TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 [158] 159 160 161 162 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} I've never seen bickering employed as a means to solve problems, or debate.. kudos for thinking outside the ol' box.  There have been a few updates recently, the most important one [I believe] being the peer-reviewed paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. First author of the research is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry, an expert in nano-chemistry. Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU ..and of course, Steven E. Jones.  More details about the authors here |
YUKII: dude wtf is your problem colorut? don't you realize this whole 9/11 'DEBATE' has been watered out & theres nothing to talk about really 
i mean.. we argue & actually give facts & you argue with youtube vids :/ you won't see our points and we won't see your points (unless you give me something that i think is truly valid - which is yet to come i hope) .. so until then. let the KoolKidsKlub of harry potter prosper in this thread. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton YUKII: dude wtf is your problem colorut? don't you realize this whole 9/11 'DEBATE' has been watered out & theres nothing to talk about really i mean.. we argue & actually give facts & you argue with youtube vids :/ you won't see our points and we won't see your points (unless you give me something that i think is truly valid - which is yet to come i hope) .. so until then. let the KoolKidsKlub of harry potter prosper in this thread. |
Damn, this has got to be the longest running thread in all of TA.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} bentham |
| quote: |
Bentham Editor Resigns over Steven Jones' Paper Looks like the "peer-review" didn't include the editor: "They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Universit� Pierre et Marie Curie in France . The language sounds a little stilted, but it's translated from the original (Danish). Update: A translation of the article from Steve S, one of our commenters: Editor in chief resigns after controversial article on 9/11 28 April 2009 From videnskab.dk ( Danish science news service) An article on explosives in the World Trace Center was published in a scientific journal without the editor in chief knowing about it. Now she is resigning, she tells Videnskab.dk ([science.denmark]) By Thomas Hoffman ([email protected]). It created a great attention, surprise and suspicion when the Open Chemical Physics Journal in April published a scientific article on remains of nanothermite which were found in great amounts in the dust from the WTC. One those most surprised is apparently the editor in chief of the journal. Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about he article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article�s content. The e-mail got her to immediately close the door to the journal. �I resign as the editor in chief�, was the abrupt answer in an email to videnskab.dk PRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION A telephone call reveals that editor in chief Marie-Paule Pileni had never been informed that the article was going to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal giant Bentham Science Publishers. �They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them�, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France. She feels not only stabbed in the back, but is puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal. �I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.� Concludes the former editor in chief. FAILING GRADES TO THE JOURANL The editor-in-chief�s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article�s conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad. Nevertheless, the publication gets her to give the Open Chemical Physics Journal failing grades. �I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal�, says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues: �There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it�, is the harsh verdict. The professor informs us that a few years ago she was invited to be editor in chief of a journal which would open new possibilities for new researchers and because she supports the idea of open access journals where the articles are accessible to everyone, she said, �Yes� thank you. �It is important to allow people to try and gain success, but one should not be allowed to do everything, and all this is certainly a bunch of nonsense. I try to be a serious researcher, and I will not have my name connected with this kind of thing,� concludes Marie-Paule Pileni. DOES NOT CHANGE THE INVESTIGATION The editor-in-chief�s decision is viewed as regrettable by the Danish chemist Niels Harrit, who is one of the authors to the controversial article on nanothermite in the dust from the WTC. �It surprises me, of course, and it is regrettable, if it discredits our work. But her departure doesn�t change our conclusions, for it is a purely personnel related thing she his angry about. I still believe that we have carried out chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our study, she is welcome to criticize us for it,� says Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the Institute of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. It is Niels Harrit�s coauthor Steven Jones who was in charge of contact to Bentham, and therefore the Danish researcher is presently not aware which responsible assistant editor the group has been communicating with. However, he does know the names of the two researchers �so-called referees�who have reviewed he article, but he will not give their names because they �are in principle anonymous�. DANE WITHDREW FROM THE JOURNAL Niels Harrit�s superior at the University of Copenhagen, Nils O. Andersen has himself participated in the pool of researchers who could be selected as editor, on an article which should be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He has recently chosen to resign from the journals Editorial Advisory Board. He informs videnskab.dk that the decision has nothing to do with Niels Harrit�s article, and that he otherwise did not achieve having any experiences with the journals, so that he cannot shed further light on how the journal operates. �Open access is an exciting development, and as a principle the idea should be tried out for there is no reason for the commercial publishers to earn money from our work. But professionally, the journal lay at the margin of my expertise, and as I had said No to be editor of two articles, I decided that I would not use my time on anything else.�, explains Nils O. Andersen, dean of the faculty of Natural Sciences and editor of the European Physical Journal D. It has not yet been possible to get any comment from Bentham Science Publishers. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co...ver-steven.html |
As always KFC posts more links to screwloosechange (LOL) when he cannot deny the hard evidence that nano thermate actually was found in the Trade Towers 9/11 debris.
Denial. Got some?
Awesome read regarding the governments undeniable involvement in the 9/11 cover up.
Author: Fitzgerald libel threat aimed at censoring key 9/11 tale
Powerful prosecutor�s efforts to suppress book virtually guarantees elevated sales.
Peter Lance should be thanking Patrick Fitzgerald right now, even as the attorney�s checks are being signed.
If it were not for the U.S. Attorney who famously prosecuted I. Lewis �Scooter� Libby, the former Vice President�s Chief of Staff, the re-release of Lance�s stunning tale of mishandled espionage leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, might be overlooked.
�While some contend that Mohamed�s intimate relations with the FBI and CIA are proof of government involvement in a 9/11 plot, Lance says that it was instead embarrassment and ass-covering on the part of Justice and Pentagon officials over the mishandling of Ali Mohammed that led first to a conspiracy of silence and then to a conspiracy to cover up their incompetence and deception,� noted author Rory O�Connor in November, 2006. �He believes that chagrin over the fact that bin Laden�s spy stole top-secret intelligence (including, for example, the positions of all Green Beret and SEAL units worldwide) led to a decision on high to bury the entire Able Danger intelligence program, which identified the Al Qaeda cell active in Brooklyn months before the 9/11 attacks, and also identified Ali Mohamed as a member of bin Laden�s inner circle as early as March 2000.�
�In 1996, Fitzgerald and other top officials discredited a treasure trove of al Qaeda-related evidence, including evidence of an active al Qaeda cell operating in NYC five years before 9/11 and of a bin Laden plot to hijack a plane to free Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman�intelligence considered so important that it was later cited in the infamous Presidential Daily Briefing given to George W. Bush just weeks before 9/11,� noted HarperCollins in a press release.
Mohamed is allegedly still alive today, though his whereabouts is unknown.
The former ABC News investigative reporter�s book Triple Cross hit relatively few shelves in 2006 as a hardcover and left retail quietly, almost completely ignored. Now, with its paperback release looming, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is threatening to sue over material which he calls �defamatory� and �easily proven to be objectively false,� some of which touches on little known information relating to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Because of the threat, the reissue of Triple Cross received attention from The Washington Post, Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, among others.
�That�s the lesson of censorship,� chided Lance, speaking to RAW STORY.
The dark plots of Ali Mohamed
Ali Mohamed, according to Lance, was something of an al Qaeda super-spy who managed to work with terrorists, the Green Berets, the CIA and become an FBI informant, even while ensuring Osama bin Laden�s safe passage around the middle east. For years, Triple Cross alleges, the FBI and specifically Fitzgerald, knew about him but allowed Mohamed�s activities to continue unchecked.
Mohamed, Lance wrote, was actually responsible for writing portions of the terror network�s training manual and played a key role in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa which left over 200 dead.
�Defamatory�
Fitzgerald, in one of several letters (PDF link) to the book�s publisher, argued that a number of the allegations are �defamatory.�
�Allegations that a government attorney lied and concealed evidence are defamatory per se because such allegations: impute that I have engaged in criminal activity (making false statements, which is an offense in itself and which constitutes perjury when contained in a sworn affidavit; and obstruction of justice); impute that I lack integrity in performing employment duties; and otherwise prejudices me in my profession,� he wrote.
He further alleges that Lance�s statements are �actionable� in that they were �published with actual malice.�
�It is outrageous to falsely accuse me of causing those deaths [on 9/11] corruptly,� Fitzgerald said. He has called on the publisher to withdraw the book from stores and refrain from publishing the paperback.
�Patrick Fitzgerald accuses me of making charges in the book that I never made,� Lance told the Associated Press. �At the same time, he continually fails to respond to the substantive allegations documented in 604 pages, 1,425 end notes and 32 pages of documentary appendices.�
After the publisher�s attorneys vetted Lance�s text, which ultimately suffered only incidental modification, Triple Cross ended up 26 pages longer; the new material apparently detailing Fitzgerald�s attempt to censor it and Lance�s specific rebuttals.
�What Patrick Fitzgerald tried to do is almost unprecedented,� Lance told RAW STORY. �It�s amazing, really. Arguably the most powerful prosecutor in America is trying to kill my book.�
�Triple Cross has become Patrick Fitzgerald�s obsession,� he commented to Geoff Metcalf, writing for Accuracy in Media.
While declaring the book to be Fitzgerald�s �obsession� may be presumptuous, it is certainly safe to predict that the paperback release of Triple Cross will become the obsession of many more readers than it would have if the U.S. Attorney had never attempted to censor it.
The paperback is due in bookstores everywhere on June 16.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06...osive-911-tale/
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i bet i could get your dad's centerfold pics published in bentham. spin that, dickheads |
| quote: |
Editor in chief of Open Chemical Physics Journal resigns after controversial article on 9/11 by SnowCrash 911blogger.com The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: �Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe� was published, resigned, claiming she wasn�t informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: �Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.�. Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that. I�ll quote you an excerpt of her resume: OTHER ACTIVITIES 1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research. 1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the �Institut des Hautes Etudes de D�fense Europ�enne�. 1987-1988: Member of the ��Institut des Hautes Etudes de D�fense Nationale� (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in ChemistryEDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP 2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society. Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis. 2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society. CONSULTING EXPERIENCE 1990-1994: Soci�t� Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives) LABORATORY MANAGEMENT 2001: Laboratoire des mat�riaux m�soscopiques et nanom�triques, LM2N. 1992-2000: Structure et r�activit� des syst�mes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems) Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. It�s reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni�s contention that �the topic lies outside my field of expertise� is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling. |
And all that aside, let's not waver from the fact that active nano-thermite was found in a laboratory setting, using an electron microscope. The picture I posted was rather large, you should be able to find it somewhere on the last page.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton YUKII: dude wtf is your problem colorut? don't you realize this whole 9/11 'DEBATE' has been watered out & theres nothing to talk about really i mean.. we argue & actually give facts & you argue with youtube vids :/ you won't see our points and we won't see your points (unless you give me something that i think is truly valid - which is yet to come i hope) .. so until then. let the KoolKidsKlub [][/]of harry potter prosper in this thread. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} So..have you read it yet? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut LOL, doubt it. Looking at that post we would be better off offering a pack of crayons to these people. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Spin that, troll-doll. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov It's from 911blogger.com. Is any further spin needed? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Blah blah blah, at least I'll spare you the 'yo mama' horseshit. MTV would love to have you, by the way. Quid pro quo: Spin that, troll-doll. |
| quote: |
�I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal�, says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues: �There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it�, is the harsh verdict. |
| quote: |
| lols, i love the desperation and attempts by the truthers to try and spin what is blatant evidence that the bentham "journal" is a sham, with no peer review and articles published without their editors being informed. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} He blithely dismissed solid evidence in favour of some benign prattery from screwloosechange.blogspot, hence my 'Quid pro quo' statement. Anyways! |
so, when do you guys expect this bentham article to get traction and actually do something? what would you say it has influenced the most?
Paying to publish an article regardless of content isn't exactly a peer-reviewed journal. This is your Holy Grail of evidence?
Also, hyperbole doesn't help your case. To take deficiencies in the scope of the 9/11 commission that exist due to resources and time more than anything else and to extrapolate that into widespread conspiracy among all members of the government (including federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald?) is quite a stretch and doesn't lend a lot of credence to your story.
You guys are still dancing around the fact that they found nano thermite in the 9/11 debris. This is hard evidence, it did not come from the aircraft, the materials in the trade towers or even the magical jet fuel you guys believe led to "thermal expansion" in the towers eventually causing them to blow the fuck up.
Cannot answer that one can you, no screwloosechange links for this one right KFC?
And yes the fact that the 9/11 commission was a cover up and actually omitted tons of evidence should tell you a lot. Making excuses for an investigation that failed at the highest levels shows the official story cannot hold up when questioned (properly) and neither can the individuals who support it.
The official story, the trade towers , the airplanes, the evidence and the people who believe the fairy tale all have something in common, there is nothing to back them up but a myth which crumbles as soon as you ask one simple question.
The only way around it is to stick to the fairy tale while lying more and have the mass sheep who cannot think for themselves drink the kool aid all day long.
Colorut, you don't understand. If you can't get your views into a legitimate scientific journal, you have no credibility, no matter what you find. I honestly, would like this to happen, so that we can investigate where this thermite supposedly came from. At this time, we can't do that.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut You guys are still dancing around the fact that they found nano thermite in the 9/11 debris. This is hard evidence, it did not come from the aircraft, the materials in the trade towers or even the magical jet fuel you guys believe led to "thermal expansion" in the towers eventually causing them to blow the fuck up. |
of said journal, the findings are irrefutable. Active nano-thermite is not a bi-product of muthafuckin' office fires, and that the majority of the scientific community will not acknowledge this proverbial 'loaded gun' as fact is worrisome, to say the least; as it speaks volumes of their own 'credibility'.
Oh man, do I have a deal or two for some of you guys...
First of all, what is "nano-thermite?" I cannot find a definition of it--Wikipedia has no entry for it. (Conspiracy perhaps?)
secondly, why bother with a convoluted, dangerous, complex, risky, highly uncertain cover-up plan with hijacked airplanes if you meant to use this "nano-thermite" stuff all along? I mean, the airplanes essentially give an alert to everyone in the buildings to get the fuck out, whereas quietly detonating thousands of tons of some mysterious explosive could probably kill the maximum number of people possible without risking the likelihood that several thousand would escape certain death, and certainly negating the need for 19 terrorists and a few hundred innocent civilians in the air to go through the motions and give their lives for something that would've been much easier to pull off without their sacrifice (and probably just as easy to blame on some "terrorist organization").
Thirdly, was there any of this "nano thermite" stuff found in the Pentagon too? Or was it just limited to airplane parts?
Fourthly, does some sweet sounding scientificy term like "nano" thermite make it sound more credible or something? What if we referred to the planes as "tactical hybrid missile-jets?" while calling "nano thermite" something like "really hot blow-uppy stuff?" I'm not even sure nanotechnology was sophisticated enough in 2001 to have something called "nano-thermite," let alone thousands of tons of it that could be invisibily and undetectably smuggled into two of the largest, most secure skyscrapers in the world at the time, and then rigged, with incredible precision, to bring down two buildings while at the same time making it look strikingly obvious that those very buildings were brought down by the weight of the floors above airplane impact crashing down like a million tons of bricks on a woven structure of steel and concrete?
Seriously.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Seriously. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.