FAQ
It is currently Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:30 am


Author Message
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:50 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
kojax wrote:
We all remember Iran Contra. How many conspirators did it take to move missiles to Iran, and guns to the Contras in Columbia?


you're quoting things that went public, something that never seems to happen to claimed conspiracies

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:58 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
kojax wrote:
We all remember Iran Contra. How many conspirators did it take to move missiles to Iran, and guns to the Contras in Columbia?


you're quoting things that went public, something that never seems to happen to claimed conspiracies


The classic hindsight vs. foresight argument. Why is it unlikely that other similar scandals have been conducted successfully, absent public knowledge? Were the Iran Contra conspirators guaranteed to fail because of something?

All I was citing it for was to point out that military hardware can disappear without anyone noticing. Iran Contra was a matter of missiles going missing and nobody noticing. All I'm suggesting for 911 is that someone in Rumsfeld's position could procure some nano-thermite ordinance. Which do you think is harder to make disappear?


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:56 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
The problem with big conspiracies, about big topics, is that "too big to fail" kicks in. We collectively can't afford the outcome of letting it come to light.

You see it on the small scale all the time in religious communities, when some guy who's a "pillar of the community" decides to molest his daughter. The truth is so awful, and would tear the community so far apart, that she's unlikely to be believed, certainly unlikely to retain her reputation, if she comes forward, so all too often such people suffer in silence. Maybe come back ten years later after they've established a life elsewhere and tell their stories.

How much does it take for people to understand that the large scale and the small scale aren't really that much different?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:22 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
the problem with big conspiracies is the inordinate amount of control that would be required to keep everything tightly under wraps, control that in everyday life just isn't there

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:31 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 714

Offline
Certainly the mind knows what the left and right hand are both doing, as it has told them what to do. But neither the left or right hand knows what the other does.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:32 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
the problem with big conspiracies is the inordinate amount of control that would be required to keep everything tightly under wraps, control that in everyday life just isn't there


How is that? What control? How does a thing like 911 require more control than running a drug cartel? (Something which we know happens quite a lot.) People keep building this up like it's so much harder to do than it is.

You think it takes effort to convince your co conspirators not to come forward, admit to treason and spend the rest of their lives in prison? I'll tell you what takes control: convincing 19 people to commit suicide all on the same day at the same time. That's takes control. Convincing them to save their own necks is comparatively a lot easier.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:46 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 4628
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
His point becomes a lot more clear when considered in context of global warming. If that is really a "big conspiracy" like so many claim, then it does require an inordinate amount of control (control which isn't there) to keep things under wraps. The rest is just orders of magnitude. Nobody is saying it's impossible. The point is that it's unlikely.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:51 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
So our options are "big conspiracy" and "Al Qaeda"? No third option for a small conspiracy?

You're willing to believe 19 people could pull this off by killing themselves, but you're not willing to believe a similarly small number of people could pull this off as a false flag op, without all the suicide? You know Mossad has fanatics too.


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:49 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 714

Offline
I don't know about the authenticity of the assertions, but there is also PNAC, Operation Northwoods, and alleged tie's between Al Qaeda and the CIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson_(Texas_politician)

Hmm, some more Wiki stuff;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

I figured that things like PNAC, and Operation Northwoods were probably just conjecture. But here they are, written up in Wiki, with citations and references.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:15 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
kojax wrote:
... but you're not willing to believe a similarly small number of people could pull this off as a false flag op, without all the suicide?


i'm not saying that's unlikely - what i'm saying is that some evidence would have been uncovered by someone over the last 10 years if that had been the case
after all, a drug cartel is not totally leak-proof, and information does become publicly available over time

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:40 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 714

Offline
There's this;
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
There are nine different names on that article, for it to be a fabrication they would all have to agree to the fabrication.
And then there's this little bit;
http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=911+bone+fragments
I'm curious as to what forces are involved in the fragmentation of bone?

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
DrRocket
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:01 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:22 am
Posts: 477

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
There's this;
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
There are nine different names on that article, for it to be a fabrication they would all have to agree to the fabrication.


The mere inclusion of Steven Jones in the list of authors is enough to disqualify that paper from serious consideration.

Getting 9 wackos to collaborate is not particularly difficult. Now ask yourself why the editor of this journal resigned over the publication of this article. http://truthgonewild.blogspot.com/2009/ ... mical.html

_________________
gone


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:09 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
kojax wrote:
... but you're not willing to believe a similarly small number of people could pull this off as a false flag op, without all the suicide?


i'm not saying that's unlikely - what i'm saying is that some evidence would have been uncovered by someone over the last 10 years if that had been the case
after all, a drug cartel is not totally leak-proof, and information does become publicly available over time


Where would this evidence be recovered from? The wreckage of the planes? The wreckage of the buildings? Or are you looking for a signed confession? A paper trail maybe?

Oh wait.... some evidence has been uncovered. Looking at the top link in Giant Evil's post above, it looks like they've even recovered chips of what appears to be undetonated nano-thermite. Since there were no actual guns fired, residue from the bombs might be as close to a "smoking gun" as we're going to get.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocp ... 7TOCPJ.pdf

It's not an easy read, and I only skimmed it to the parts I was interested in, but they put the material under an electron microscope to confirm the aluminum and iron particles were really really small, like nano-thermite. I think you'd need pretty specialized equipment to get them that small.

Quote:
X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses
of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared
from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7). The four spectra in Fig.
(6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized
by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount
of carbon. The chemical signatures found in the red layers
are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence
of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and
a significant carbon (C) peak as well.
At still higher magnifications, BSE imaging of the red
layer illustrates the similarity between the different dust
samples. BSE images of small but representative portions of
each red-layer cross section are shown in Fig. (8). The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE
intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and
have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen
intermixed with plate-like particles that have intermediate
BSE intensity and are approximately 40 nm thick and up to
about 1 micron across. Furthermore, by comparing the BSE
image in Fig. (8a) to the SE image in Fig. (9), it can be seen
that all of the particles are embedded in an unstructured matrix which gives a dark BSE intensity


If you're waiting for a co-conspirator to come forward and confess, I wouldn't hold your breath. It sounds to me like nothing short of that would convince you that they did leave "some evidence".

[


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:20 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
DrRocket wrote:
The mere inclusion of Steven Jones in the list of authors is enough to disqualify that paper from serious consideration.



That's got to be a bit of an exaggeration.

Whatever his past mistakes, he does have a degree in physics, and has made legitimate contributions in the past during his career. Certainly his word on a matter doesn't carry the same weight as that of a more reputable scientist, but certainly more than a lot of people, so really I'd have to suggest leaving the question up to who reviews it.

I've been able to find some (limited) peer review for the paper, and there are objections. I found this at least:

http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/ ... -cant.html

I might be inclined to agree with you (including the characterization) after I give this a good read.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:15 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
kojax wrote:
Where would this evidence be recovered from? The wreckage of the planes? The wreckage of the buildings? Or are you looking for a signed confession? A paper trail maybe?[


people tend to blab - if a conspiracy takes place, the more people are involved, and the more time passes by, the higher the likelihood that someone will blab
the fact that this hasn't happened reduces the probability that a conspiracy actually took place

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:31 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 714

Offline
Well, I can't say Mormonism scores cred points. But Jones's cold fusion work was the muon-catalyst variety, and done for the DOE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Apparently iron microsphere's were found by an RJ Lee group, and USGS, study.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/cache/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Somewhere near the end of the Jones report it's suggested that the high amounts of silicone were part of a paint base.
Hire some Mexicans to do some painting...

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:48 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
kojax wrote:
Where would this evidence be recovered from? The wreckage of the planes? The wreckage of the buildings? Or are you looking for a signed confession? A paper trail maybe?[


people tend to blab - if a conspiracy takes place, the more people are involved, and the more time passes by, the higher the likelihood that someone will blab
the fact that this hasn't happened reduces the probability that a conspiracy actually took place


How many people are you thinking of? And what were their roles?

I mentioned before that a lot of the technical details could be assigned to engineers who have no clue what their designs will later be used for. They're not going to break a confidentiality agreement to tell an investigator that they remember doing work on a blackbox that added functionality to be overridden by a remote device.... or whatever. Even if they did, there'd be no way to confirm that their project played a role. Even if someone is hired to procure Thermite, .... how do they know what it's going to be used for?

The only people you have to worry about blabbing are the ones who actually know something, like the ones who did the deed itself. If someone set explosives in WTC 1, 2, or 7, that guy could (potentially) talk too much. Whoever gave him access (such as Larry Silverstien) could talk. If they had a man in the government (such as Donald Rumsfeld), he might talk. And, of course, both of those last two men *have* made statements that border on blabbing, but don't quite put them over the line.

Whoever took over the planes, if it wasn't the 19 hijackers (and at least flight 93 had to have had real hijackers on board, given the number of cell phone calls), those guys might talk later on. If someone at Shanksville planted evidence (as one very determined blogger on another 911 discussion thread I've been on continually insisted for pages... and pages...) that person could potentially talk.

Who's left?


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:52 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
marnixR wrote:
i'm not saying that's unlikely - what i'm saying is that some evidence would have been uncovered by someone over the last 10 years if that had been the case
after all, a drug cartel is not totally leak-proof, and information does become publicly available over time


Interestingly, on that topic, the information on the government authorised "gun-running" and "operation fast-and-furious" programs is starting to come out now- Eric Holder admitting that the DoD authorised the illegal trading of guns over the Mexican border which disastrously ended up in real Cartels hands and even being used to kill US citizens- a quick google search will return lots of results on this.

Anyway, back on topic...

DrRocket wrote:
The mere inclusion of Steven Jones in the list of authors is enough to disqualify that paper from serious consideration.


Irrelevant. I couldn't care less if the analysis and observational evidence came from a radical Islamist- if it's correct and reputable, then that's all that matters. And, so far, I haven't really seen many proper criticisms and challenges to the work of those such as Jones, Szamboty, Bowman, Dustenwald etc on the research of 9/11.

From a scientific perspective, I say leave the research of the events of 9/11 open- to say that NIST's final reports are irrefutable would be highly unscientific and most people acknowledge the fact that there are still flaws in the "official story" which have never been explained. There is no harm in continuing the research- after all, nearly 3000 people did die on that day, just shoving out an "official report" and essentially saying "that'll do" is quite disrespectful in my opinion.

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:57 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
kojax wrote:
I mentioned before that a lot of the technical details could be assigned to engineers who have no clue what their designs will later be used for. They're not going to break a confidentiality agreement to tell an investigator that they remember doing work on a blackbox that added functionality to be overridden by a remote device.... or whatever. Even if they did, there'd be no way to confirm that their project played a role. Even if someone is hired to procure Thermite, .... how do they know what it's going to be used for?


Interesting points actually, and it reminds me of what the chief electrical engineer of WTC-1 and -2 said (he is now part of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) concerning the topic. He stated that all electrical engineers involved with the elevator shaft had 24/7 access to such a facility and the elevator shafts were, of course, right next to the main steel core columns of the towers- giving such an engineer access to them.

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:45 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 415

Offline
kojax wrote:
Even if someone is hired to procure Thermite, .... how do they know what it's going to be used for?


You do realize what you just typed, right? I'm not an explosives or demolitions expert by any means. And I'm not a chemist or physicist by even a long shot. But I do know something about thermite. Don't ask how or why. I won't answer. Thermite is heavy, bulky, and it would take an amount that would require dozens of people to be in the know to mix, transport, and implement.

It would be easier (and far, far cheaper) to simply hijack a plane and fly it into the building and let the jet fuel and impact do its thing.

I recommend the Skeptical Inquirer's review of the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. It was just in a 2011 issue that I have at home. It covers all of the chief arguments of conspiracy nutters. You might be able to find this one online since it was a feature article.


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:11 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
SkinWalker wrote:
recommend the Skeptical Inquirer's review of the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. It was just in a 2011 issue that I have at home. It covers all of the chief arguments of conspiracy nutters. You might be able to find this one online since it was a feature article.


Well I'll have a look at that in a while to see if it lives up to those claims...

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
DrRocket
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:03 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:22 am
Posts: 477

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
Well, I can't say Mormonism scores cred points. But Jones's cold fusion work was the muon-catalyst variety, and done for the DOE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones



Yeah, he received some DOE funding for muon-catylized fusion that produced nothing. You could at that time get government agencies to sponsor all sorts of nonsense. Alvarez had discovered the principle of muon catalyzed fusion in 1956 but quickly abandoned the notion as impractical purposes for energy generation. Later some Russians reported a more promising approach involving deuterium and tritium which Jones pursued with little sound justification and a great deal of justified skepticism from the physics community. He spent a lot of money and produced nothing. His DOE sponsor has about as much residual credibility as Jones -- zero.

But he was also chasing other ghosts.

At at the same time that Pons and Fleischmann were about to insert their feet in their mouth he was chasing the same basic thing which he called piezonuclear fusion. This was the subject of much of his work and was key in the ensuing cold fusion fiasco. So don't be fooled by the fact that his web page talks about muon catylized fusion but is silent on the subject of piezonuclear fusion.

Jones is not to be taken seriously. Neither are 9/11 conspiracy theories. Life is way too short to waste time on papers by known wackos.

There was a 9/11 conspiracy. Al Queda was the source. Their leader is dead. Others preceded him. Still others are likely to follow. Good riddance.

_________________
gone


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:04 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 4628
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
x(x-y) wrote:
SkinWalker wrote:
recommend the Skeptical Inquirer's review of the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. It was just in a 2011 issue that I have at home. It covers all of the chief arguments of conspiracy nutters. You might be able to find this one online since it was a feature article.


Well I'll have a look at that in a while to see if it lives up to those claims...


http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_9_11_ ... ade_later/

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:15 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Reading through this peer review on Jones and Harrits' thermite find, I have to admit Jones is now 0 for 2 with me. (His first strike was the speed of collapse argument, which isn't actually true either)

posting.php?mode=quote&f=39&p=3340

He's got one strike left. I hope he uses it wisely.


Last edited by kojax on Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Here's some useful footage (highly editorialized - sorry about that) of the WTC 7 collapse.

In the first view, we can see the building from the about the 25th floor on up to the 47th (top) floor as it falls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp ... ure=fvwrel

The second one is less useful. It's got it from a more straight on view, but seeing less of the building. However it has some nice footage of buildings undergoing some genuine controlled demolitions if you want to (objectively?) compare what the falls would look like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

The Wiki article has a good summary of the official reasons for the collapse. Basically the idea is that Column 79 got pushed off of its seat by the lateral expansion of some of the horizontal supports. And everything followed from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_7#9.2F11_and_collapse

An interesting aside is that lots of very big federal cases fell apart as a result of the loss of data that was being stored exclusively in that building.

Quote:
World Trade Center housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. Although some were backed up elsewhere, others were not, especially those classified as confidential.[47] Files relating to Citigroup's connection to the WorldCom scandal were lost.[48] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimated over 10,000 cases were affected.[49] Investigative files in the Secret Service's largest field office, with more than 200 employees, were also lost in the collapse of WTC 7. One Secret Service agent said, “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.


You don't think that prison time would motivate some people to commit a mass murder?


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:46 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
kojax wrote:
Reading through this peer review on Jones and Harrits' thermite find, I have to admit Jones is now 0 for 2 with me. (His first strike was the speed of collapse argument, which isn't actually true either)

posting.php?mode=quote&f=39&p=3340

He's got one strike left. I hope he uses it wisely.



Sorry to triple post, but I need to follow up on my own statement. After this peer review objection was made by Rancourt there was more follow up, and it appears Jones and Harrit methods were more complete than it appeared at first. They simply hadn't put all of the information about their research into the paper. It's still quite unfortunate that this discussion couldn't have taken place prior to publication, so as to give us a better final paper.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45837672/1012 ... Rancourt-1

Jones still has 2 strikes left, not 1.

As concerns Dr. Rocket's statements about Jones, I'm not a big fan of Ad Hominem arguments, or "arguments to the man", unless they go to the person's expertise. The idea that Dr. Jones is a "bad source" and therefore no amount of evidence can ever be brought to bear that would be sufficient to convince us to side with his perspective is quite frankly ludicrous.


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:39 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
kojax wrote:
As concerns Dr. Rocket's statements about Jones, I'm not a big fan of Ad Hominem arguments, or "arguments to the man", unless they go to the person's expertise. The idea that Dr. Jones is a "bad source" and therefore no amount of evidence can ever be brought to bear that would be sufficient to convince us to side with his perspective is quite frankly ludicrous.


I absolutely and completely agree with this. It seems some people may have a bit of a superiority complex, I'm used to it from school and society in general though...

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:06 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
on the other hand, if you've asked someone for advice, and time and again that person has given you duff advice, could you still call it an ad hominem if you started to equate the actual person with the origin of duff info ?

at work you learn quickly who the useful people in a project are, and who the hangers-on
once you've figured out who they are, you try to get as many of the former, and as few of the latter as you can manage for your next project - that's nothing to do with ad hominem or discrimination but with common sense if you want a project that's seen to go places

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:13 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
marnixR wrote:
on the other hand, if you've asked someone for advice, and time and again that person has given you duff advice, could you still call it an ad hominem if you started to equate the actual person with the origin of duff info ?


Personally, I see this as a bit of a fallacy. Of course, with the situation mentioned above, a relationship can be drawn between the person and the information quality- however, I find it unequivocally wrong to suggest that just because someone may have made numerous false claims that every single future claim they make is going to be wrong; sure, it could mean that the probability of their claim being false is higher, but it doesn't mean that they're definitely not going to be correct.

Take Einstein for example, or even those such as Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, their ideas were new and quite revolutionary at the time- they were met with a lot of dismissals and even snobbery from many people of those times- the latter examples in particular as they challenged the beliefs/opinions of the oppressive church and it's proponents at the time. However, it turns out that their ideas were correct (well, not for definite in Einstein's case and not for all situations in Newton's case- but you know what I mean).

The church example, with Galileo and Copernicus being dismissed, leads me onto my next point quite nicely actually. My problem with those who jump to conclusions and just immediately dismiss anything which does not coincide with the official story of 9/11 (and, by extent, many other situations such as JFK Assassination, Cuban False Flag plans etc) is that they, much aligned to those who supported the church and its opinions during the Medieval period, seem to follow the officials like they are some sorts of Demi-gods or prophets to humanity and what they say has to be the truth (or, the "gospel", linking back to the oppressive Christian regime of the past mentioned above).

Another problem is that, and I will name names because it is necessary, those on here such as DrRocket and even MarnixR (to an extent) seem to think that I completely agree with 9/11 "conspiracy theories" and thus I must be "a conspiracy nut" and they also seem to imply that I disagree with every official story. That is to say, they're wrong if they think this- in a scientific way, as I'm taught to act like at school having taken scientific A-Levels, I like to approach ideas (especially those which are profound and involve the deaths of thousands) with a fair degree of scepticism rather than just picking a side and sticking with it. In all honesty, I really do not know which "side" has the most "going for it" in the case of 9/11 (and don't just say that "the conspiracy theories" have no evidence because that's just ridiculous)- and I doubt that anybody will truly know what happened on that frantic day. However, before those such as DrRocket and iNow dismiss me and say, I quote from the former member mentioned: "you can safely ignore x(x-y)"- you must remember that I am only 17 (nearly 18) and will be attending university next September to study physics- so, maybe, having learnt more I shall hold a completely different viewpoint on 9/11 due to the extra gain in physics knowledge.

That's all.

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:35 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
on the other hand, if you've asked someone for advice, and time and again that person has given you duff advice, could you still call it an ad hominem if you started to equate the actual person with the origin of duff info ?

at work you learn quickly who the useful people in a project are, and who the hangers-on
once you've figured out who they are, you try to get as many of the former, and as few of the latter as you can manage for your next project - that's nothing to do with ad hominem or discrimination but with common sense if you want a project that's seen to go places


Well, I admit I wouldn't want to work with Dr. Jones. It's not uncommon for Mormon academics to become true believers in something for which there is limited evidence. He does have a bit of that starry look in his eyes. It doesn't automatically tell me that his findings are false, though. His position as an outcast in the academic community allows him to conduct research most other academics won't touch with a ten foot pole for fear of losing their status. It's either let people like him conduct it, or never see it get done. Beggars can't be choosers.

Some commentaries I've been reading suggest what he found was really rust. Others suggest it may have been paint flaked off of the steel. Until the matter is settled, I'm keep following the lead to see where it goes.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:42 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 4628
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
x(x-y) wrote:
marnixR wrote:
on the other hand, if you've asked someone for advice, and time and again that person has given you duff advice, could you still call it an ad hominem if you started to equate the actual person with the origin of duff info ?


Personally, I see this as a bit of a fallacy. Of course, with the situation mentioned above, a relationship can be drawn between the person and the information quality- however, I find it unequivocally wrong to suggest that just because someone may have made numerous false claims that every single future claim they make is going to be wrong; sure, it could mean that the probability of their claim being false is higher, but it doesn't mean that they're definitely not going to be correct.

Of course not, but they also give up their "credibility card" when that stuff happens. Sure, they might be correct sometimes, but so too is a broken clock. Likewise, sometimes Fox News says things which are true, but taken as a whole I don't really trust anything they share whatsoever.

Why should it be any different with known cranks and crackpots?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:49 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
x(x-y) wrote:
Another problem is that, and I will name names because it is necessary, those on here such as DrRocket and even MarnixR (to an extent) seem to think that I completely agree with 9/11 "conspiracy theories" and thus I must be "a conspiracy nut" and they also seem to imply that I disagree with every official story.


did i come across that way ? sorry if i did because i try not to make personal comments if i can help it
however, it is true that it's one of my convictions (one of those that you can't prove) that people who believe one type of conspiracy theory are inclined to look favourably at conspiracy theories in general - i.e. i'm convinced that in general it takes a certain mindset to be predisposed to accept conspiracy theories

this does obviously not prove that adherence to one conspiracy theory includes someone in the nutcase population, and in your case i'm not of that opinion - so if this came across that way in any of my ramblings then that was unintended and i'm sorry for the implied slight you perceived in them

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:25 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iNow wrote:
Why should it be any different with known cranks and crackpots?


In this particular case it's because they submitted actual lab work. There's evidence here that can be judged on its own merits, completely ignoring "who" gathered it.

I think Dr. Jones and Harrit are currently the only two truthers who have access to a proper lab with real lab equipment and the training to know how to use it. It's not like conspiracy theorists are settling for this out of a "desire to believe". There aren't any better options right now.


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:45 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 714

Offline
Personally, I find the idea of Al Qaeda did it, a lot less scary than, inside job false flag. Seeing as Obama has done a bang up job of liquidating the Al Qaeda leadership and most of their human infrastructure, threat toothless, justice done.
Inside job means entrenched threat still roaming, no justice. Completely unsatisfactory.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:09 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
Seeing as Obama has done a bang up job of liquidating the Al Qaeda leadership and most of their human infrastructure, threat toothless, justice done.


Whilst I, obviously, despise Al Qaeda as they are just another mindless terrorist group which actually kills a lot of Muslims (that's how stupid they are) in the ME, I do not agree with the also mindless killings of Bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki. It disturbs me to think that in our efforts to punish and prevent the murderings of innocent civilians and to try to create a democratic world of law-abiding citizens, the very governments which allegedly stand for these goals do not think of it as double standards and quite blatant hypocrisy when they just murder others without any form of fair trials (as international law states that there should be); but they label this justice and freedom and the rest of the population just nods, shouts a bit of "USA!" and then continues without a care in the world.

Even if a terrorist set off a nuclear bomb (remote detonated) in a city somewhere murdering millions, I still would not agree with murdering the murderer- such a thing is just quite obviously stupid and hypocritical that is hurts my brains just to think about it; even besides the fact that it's a direct contravention of international laws and the judicial process (which the Western politicians tell us to follow and them violate themselves!), it lets the terrorist(s) off lightly (just killing them does not give them enough punishment, per se).

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:27 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
The quest to be "better" than our enemies is a special kind of vanity. If they defeat you and take everything you have, that feeling of false superiority isn't going to help you feed your children.


GiantEvil wrote:
Personally, I find the idea of Al Qaeda did it, a lot less scary than, inside job false flag. Seeing as Obama has done a bang up job of liquidating the Al Qaeda leadership and most of their human infrastructure, threat toothless, justice done.
Inside job means entrenched threat still roaming, no justice. Completely unsatisfactory.


Al Qaeda or not, a lot of evil people went free that day with the destruction of the data kept in Building 7. It's kind of striking that, with several hours of time to work with, and knowing the importance of those files to national security, nobody thought to go in and grab those hard drives before the building fell?

I guess chain of custody might get kind of complicated if the drives are being recovered by agents from a burning building, but still... Am I to understand that such a risk would not be considered justified, even for federal agents fighting to keep criminals behind bars?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:17 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 4628
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
kojax wrote:
I think Dr. Jones and Harrit are currently the only two truthers who have access to a proper lab with real lab equipment and the training to know how to use it. <...> There aren't any better options right now.

And why do you think that is? Are those other folks with lots of training and lab equipment part of a conspiracy, too, or is it possible that the majority of these experts who have reviewed the evidence available each agree with the standard explanation of events?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:05 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iNow wrote:
kojax wrote:
I think Dr. Jones and Harrit are currently the only two truthers who have access to a proper lab with real lab equipment and the training to know how to use it. <...> There aren't any better options right now.

And why do you think that is? Are those other folks with lots of training and lab equipment part of a conspiracy, too, or is it possible that the majority of these experts who have reviewed the evidence available each agree with the standard explanation of events?


I think they get a lot of their funding from the DOD and don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Politics is a very real part of the funding game. Controversial research helps you when it's the good kind of controversy, like stuff that can get you picked up in a popular magazine (like re-designating Pluto), but not when it's 911 controversy. That puts you on the outside looking in.

For someone like Jones, that doesn't matter. He's already on the outside looking in. He doesn't have any further down to go. I don't know what motivated Harrit, though.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:07 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Cell phone calls:

Flight 77: Hijacked between 08:51 and 08:54 and crashed at 09:37

1) 09:12, lasted 2 minutes
Flight Attendant Renee May, 2 minute call to her mother
2) Between 09:16 and 09:26, then 5 minutes later
Barbara Olsen, wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, called his assistant and then him

May misreported the number of hijackers as being 6 instead of 5.

Flight 175: Hijacked between 08:42 and 08:46, crashed at 9:03

1) 08:52
Flight Attendant Robert Fangman called a United Airlines office and spoke to Marc Policastro, for a minute and 15 seconds before being disconnected.
2) 08:58 and 9:00
Brian David Sweeny called and left a message for his wife, then called his mother and spoke with her
3) 08:52, and 9:00
Peter Hanson called his father twice and spoke with him. His wife and daughter were on the flight with him.

Flight 11: Hijacked at 08:14, and crashed at 08:46

1) 8:21
Flight Attendant Madeline Sweeny called American Airlines and reached a friend named Michael Woodward, and talked for 25 minutes
2) 8:21
Flight Attendant Betty Ong called American Airlines. It was a long call and was recorded.

You can hear a few minutes of Betty Ong's call here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icfkIH3j-nk

Flight 93: Hijacked at 09:28, and crashed at 10:03

1) 09:30, and several calls after
Tom Burnett is the one who famously talked with his wife and learned of the other planes.
2) 09:35
Flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw called a maintenance facility and reported the hijacking.
3) 09:37
Mark Bingham called his mother.
4) 09:37
Jeremy Glick called his wife and remained connected until the end. He told her about the vote to resist.
5) 09:43
Joseph DeLuca called his father
6) 09:43
Todd Beamer attempted to call his wife, but instead reached a GTE operator.
7) 09:46
Linda Gronlund called her sister, Elsa Strong and left a message
8) 09:47
Flight attendant CeeCee Lyles called her husband and left a message on his answering machine
9) 09:49
Marion Britton called her friend, Fred Fiumano.
10) 09:50
Flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw called her husband and told him she was preparing hot water to use
11) (not sure when)
Lauren Grandcolas attempted to call her husband twice
12) 09:53
Honor Elizabeth Wainio called her stepmother and talked for 4 and 1/2 minutes
13) (shortly before the passenger revolt)
Edward Felt dialed 911 to get instructions

Several calls misreported the number of hijackers as being 3 instead of 4.

You can see there's a really big difference between flight 93 and the others (which is explainable given that it's the only flight where the passengers knew they were likely going to die). Flight 93 is also the one that didn't hit a building. We have 12 calls from flight 93, but a total of 7 from all the others combined, mostly flight attendants. I like putting this all in perspective. On the one hand, the cell evidence on the first three flights boxes in the timelines for flight 11 and 175, as the timing of calls puts them too close to the end for any hijackers to have parachuted unnoticed. On the other hand, there aren't many of them.

edit: small self correction.

The last 4 minutes of Betty Ong's call are here. It's not her being recorded directly. It's the person she's talking to calling someone else and relaying. However, all the passengers had been removed to coach and she mentions that she believes some kind of mace or chemical agent is being used which prevents her from being able to enter first class. She would not have known if the hijackers had jumped out of the plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Tr0u35Tek

It's likely that, if this tactic was used on one plane, then it was probably used on all three crash planes, and so the cell phone calls tell us nothing about whether the attack was perpetrated by conspirators or terrorists.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:44 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 4628
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
kojax wrote:
I think they get a lot of their funding from the DOD and don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Politics is a very real part of the funding game.

I suppose that's possible, but I don't buy it myself. It's a lot like the argument that global warming is a conspiracy and nobody speaks up because that research is where all the best grant money goes and they're afraid to lose it. I say, maybe a small handful of researchers fall prey to such avarice, but there's no way in a frosty hell that this fear of "biting the feeding hand" extends across the entire population of experts. Too many people have a little something called integrity for this to be so vastly common as conspiracists claim.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:24 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
The other problem is: what are they supposed to base their dissent on? Analysis of the rubble? No chance of that. The rubble was almost immediately shipped off to Asia to be melted down.

Even NIST commented on it. In their report of WTC 7 in the exutive summary. Page 37 of the PDF file, I believe, under the title "This Report".

NIST WTC 7 wrote:
Numerous facts and data were obtained, then combined with validated computer modeling to produce an account that captures the key features of what actually occurred. However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin. As a result there are some facts that could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting. Nonetheless, NIST was able to gather sufficient evidence and documentation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations.


http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publicat ... _id=861610

What's a scientist supposed to do without data? How do you write a paper about it? Within the limits of what they had, NIST did a very good job of modeling the outcomes. The problem is they had next to nothing to work with, and they had to reach a little bit in order to arrive at their conclusions. A scientist could (very legitimately) criticize that as being mere guesswork, but they couldn't prove it false.

So while it's unlikely that NIST's findings would ever meet the strict requirements of peer review, they also don't have to. A paper that wants to overturn them would have to,.... and that's the rub. The two sides are held to different burdens of evidence. Who's going to win? Well... the one with the easier burden of evidence is going to win, of course.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:15 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Here's an interesting radio broadcast. It was made by this guy who is a total conspiracy nut, aliens and everything, but..... it was made 3 months before the September 11 attack, and he nails almost all the topics people have been talking about since. He predicts the attack, the blaming on Osama Bin Laden, and then brings up the Reichtag building metaphor, everything .... all before it happened. And you know the timeline is authentic because he died on November 5th, 2001 in a police raid. Hopefully the link will stay up.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfko30 ... 28-01_news

The police raid is also kind of suspicious because it was alleged that Bill Cooper opened fire on them, but the only casualty suffered was when one of the arresting deputies got shot in the head... by his own gun.


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:13 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
There is no need for elaborate, improbable, fragile, high-risk, and unnecessarily complex schemes. The pros in this field do not get their tactics from Mission Impossible reruns.

The simplest complicity - and the smell of complicity clouds the entire event - is also the most reasonable: that the US administration simply drew back here and there, allowed the event or some event of its kind (no specification necessary) in small and easily obscured ways.

As with a skilled basketball player throwing a game, it would be almost impossible to extract the crime from the confusions of action and omission - and of course W's administration was already understood to be generally incompetent, an excellent cover as well as partial reality. So little risk, and excellent upside on the power and money grab side of the ledger.

Osama had a long career as a most convenient enemy, right up to and including his silent death. But such beings are not therefore organized or managed by some all-knowing manipulators - they really are enemies, acting on their own, just of a kind that can be steered a little bit or used for something, their actions leveraged to serve purposes not of their own.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:28 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iceaura wrote:

Osama had a long career as a most convenient enemy, right up to and including his silent death. But such beings are not therefore organized or managed by some all-knowing manipulators - they really are enemies, acting on their own, just of a kind that can be steered a little bit or used for something, their actions leveraged to serve purposes not of their own.


Perhaps it's hard to imagine if you haven't seen a lot of extreme hypocrisy up close, but people who claim to love something aren't the only ones that can be a hypocrites, also a person who claims to hate you can be a hypocrite in their hatred too. When a person's followers speak of them as a "great man, who will someday be well known", it's likely the leader is a megalomaniac.

I doubt Osama would have turned down the opportunity for fame and glory (or infamy and respect) even if he knew he were being played.


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:36 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
I apologise for my ignorance people, after researching the 9/11 situation some more I realise that the official report by NIST for the collapses of the WTC towers 1 and 2 is probably accurate and consistent with material dynamics etc.

However, I am still sceptical about the collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane- that one just doesn't seem to add up to me. But, I'll look out for any more evidence about that particular situation I can find.

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This Free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy