. Those are often found in debris following demolitions. The sheer number of blasting caps that would have been needed in the WTC is utterly unprecedented. Simply incredible that a search of such scope and precision to identify DNA from a majority of victims would have missed all of this completely.
Lets get this story straight. Even though the mainstream believed that terrorists did in fact manage to plant bombs inside WTC 1 in 93, and even though there were multiple reports of explosions, NIST decided not to conduct any tests for explosive materials based on someone with a hardhat not finding a needle in a haystack. THEY accuse US of junk science?
NIST was not the only investigation. They were not even authorized to begin until long after the site was cleared. Nonetheless, their investigation did indeed look for signs of explosives, specifically would have detected signs of high-strain-rate failure in structural steel that would only be caused by explosives. They found none.
Our accusation against you for junk science is extremely well founded. To wit, you have no hypothesis. See above.
Furthermore, it took NIST over 7 years to get a handle on why WTC 7 fell, FEMA said (in its initial investigation) that their own hypothesis had a low probability and admitted that it required more research. It very closely resembled a typical controlled demolition yet no-one thought to conduct a more comprehensive investigation into the theory of CD or look more closely for the presence of incendiary devices?
It in no way resembled a controlled demolition. Experts have made this very clear. FEMA's own hypothesis was later found to be incorrect, thus their earlier claim is quite reasonable.
Then you get guys like Ryan Macky, saying that there was more than enough energy without explosives for all three buildings to fall. (He usually directs his arguements to WTC 1 and 2 because WTC 7 is more difficult to explain away.)
That was in response to a particularly idiotic Truther claim that the collapses could not have caused so much pulverization. Not my fault you can't follow the discussion.
WTC 7 is in fact the easiest to "explain away," but I despair of getting you to understand this.
Assuming that NIST and a lot of the defenders of the mainstream story that have backgrounds in science are correct that the damage and fires would have been sufficient to cause total failure of all three buildings without explosives or incendiaries, WHAT DOES THIS PROVE?
You should re-read what you wrote here carefully. What it proves is that there is no need for explosives. No one would have planted them for fun. Thus, what it proves is that you are completely nuts.
I guess the implicit point is that the terrorists (being the rational human beings they were) and considering they were all structural engineers that knew the airplanes would hit successfully would never have added some extra bombs or ahem a truck bomb to ensure that the job was done.
See
this ancient post of mine. Being rational human beings they were risk-averse, and they would not have relied upon such shenanigans because of the low marginal utility it would offer. Even had the Towers not collapsed, the mission of the terrorists would have been a success.
I guess it is ok and scientific to just speculate that these same people who allegedly did the bombing in 93 would act 100% scientifically and rationally. I guess it is scientific just to assume it amid all the witness testimonies and a huge public outcry to Mayor Guilliani to "Stop throwing away the evidence."
Once you understand the goals of the terrorists, their behavior is completely rational. Their methods were quite elegant.
The NIST report itself -- the thing you are complaining so ignorantly about -- is the response to those claims about "throwing away the evidence." People did complain, and other people listened. The complaint is satisfied. You're trying to have it both ways, as usual.
One final thought here.
Stop calling the theory of demolition or incendiary devices a conspiracy theory! It is a scientific theory about 3 high rise buildings that had a complete failure on 9/11 due to the actions of some kind of terrrorist organization(s).
No. It is a conspiracy theory. It has no evidence in support. When asked why this is so, its proponents make up the most outrageous excuses for why such evidence does not exist. This is the absolute textbook defining feature of a conspiracy theory.
In order to be a scientific theory, you must have (a) a hypothesis, and (b) verification of that hypothesis against evidence and definitive tests. You're not anywhere near having a scientific theory, and you never, ever will be.
If explosives or incendiaries were used they could have been planted by anyone. 3 hijacked aircrafts in the air for a long time yet not being intercepted, hitting their targets at speeds that many experienced commercial pilots say would take the airplane apart sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. Yet we are to believe that this not only happened but the criminals were unassisted by any other organization except Al Qaeda. There has been a precedent set for Islamic radicals using bombs yet this sounds too crazy to even do some testing after the greatest attack on American soil in history?
Explosives and incendiaries indeed could not have been planted by anyone. This would be quite apparent to you if you actually formulated a hypothesis. But then, that's why you won't -- you'd rather preserve your fantasies than actually learn anything. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Wrap up
WTC was demolished with thermite so the American government must have been involved=conspiracy theory.
Correct. Especially because demolishing them with thermite is absolutely bonkers. Even a single column cut by thermite has yet to be demonstrated under laboratory conditions, let alone something of this scope, clandestinely, leaving no evidence of its occurence.
WTC failed as a result of structural damage and fire because of Al Qaeda alone=conspiracy theory.
Wrong. This is a scientific theory supported by hundreds and hundreds of investigations, papers, models, examinations of direct physical and forensic evidence. There is not a single dissenting scientific paper in existence anywhere. Case closed.
(in both cases two or more people are implicated to have conspired to commit the crime)
Your ignorance extends to the English language. Just as a red herring is not a scarlet-colored fish, a conspiracy theory is not a scientific theory that involves a conspiracy. It has a distinct meaning.
Based on dust samples that had unreacted nanothermite found at the site and witness testimonies as well as the historical precedent of a bomb being used in 93, let's at least do more testing of the remaining steel pieces to discern if there were also any explosives or incendiary devices present=/=conspiracy theory. There is no theory being suggested as to who commited the crime.
The dust samples do not indicate nanothermite at all. Indeed, if Dr. Jones had a clue what he was talking about (or, if he does, was honest), he would realize that his own data specifically contradict it being nanothermite. Besides which, nanothermite is about the worst possible way to destroy a building. It offers no advantages whatsoever.
Doing rigorous testing for all possibilities of collapse mechanisms after an extremely unprecedented event is the scientific approach. Speculation that the terrorists just had to be monogymous to their airplane plan even amid a huge amount of mounting counter evidence is pure junk science and any so-called "debunker" or "skeptic" that can't understand this basic principle is either biassed or has not taken a serious look at the evidence on both sides.
Nope. Rigorous testing of all possibilities is not the scientific approach. What you do is called
hypothesis testing, i.e. comparing various hypotheses against the evidence. As you have not supplied a hypothesis, you aren't even willing to participate in the process of science.
This is why it's taken you eight and a half years to come up with absolutely nothing. This is also why we all laugh at you.
(sexes, not genders - gender is really a linguistic term 
)
)
