Forum: Is there any truth to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? P1

Topic : Is there any truth to the 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Description
At the 7th anniversary of the event that changed the world forever, debate still rages on the internet and in conversations around the world about what really happened on that most famous of dates.

Official explanations blame the attacks on 19 hijackers, Al Qeada and Osama Bin Laden. The attacks precipitated wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It gave the US a cause to fight for and a cause to exploit. However, debate has been raging ever since, mainly outside the mainstream media, over just how credible the official explanation is.

The most prominent alternative theory is that 9/11 was an inside job, meaning the US government organised the attack in order to create an environment conducive to a greater imperial agenda. Far fetched, maybe, however, history is littered with such false flag events, from Hitlers burning of the Reichstag to the Tonkin Incident which precipitated The Vietnam War.

Films like Loose Change, watched by millions, set out an array of evidence which we will sort through, attempting to ascertain its validity. Forum, a Question Time style show in Press TV, will also delve into other theories as well, such as, whether the US authorities knew of the attacks and let them happen.

Presenter: Nick Ferari

Panelists:
•Annie Machon Ex MI5
•Michael Meacher Labour MP
•Nick Pope Defense Analyst Commentator
•Ian Henshall - Author, 9/11 THE NEW EVIDENCE

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Press
• TV
• presstv
• Forum
• London
• 9/11
• conpiracy

[ucvessel]

@cronaldo7701 It's not about believing. It's about understanding. The official story does not make sense, the alternative explanations do. It's that simple.

[joepelham]

one thing two words BLACK BOX only 1 time in history that they dident find it made from the strongest metals oohh hey they found a terrorist passport hahahahha BS

[pookster78]

@DavidAtleePhilips ....looks precisely and has the chemical make up of cannabis.Importantly,it contains no cocoa and therefore cannot be chocolate.Why then would he carry out a test to burn it and find it too comes apart under heat.You see, burning is only a characteristic of many different brown blocks and therefore lacks scientific validity,but the chemical make up is unique.

It is no wonder then that S Jones has stated that he will no longer be carrying out 9/11 research...hmm.

[pookster78]

@DavidAtleePhilips That should lead you to question why kevin ryan has made these false claims(you cant trust people like that apparently).Forget character and look at the science.S Jones et al critiscism is that Millette did not carry out DSC. I will draw an anology.S Jones finds a small brown block and heats it,it comes apart,he concludes it is chocolate.

Millette tests the same block and applys SAED,TEM ,EDS and MEK.He finds from all these methods that the block.....cont

[pookster78]

@DavidAtleePhilips I have already stated that Cate Jenkins did not realise he was using deionized water.Further,she uses Millettes study to show that ph was at 11.5 to support her claim.Thats the point,she wasn't slating millettes,she was simply using his work as a reference to make her point.Also,that was 2007-2008.In 2011 complaint she reminds us that MVA is a "highly prestigous" and "independant" lab and agian uses his work to aid her point.The exact opposite of accusing someone of fraud.

[DavidAtleePhilips]

@pookster78, Character assassination is pathetic? Then why do "debunkers" use it all the time to discredit 9/11 whistleblowers? Your buddy ctcole77 constantly bad mouths Dr. Jones and uses that as justification for ignoring the science behind his findings.

I can certainly attack Dr. Millette's science, it's just not appropriate or reasonable to do so via a YouTube comment. Again, read both sides of the story including counter arguments and don't just try to satisfy your pride.

[DavidAtleePhilips]

@pookster78, It's just really odd that instead of producing a truly independent scientist to examine WTC dust samples and write a report that can stand up to all forms of scrutiny, they would find the exact same scientist who had already lied for the Government about WTC Dust samples for the EPA. I just can't take someone like that seriously, not to mention the flaws in his science which you can read in more detail at the 911debunkers. blogspot

[pookster78]

@DavidAtleePhilips Millette on the other hand has submitted his work to peer review by some of the most respected journals in his field.That means they must examine his methods,results and conclusions.If you know about science you will know how important that process is,otherwise me or you could do what S Jones et al did,submit it to a pay to print journal,lol. I would have had more respect for you if you had given an objective response,clearly it is not the truth you are defending,but pride.

[pookster78]

@DavidAtleePhilips Further,trying a character assasination is pathetic when you consider the dodgy ways of S Jones et al(not just their WYC work) including not least intelectual theft and fraud. it is also interesting and telling that you cannot attack his science,yet S Jones et al refuse to give samples,burn organics in air and even hold back on giving large portions of test results,hence why they have never passed a proper peer review.

[pookster78]

@DavidAtleePhilips Cate Jenkins complaint was not with Rutgers,they were sub contracted and also used as a reference by the subject paper and Jenkins.You will find that Jenkins references Milltte twice positively and twice negatively,suggesting he is simply caught up in a huge number of names within the paper.In particular reference her complaint is that rutgers stored dust in water,which can effect ph.What she fails to realise is that rain water would do that,not processed water...woops!

[pookster78]

@DavidAtleePhilips I never claimed the iron spheres came from the WTC steel.It is possible they came from the burning of paper and wood which contain nano sized particles of iron.These have a depressed melting point(200-400C in substrate) so release to the atmosphere where they absorb/release other compounds acting as a condensation nuclei(Gibbs Thomson effect) and form spheres on cooling.Iron spheres may also come from fly ash with composition a result of production(differs vastly).

[pookster78]

@DavidAtleePhilips The put were not outside the realms of chance(i.e not statistically significant 1-5%),especially when you remember that the market runs all day,everyday,not just one.They were also explained by the people involved and other market chracteristics to the satisfaction of the investigating team.

The stratfir email,although bringing question over Bin Ladens resting place,does confirm he died that day.