Great discussion here about Pres Hinckleys talk. I as many of you have been confused as to the meaning of it. He seems to say some things that appear to be completely off base, Such as the statement about defending our families, liberty etc, and defending liberty wherever it is in jeopardy and so forth.

I have been praying to understand what all of this meant for the last few years because I want to not only to be sincere in my beliefs, but i want to be “right” as well.

It c ame to my mind that perhaps since Pres H inckley is speaking to a world wide audiance that we should look at the talk from a worldwide perspective. Read the talk again but pretend you are a saint in iraq, France or Japan, the talk takes on a new meaning. The talk will likely have different meanings to people in these various countries.

Let em know if you see it this way. As always I love to learn from all of you.

it sounds like you have read a few govt reports and said “Case closed”. surely you can see this just isn’t right?

ditto OKC bombing. we now know (as we did then) that the building was bought down by explosives inside the building, and not _just_ mcveigh and a truck.

doesn’t the_absence_of site material for analysis disturb
you?

no video footage, no flight recorder (ever heard of that happening before, let alone 4 times in 1 day?), no building materials left. I mean who scooped up the materials from all 4 sites and sent them to the Bottom of the ocean or wherever. ? you don’t think we might have wanted to look at it later on? in a murder case do you cremate the body before the autopsy ?

add it all up!!

then consider who benefited from it.

And nobody claiming responsibility for it? hmmm

what kind of heat sliced those WTC metal beams at a 45degree angle?

just because many say there are anomolies that indicate explosives or thermite doesn’t mean that our government did it.

5 words from the NYFD Trent, “boom-boom-boom-boom-boom”

what was that do you think.?

have you ever thought of contacting your former professor to discuss or clarify with him? i’m sure he’d remember you, you seem a memorable type of character.

while we’re reminiscent of your technical magnificence, I don’t find any specific critiques of the 13 points he made in his original paper on 911, nor any mention of his latest paper which provides an update on metal-catalyzed fusion research — confirmation by outside labs of his 1989 claims in the journal NATURE.

His BYU research web site is still active and records these confirmations, with specific references and quotations.

And although you call him mediocre, I wonder if you have been published in Scientific American, in Nature 3 times, in Physical Review Letters?

or, are you just like me……just another internet loudmouth and know it all?

What I said about Jones is relevant to the discussion, he was a centerpiece and co-founder of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. You are truly oblivious to not acknowledge him as a centerpiece of the movement. I never commented on his base intelligence, his morality, or his religion as you have about anyone that ever supported or supports the war. If he puts himself out there as an expert then it is fair game to question his authority on the subject. Because of his lack of expertise and past he really had no right to do the research in my opinion. Yes I have watched the video hundreds of times, in slow mo, still photos and do not hold your opinion in the least. I’m not alone in this opinion at all among the foremost experts in demolition, physics, and engineering.

“What happens if the govt comes out and acknowledges that there must have been explosives in the building. Does your argument shift?”

What happens if the church comes out and says Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet? See how I did that? They won’t acknowledge there were explosives in the building, because there wasn’t.

Anyway, time to listen to Connor. No more about 9/11 for me.

>>>>>>> You are confusing being right with being intelligent. You can be an intelligent person and still be wrong.

Trent you are probably right with the 1st paragraph, bit, in regards to the war, no, you can’t hope to call yourself intelligent and still think this was/ is a good thing

>>>>Brigham Young is quoted saying there are people on the moon, so was he not intelligent?
It was Joseph Smith, as said by a 90yr old called Oliver B Huntington if I remember the god-makers, he heard it when he was 10yrs old too. B.Y might have too though

>>>>I have studied a large number of papers on both sides

Just watch the video of WTC7 falling, you need research papers to tell you that it is not right?

>>>>Jones….. has no special expertise more than my brother or me to comment on this stuff. His work … very mediocre ……the cold fusion guys ……..has shown a propensity to work on things that the majority of the scientific community doesn’t believe in…… other people believe buildings a cloaked plane firing a laser. ….character references

Mate, that’s not a reference, that’s called an assassinatation!

>>>>is because Jones is quoted more than any other author on this matter and has been the center piece in this.
Jones? Centrepiece? What crap. WTC7 is, if anything. Is thi swhy you just assassinated the guy? And the other 300 anomolies? but we’re not here to debate 9/11

>>>>>I have read at least 100 pages of technical documents on this and personally believe there is no way you could ever believe this was done by the government.

What happens if the govt comes out and acknowledges that there must have been explosives in the building. Does your argument shift?

>>>> People WANT to believe that the Bush administration is not only incompetent, but downright evil. It is the same as people believing we didn’t land on the moon.

You forgot to mention the Protocols of Zion and that I must be a holocaust denier because I am pro-palestine and therefore anti-semitic,and anti semites are holocaust deniers. Did you miss anything in there?

>>>>> It feels like a bunch of piranhas waiting for someone to say something wrong.

I’ll admit to being a Pharisee if you do too

That all said, the weight of scientific evidence is so much in the favor of the original explanation it isn’t even close. How many papers have you actually read? Jones major talking point used by Hollywood and you, should actually make you question the entirety of Jones work. This of course is his theory of thermite. Like I said, Jones is not a demolition expert by any stretch, and his lack of knowledge about these materials is quite evident. Thermite is unpredictable and very slow burning. It is never used in demolitions, because a proper demolition relies on all contact points going off near simultaneously.

Read here under the section Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools. I can give you 20-30 more articles supporting this point. Demolitions are not done using thermite, and to suggest this is absurd if he would have spent time researching. That was the thrust of the argument from the civil engineering department at BYU. He didn’t even consult people with much more experience than him. It is like a hardware IT guy writing a book on programming in C++.

The people refuting these theories are not Bush apologists. Almost across the board they are liberal or completely against the war. Like the author above says, don’t fight ignorance with ignorance. Jones paper reads much like a normal college science paper in my opinion. He often throws out evidence with no reason just like a young student would. Jones has no credentials to make the claims he did in his paper, and his astonishing lack of research on the materials he supposes were used shows it.

I know this is a completely biased site, but this page shows a very good breakdown of the conspiracy movement and who is involved. There are no engineers of any merit. A lot of philosophy professors though…hmmmm.

Kelly, both my brother and I graduated in the sciences at BYU, my brother graduating in engineering. We both took a high level physics class from Jones. I have studied a large number of papers on both sides without really reading the official government accounts so I’m not being “brainwashed”. Jones is a nuclear physicist, and has no special expertise more than my brother or me to comment on this stuff. His work in my opinion was very mediocre in both research and documentation. This isn’t me repeating someone, I have read it in its entirety as well as researched pictures, metals, etc. Jones helped work with the cold fusion guys at Utah and still works towards this end. He has shown a propensity to work on things that the majority of the scientific community doesn’t believe in. He has had to split from the original people he was running with as they now believe the buildings were taken out by a cloaked plane firing a laser. The reason I bring up these character references is because Jones is quoted more than any other author on this matter and has been the center piece in this. I have read at least 100 pages of technical documents on this and personally believe there is no way you could ever believe this was done by the government. I could go on. I promise I have studied it extensively and no matter how much proof I give to the contrary people will believe what they want to. People WANT to believe that the Bush administration is not only incompetent, but downright evil. It is the same as people believing we didn’t land on the moon.

Seriously, I have never commented on a blog where there is more of a mob mentality. People are searching for any little mistake in wording or something “anti constitution” so they can jump down their throat. It is this same attitude that will doom any chance of Ron Paul in any type of general election. It feels like a bunch of piranhas waiting for someone to say something wrong.

Perhaps (but I think not) Professor Jones is wrong. But he has more proofs, evidence and logic than the official conspiracy theory.

Since the FBI claims it has no proof or evidence to convict Osama, this leaves open the fact that those who actually did perpetrate 9/11 are still out there, because we haven’t found anyone guilty of it yet. Hmmmm.

Great reply to a good question.
I could only add to that, that these are our servants, and that we should not be one for works of darkness. As soon as we let people hide behind “national security”, more and more abuses are made.
The Straussian philosophy is that “the end justifies the means” and that the public, could not handle the full truth if they were made aware of it. Therefore, rules are generally smarter and more informed, and can use any truth to placate the masses in order to bring about the end that they seek.
I am sure many of our rules have good intentions, and best ends in mind, its just that that is an easily abused and manipulated position to hold, and is too easy for corporate interests to get a free ride along the way. Rarely is the publics actual best interest the final objective