ah, the HAARP research, i though the preferred consipracy theory on this one is mind control and burning up the ionospheres? or as the russion prefer to believe it is a weapon to capsize the planet?

so pretty it is all of these

An ionospheric heater
A research tool
A military test bed
A tax-subsidized boondoggle
A directed-energy weapon
A communication system for submarines
A source of field-aligned ionospheric VHF reflectors
A way to improve satellite links
A planetary x-ray machine
A plot to depopulate the Third World
A means of creating power blackouts at will
Electronic warfare
Tesla's wireless power transmission
Tesla's secret death ray
Searching for space aliens
Killing space aliens
Killing off the militias
Keeping them awake at night (through RF head rectification)
Enforcing the New World Order
Creating nuclear-scale explosions Weather modification
CIA mind control
Brain wave modification
The end of HF radio
The end of wildlife in Alaska
The end of atmospheric ozone
The end of the human race
The end of Earth itself
this is the research of HAARP
do you have any proof that it signal can cause earthquake?

Apparently you did not watch the video demo by Brooks Agnew.

Looks like even science is not good enough as evidence for some people.

Brooks Agnew is a scientist?? is this the some guy that are promoting the hollow earth theory?

Just because he has a theory about the earth being hollow surely doesn't discredit the theories he put forward with experiments?
Maybe you'll love the crowd who diss Mahathir for suggesting that 911 could've been a controlled demolition, even with glaring evidence of military grade nano-thermite compounds and signatures of thousands of architects, engineers asking for a re-investigation.

may be there really is such thing as military grade nano-thermite compounds, but there is not hard evidence of it being found on ground zero. by the way how do they attach all those thermite to the 244 steel column without people notice? and this need to be done on many floor. you need to hack your way to the steel column and apply the thermite, the amount of thermite needed to cut through these massive column must be huge, where is the evidence of these thermite and how do they set it off?

on the other hand the cause of the WTC collapse have been well explained, with researcher in university and engineering expert

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...eagar-0112.html

and hollow earth is not a theory, it is a hypothesis with no supporting scientific evidence and one very big argument againts it which is gravity, if the earth is hollow it's gravity will be much lower that what it have currently.

Do notice that right after 911, USA invaded iraq under the pretext of WMD which they never found, and were proven to be lying. The real prize is the OIL.
ht]

i do believe that right after 9/11 they invade Afghanistan‎. do they invade to restart the valueble opium business?

Great, now we're back to science.
Can you elaborate on the Nuclear Sun Fusion theory vs the Electrical Sun Theory ? That would be quite an enlightening piece as well.
As for the nano-thermite thing, you don't plant it on the actual 911 event. They could've been planted weeks, months prior under different excuse of renovation.

is there such thing as the Electrical Sun Theory? i can only find The Electric Sun Hypothesis.

and nano thermite stuff, how do they do such a large scale operation of fitting he column with thermite without anyone notice, and how does the thermite cut through the thick steel, can you show a pratical way of cutting that 244 steel column in several floor in sequece? how do you light all those thermite, how come no one found out about the thermite sticking to the column? why is there no trace of thermite and the ignition source on group zero? why have none of the team that put in these thermite come out about the truth? have they been all killed? have there been any case before of thermite cutting through steel column as big as the one on the WTC? how long does it take? why do they use thermite and not explosive?

for normal demolition they have go per cut all the column so the dynamite have as little steel to cut through as possible, did they do the some on the WTC? doing so in a occupided building is extremely dangerous and can cause the column to break any time and they will need a large team many months to do this.

Well the idea of 911 truth movement is to initiate an investigation on how it was done, because nano-thermite compounds have been found in the debris.
As for electrical sun theory, ok whatever you want to call it, as you wish, but my understanding of the word 'theory' is just like any other understanding, which can or cannot be proven yet, just like the sun  nuclear fusion theory.
Why argue over the words just to wank intellectually ? How about explaining it to peasants like me in detail instead of dismissing anything that is not officially accepted by the majority (groupthink?) as non-worthy of studying ?
Or are we living in the flat earth society again where new ideas are pooh poohed to the ground because it doesn't jive with mainstream accepted definitions?

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law

i think you have misunderstanding of what scientific theory is
and there are many that think a theory is just a theory and not a fact before it is proven and become a scietific laws, which is what creationist usually use to try to discredit evolution.
btw i really like to see prove of the super nano thermite found on group zero.

Then the sun nuclear fusion can also fall into the same category lah. As if we actually proved the Sun nuclear fusion theory at all. Similar thing with what's inside the earth, gravity is just a theory, we've never actually been to the center of the earth.

Why does one person's word carry more weight than others even though he cannot really prove it as well? Aiya all this smells like religion to me. My god /religion is right and you're wrong. *LOL*

Seems even among science thinking people, they do not realize their believes are faith based as well, cannot be proven just like religion.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/t...s/thermite.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m...urgy/index.html

http://www.bollyn.com/game-over-evidence-o...e-in-the-rubble

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/88685
Here's the scientific paper.

http://911review.com/energeticmaterials09/OCPJ/7TOCPJ.pdf

Original link here
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

science does not need faith, anything that cannot be proven cannot be consider science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

since we can calculate the mass of the earth from the gravity and we have now dig until 12km into the the crust, we basiclly know the composition and weight of the 12km of crust. then all the remainding mass must be in the core bellow. a hollow earth model must explain where all the mass come from if the center in empty. the inner layer are obeserve through seismic activity so the different inner layer of earth have been established by geologist

many geologist have done studies on the content and density of the core for many years, there are different opinion on the composition and density of each layer. but i dont see convincing evident for earth being hollow. can you tell us why you think the earth is hollow? if the earth is hollow what is in the center on it?
now this thread have get off topic, getting back to the topic is there any concrete evidence that the earth quake have been set off on purpose?

I give up. Have it your way. I bet you didn't even read the pdf.

The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio
who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was
on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time
the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He
saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick
dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful
of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the
end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the
North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom
Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of
them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic
bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust
to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his
testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape
[17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected
about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It
was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting
or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began
later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7,
which fell hours later.
On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New
York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of
1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found
a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry
near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm).
Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount
of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the
room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and,
on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis.
Another sample was collected from the apartment building
at 16 Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm
on 9/12/2001. Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously
sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008
for analysis. Intermont sent a signed affidavit with each
sample verifying that he had personally collected the (nowsplit)
sample; he wrote:
“This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’
World Trade Center Towers, was collected from
my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hudson
Street on September 12, 2001. I give permission
to use my name in connection to this
evidence”. [Signed 31 January 2008 in the presence
of a witness who also signed his name].
On the morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay
was in her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty
St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC
plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of
dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break
inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly
wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building.
The building was closed for entry for about a week. As
soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment,
she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick
layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a
large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art
piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006
paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November
2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms.
MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several
witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust
directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored.
She has also sent samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and
Kevin Ryan. Results from their studies form part of this report.
Another dust sample was collected by an individual from
a window sill of a building on Potter Street in NYC. He has
not given permission for his name to be disclosed, therefore
his material is not included in this study. That sample, however,
contained red/gray chips of the same general composition
as the samples described here.

did you read the pdf? the sample they tested are not directly from the WTC debris and not collected right after the collapse, how can we know that the sample are real and there is no contamination?
the paper does not establish that some sort of super thermite have cut down the column, and dust sample collected around WTC does not have barium which is expected if the thermite reaction.

http://www.911myths.com/html/where_s_the_barium_.html

It's mentioned in the pdf they did find barium as well.
The pdf also mentioned the dusts are provided by the 4 witnesses who signed and willing to testify.
Of course, that doesn't matter, because Robert Ngo is more credible, he said so.
Robert Ngo's 1 liner is enough to debunk an entire 25 page scientifically researched document by more than 5 experts/scientists from well known universities.
Robert Ngo's words should be taken for gospel truth even if he glossed over other people's work deliberately, conveniently.
When these pseudo-scientists asked for science based evidence studies, then you give it to them, then they don't bother to read through, then resorted to derail, pollute the arguments, misdirect and use any methods whatsoever to win the argument.
Hey tell you what, I am not going to let you take me around in circles. I'll let others be the judge for themselves by reading the PDF.

You can bask in your own glory and celebrate your victory. Just dismiss everything as 'conspiracy theory' if you so desire. That's the trademark we've seen of pseudo-scientists who are more 'religiously' scientific than scientifically scientific.

Wait let me guess. You're going to attack the messenger now instead of scrutinizing his points.


It seems to be a very well known tactic that people who avoid debating the science, resort to ridiculing the messengers instead. Your long list of bringing out conspiracy theories about HAARP is already an indicator you're going for personal attack instead of addressing the theories and science.

wow, now who is doing personal attack here

from you own post just this afternoon
so why are you avoiding to debating the science?

using 9/11 conpiracy theory and hollow earth to avoid answering question about how HAARP earth quake machine work?

I've given the links. Let the readers decide for themselves.
Anything else is just tunjuk who got bigger balls only lah.
Since you like to label opinions counter to your own as conspiracy theory to shut the debate up, what's the point of continuing ?
It doesn't matter to me whether you or I win the debate because like I said, it's just tunjuk siapa bola lebih besar.
You asked for the evidence of nanothermite, I gave the the scientifically researched link. Then you rebuke it so easily and lied about no barium mentioned in the pdf when a search for 'barium' clearly shows it's mentioned.

You lied. Anyone with the pdf searching 'barium' can find it there.

I am quite sure you're not a science person. Let the readers read and decide for themselves.

I am way too humble to try to win every argument.
So how about it ? Let you win the argument, happy or not ?

Or you can always continue to exhaust that 'conspiracy theory' label to just shut people up.
Gracias.

Here's the scientific paper.

http://911review.com/energeticmaterials09/OCPJ/7TOCPJ.pdf

Original link here
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

  Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU