md65536

I see now. On the first video I posted they've cut that part out, making it seem like the 6.6-second collapse of the outer part is the entirety of the collapse. That certainly damages the credibility of the claims made in the video.

I don't know. Failing to keep one secret does not prove that no secrets can be kept. The answer is related to the answer to "How did the truth come out about the Iraq war?" As OP said, Many people are speaking up but they're still being ignored. Perhaps a key difference is that much of the 9/11 evidence (for either side) is scientific and highly technical; perhaps the evidence related to Iraq was easier for average people to understand, or harder to hide behind intricate explanations. Another aspect is that 9/11 is history, while the Iraq was ongoing, and perhaps there was the ultimately false sense that exposing the lie could prevent the continuation of the war. Many people seem to just not care, perhaps believing that nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again, as per the old saying in Tennessee, "Fool me — You can't get fooled again." Personally I prefer, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," as authorities certainly learn from what they do and don't get away with. But like I said, if NIST's science made more sense to me I'd be more confident in their version.

My answer to this is also, "no". The NIST explanation is that a beam was knocked off its seat. If you watch the video of the collapse, and consider that an east section of the building is unsupported and begins to fall, pulling the westward sections off their support, allowing them to fall, does this seem reasonable? The east section begins to fall only slightly before the west. Look at the very short distance that the east section falls before completely removing the support of the west sections. Another possibility is that the westward supports were already removed before the east side began to collapse. For example, if an eastward beam was knocked off its seat and collapsed, pulling and breaking westward supports, and then the unsupported top/outer structure began to fall. This would mean that the support structure was completely compromised by fire without using any of the kinetic energy of the collapsing building to help demolish the supports. Does this seem reasonable? There may be other reasonable possibilities. The NIST explanation does not seem plausible to me, but I can't prove at this point that none of these possibilities are at all possible. Wouldn't that make you want it to be investigated more, before you accepted the explanation that you doubted? Conspiracy theories often arise when the accepted explanation doesn't make sense to people, and they're forced to consider alternatives that do. The problem is that a lot of things that have good scientific explanations, don't make sense to a lot of people. Then others group all doubters of "the official explanation" as conspiracy nuts ("if you think the NIST findings are dubious then obviously you think the moon landing was faked too" etc). The question of this thread involves whether an explanation of the 3 towers' collapse is scientifically valid without involving controlled demolition.

Sure, I'll answer it if you answer mine. Mine can also be answered yes or no, though an explanation of any answer would be acceptable because I know it's not really simple.

How do you answer a question like "What is IT?"? Say you're considering at the moment just two options A or B. To be able to answer that IT is one but not the other, there must be some difference between A and B, that you could ascertain. Then if you can show that IT is like A but not B, you can say that IT may be A but is not B. Science is concerned with these questions. Science is also concerned with the question "Is there even a detectable difference between A and B?" Science is not concerned with a question like "If there's no way to tell if IT is A or B, then which is IT really???" Philosophy may be concerned with such questions, but some of those questions can be proven with science to be unanswerable. I would say that philosophy is relevant to science because at the very least there's a lot of overlap between the two, but that the answers to unanswerable questions are not relevant to science. That's why experimental evidence is so important. If there's no practical difference whether IT is A or B, how can you ever answer the question? How can you know the answer? What would the point of an answer be, if it really made no possible difference?

Really, this comment is rated up? I thought it was kind of off-topic. Fine, I'll answer it. Yes, I believe that men landed on the moon. I've seen evidence in favor of and opposed to the claim. All the evidence that I've seen against it can be simply and plausibly explained in ways that are consistent with humans having actually landed on the moon. It was certainly a situation outside normal human existence, so like 9/11 it evokes many conspiracy theories. But unlike 9/11, the official story regarding the details of space travel do not contradict basic high school-level physics etc. Here's a direct question for you, in return: Do you think that the US government has never lied to the country to justify either entering into armed conflicts or acquiring additional authoritative power?

Not relevant to WTC 7.

Yes, I don't believe in a lot of things. Is it not also that way for you? Are there only a few things you don't believe? I say the video proves that it's possible to cut girders with thermite (or thermate). I call it "science". Edit: Sorry, I misread that... I thought they were both "not believe". My evidence #5 didn't involve "experts" but people directly involved in conversations about plans to demolish the buildings. No, my confidence in their testimony is not 100%. I've already agreed that point #5 can be ignored. Quote: The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained. -- Richard Feynman When you provide evidence that the official explanation is plausible, it increases my confidence in that. When you show that a simpler possibility is comparably likely, it decreases my confidence that a conspiracy theory is the correct conclusion. I should hope that the converse is true for all of us, but it appears not to be so. If someone's claim (no matter how much of an expert/s they are) goes against my understanding of the world and against common sense, then the science has to be pretty damn convincing before I'll accept it. NIST's science is suspect.

I believe it's viewed from midtown. This video shows multiple angles: Not a lot more to see, but the upper left video shows that the northwest and southwest corners of the building fell in unison. I still have no confidence in the official report, but I can't prove (beyond the evidence I've already posted) that the very rapid domino-effect collapse described on wikipedia, is impossible. If you think that the official explanation is reasonable, after considering the counter arguments, enough that you have no doubt in the validity of that explanation, then I don't think I can change your mind.

I was going by information in the thread. If the official story is that debris didn't contribute to the collapse, then it must be that fire alone (using only the building and its contents as fuel) caused a near simultaneous structural failure of all of the building's interior supports. If the official story is that debris was significant in the destruction of the inner columns, it (and the fire) was still insufficient to completely compromise the structural integrity of the outer support (at least timely enough that the outer building could fall on its own -- it was pulled down by the inner supports as we've agreed).

Yes, the video evidence is consistent with this idea. 1) The top central part is seen beginning to fall before the surrounding part. 2) The plot of rooftop height has a sharp initial change in velocity instead of the smooth curve of constant acceleration. This means that the outer part of the building actually fell faster than free-fall at the start, as it was pulled down. Since the outer part's average speed was roughly that of free-fall, it would have accelerated at a lower rate than free-fall later on. The inner core could fall slower than free-fall, consistent with NIST's report. This is consistent with controlled demolition. I think that it strengthens the case for controlled demolition. It means that the outer portion of the building was supported for longer than the inner core was supported. This would happen if only the inner main support was demolished, as is typically done with controlled demolition. If someone can provide a reasonable explanation for the official case, where debris from outside the building must have severely damaged the inner core of the building, but left the outer part structurally sound, that would certainly increase my confidence in the official story. As it stands, I must conclude that the official story requires either that debris weakened the core while leaving the exterior structurally intact, or that neither were significantly weakened by debris and that fire alone (using only the building and its contents as fuel) caused a near simultaneous structural failure of all of the building's interior supports.

My previous post re. pools of molten metal suggest that it did burn. The previously posted video www.youtube.com/watch?v=DonpXB6gjPA#t=8m16s demonstrates that modest amounts of thermite can be shaped to cut through steel beams. The same video shows, as http://www.benthamsc...V002/7TOCPJ.pdf claims, that thermite can react explosively. I'm confused by what you mean by "the massive amounts that would have been needed". Needed for what? To produce the results that we saw on that day? If your argument is that the buildings fell solely from the impact of the planes and the burning of jet fuel and building contents, then why would any explosives be needed? To clarify, I'm not arguing that the planes and the fires didn't contribute to the towers' destruction. I'm not even arguing that it's impossible that the towers could fall from impact+fires alone. What I'm arguing is that the evidence indicates that they didn't, ie that there were other factors that conspired that day. I'll accept that 3 can be scratched off the list because it's not a very sciencey argument. I don't accept that it was perfectly reasonable. The Bush administration had to fight a lot of people to keep information hidden, to stymie investigations, to keep things quiet. They didn't do it in the best interests of people "to tidy the mess" because they were fighting people who wanted the investigations done. Finding out the truth was in the best interests of the people. It's possible that there was a good reason that they had to lie and cover up -- perhaps it was in everyone's best interest -- but that would still fall under the category of "the official explanation is not the truth." Evidence of the moon landing wasn't quickly "tidied up" and destroyed. This video shows 3 things to address your comments: 1) The collapse of WTC 7 is clearly visible on video. Granted, the twin towers were shrouded in pyroclastic clouds and your argument is acceptable for them. 2) It really does show free-fall speeds. 3) At 3:30 it explains what I meant -- if the energy used to destroy the beams was extracted from the inertia (or I should have said kinetic energy) of falling floors, then the falling floors would be slowed. It's fairly clear you haven't read NIST's report on the subject, since they address this issue quite extensively. In fact, they specifically discount the "pancaking" theory. (To be fair I hadn't read it either.) "Pancaking" was the original official explanation, but when that was proven ridiculous they changed the official explanation. I think that 3 of the 5 remain valid. Also, OP's list of reasons yet haven't been shown to be invalid. I think we'd have to consider points 6 through 1000000 individually to determine their validity. Stop whenever. I think I have given a lot of evidence to back up OP's claims.

Both statements are incorrect. See www.youtube.c...XB6gjPA#t=8m16s (The link skips to several demonstrations of thermite cutting columns.) The simple answer is invalid. "Fire service doing something about it" doesn't invalidate the evidence of other larger, hotter fires burning for much larger in other skyscrapers. No need to compare to "ordinary" fires. Here are several examples of multi-seat, multi-floor fires: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html There are no examples of skyscrapers collapsing due to fire. The support structure of WTC 7 was not completely and uniformly compromised by debris. That's some good scientific reasoning there. No, just kidding. It is evidence, but I agree we won't get anywhere with it (especially scientifically) so we can remove #5 from the list. That's very true that people lie for many reasons. This applies to both sides of the argument. So we won't present evidence that is just what someone (including NIST) says unless it can be backed up or verified or reproduced.

"Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses" http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots I don't think anyone is claiming that anyone wanted it to look like a demolition. Obviously if it was a demolition then it was done covertly. Re. the video: A guy in a wife-beater saying "You'd need a bucket of thermite" is not a credible expert or anything. If thermite is used to cut steel beams, it is not done by putting a loose pile of it on a beam. That's like lighting a pile of gunpowder on a cannonball, watching it not move very far, and claiming that "they don't use gunpowder to launch cannonballs". The vertical columns didn't break?

Okay, I like this idea. But this isn't a court case. If it were I would be very poor representation, and I can't "close the case" for others who think the official story is bull. I think others should be encouraged to contribute. Also "top 5" is arbitrary... it really only requires one piece of evidence. I haven't done the research, but it's fair to expect that evidence must be provided for any claims that I want to stand by. My top 5 pieces of evidence: 1) All 3 buildings fell at near free-fall speeds. This is physically impossible if the "pancaking" floors had to counter any resistance to falling. The floors had to fall countering the resistance of vertical steel beams. This could be explainable if the floors were connected to the beams as weakly as possible, but then the floors would fall past the vertical columns. Either they slip past at near free-fall, or the energy required to destroy the vertical beams supporting each tower would have to come from somewhere, and if it's from the falling inertia of the floors, then they wouldn't fall at free-fall speeds. 2) Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane nor was its structure compromised by debris. All 3 towers officially fell due to fires. WTC 7 didn't have jet fuel burning to explain it as an extraordinary fire or anything like that. No comparable building has ever collapsed due to fire, even though there are many examples of comparable buildings burning with larger fires burning for much longer, with NO complete structural failure. Existing evidence is that such buildings do not suffer complete structural failure due to ordinary fires. 3) The Bush administration destroyed evidence and fought against independent investigation. This is not evidence of anything in particular, but it is suspicious. I don't accept as fact any scientific conclusion where the evidence is kept secret, destroyed, or made unscrutinizable. The Bush administration very literally was hiding something, which while unknown, makes their official "scientific" findings unreliable. 4) Evidence of thermite and explosives was found, and including destruction of steel supports that can't be attributed to fire. 5) Testimony of individuals having foreknowledge that the towers would be demolished.

That's true, but he made a "scientific conclusion" based on the statement of not being aware of any explosive residues. "I don't know if any explosive evidence was found, therefore I conclude that no explosives were present" is very different from "I am aware that there was a test made for explosives and it was negative, therefore I conclude that no explosives were present." I was asking for clarification on what he meant because it could be either. It's true, he doesn't need to provide evidence that no explosives were found, to argue against OP's claims or mine, but he does need to provide evidence to back up his own "scientific conclusions". I have demonstrated evidence of thermite found. This contradicts the conclusion that no explosives were present. -- Technically thermite isn't necessarily explosive so I might need to clean up my argument. It could be possible that the towers fell due to controlled demolition AND that no explosives were used in that process. However, 1) there is evidence of explosives, as seen in the video and witness testimony, and 2) the core argument of this thread is not limited to explosives, but rather "controlled demolition vs. structural failure directly caused by the planes". This is beside the point that anyone's "scientific conclusions" must be backed up. Then perhaps you have stronger evidence for unicorns than the Bush administration had for their explanation. However in your case, the "it was from drywall" explanation is reasonable and scientifically possible. I'm not aware* of any reasonable explanation that would explain the evidence of thermite in the rubble other than the use of demolitions. * (and if you challenge me on that, it would be up to me to provide evidence if I wanted to back up my claim that there's no explanation in the official story, for the evidence of thermite.) Unresolved fact: WTC 7 did not collapse due to a plane crashing into it. That explanation alone is invalid. I truly believe that you have to either trust the scientific integrity of the Bush administration over previous scientific understanding, and/or you have to ignore scientific principles altogether and accept what the state tells you (even if it's that 2+2 sometimes equals 5), in order to accept the official account of what happened.

I'm saying that "planes hit the buildings" is not enough sufficient evidence for the official explanation (which is dubious, for example that a building can fall at near free-fall speeds while "pancaking"). Occam's razor is not a law, and it doesn't state that "The simplest explanation is always the correct one." I think that "Planes hit the buildings, therefore that is the reason that they collapsed" is unscientific. As an example, yes I will claim that a plane didn't hit building 7, yet it collapsed in less than a day with *complete* structural failure. Therefore "planes hit the buildings" is not a sufficient explanation. Do you have evidence that no explosive residues were found, or are you just not aware of it? Here are references to evidence of explosives: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/351-advanced-pyrotechnic-or-explosive-material-discovered-in-wtc-dust.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

Does this mean that there is a lack of or insufficient evidence to support the idea of demolition? Or does it mean that there is scientific evidence that opposes or rules out the idea? Do you know of any scientific evidence that contradicts the controlled demolition theory?

No. How someone feels is not evidence. The qualifications of someone who has an opinion is not evidence. Sorry for making you waste your time posting stuff that you know is nonsense. A lot of AE911Truth is devoted to calling for an investigation and stuff. Its not all "evidence". I too don't want to waste my time reading everything on the site either, so how about just the points on the right side of http://www.ae911truth.org/? I've removed a few points that might be argued "not evidence". ---- WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: 1. Rapid onset of collapse 3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration 4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint 5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered: 8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples 9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses 10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire: 1. Slow onset with large visible deformations 2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires) 3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed. As seen in this revealing photo [http://www.ae911truth.org/], the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives: Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration Improbable symmetry of debris distribution Extremely rapid onset of destruction Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples Evidence of explosives found in dust samples And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire: Slow onset with large visible deformations Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed. Sorry, but that doesn't justify a lapse of scientific rigor. Would you accept similar reasoning if there was a claim that cold fusion was real, but the experiment was kept secret and then destroyed before it could be analyzed by others (even if there was a video of it working)? Would you accept findings in climate science if the result was "what everybody knows" but the data was not open to scrutiny? I think that the point I'm trying to argue is that if one needs to provide irrefutable evidence that the official 9/11 story is incorrect, that implies that the official story is accepted science. I would say that it is an appalling failure of science if the official story can be considered accepted science, the way that it came about. Edit: I suppose that I must accept that any claim needs to be backed up by evidence. It doesn't matter "what side it's on". A claim of "the Bush administration got it right" would need to be backed up by evidence. Arguing that the evidence is insufficient is NOT an argument that a counter-claim is correct. Similarly, I think we could all benefit from accepting that lack of evidence for one claim is not evidence for a counter-claim. Conversely, evidence for a counter-claim is (or can be?) evidence against a claim. In other words, a lack of evidence is not going to win any arguments either way (and unfortunately this case is wracked with missing evidence). However, arguing that the OP is wrong because there IS evidence against OP's contention, would require evidence.

How about the evidence provided here: http://www.ae911truth.org/ Part of the problem is that the government prevented a proper investigation, so a lot of the missing evidence was hidden and destroyed. There was a conspiracy. The government implemented a HUGE cover-up. That's not evidence that anything specific was covered up, but when the details of such a huge crime are hidden by the ones supplying the official story of what happened, that's extremely suspicious. Accepting the official story, when the evidence doesn't support that version, is as scientifically wrong as accepting the conspiracy theory without evidence. A proper investigation needs to be done, before the OP's post can be judged correct or not.

Sorry, I don't fully understand your post or the replies, but I agree that there is a "natural" direction of rotation. Things nearer to a gravitational mass orbit at faster speeds than things that are farther. So if you imagine the sun surrounded by a homogeneous cloud of dust orbiting it in circles, the inner circles are spinning faster than the outer ones. Imagine connecting two rocks at different orbits by a string, as a primitive model of the Earth. The rock closer to the sun travels faster than the other; tension on the string pulls the rock to a farther orbit while pulling the second rock to a closer orbit; the second rock ends up with an "inner track" and overcomes the first rock, and so on: These two rocks rotate in their orbit in the opposite direction that the Earth and other masses rotate. However, the solar system isn't a homogeneous mass. If you have 2 rocks on opposite sides of the earth, the rock farthest from the sun experiences the most gravitational acceleration relative to the sun, because the gravitational pull of the sun and the earth are in the same direction. The rock on the side nearest the sun is actually being pulled away from the sun by the earth's stronger (at this distance) gravitational pull. The result is that the natural circular orbit speed around the sun of a rock on the farther dark side of the earth is faster than the circular orbit speed around the sun of a rock on the bright side of the earth. Mass on the dark side is constantly overcoming the average speed of the earth, being pulled to a sunnier orbit, and slowing down relative to the sun, and being pulled to the dark side again, as if the sides of the earth are constantly leap-frogging each other around the sun. A tidally locked body is also rotating in this "natural" direction; it is just doing it slowly enough that its revolution time matches its orbit time. BTW, I have a feeling that I got the idea right but screwed up the physics somewhere in this explanation. A large object with small enough mass, such as a huge but thin spherical shell, might naturally rotate in the opposite direction. If so, then I think this contradicts your idea. It would be the mass of the orbiting object, and not just that of the mass it's orbiting, that determines its natural rotation rate???

You posted erroneous information. You didn't post any retractions or corrections, and the misinformation remained. People were confused by accidentally taking it at face value. Another user was then compelled to point out the error. The rules prevent you from repeating the misinformation. Which part do you find strange? I'm getting off topic... I'll try to get back to ontology of time... I second this sentiment. I'm wrong to say the experiment is off-topic -- that assumes that there is no on-topic explanation of the experiment. But I'm actually quite interested in how the results of the experiment might be explained using (or consistent with) the ontological arguments.

I also think this has something to do with gravitation. If I remember correctly, the laws of gravity don't have a meaningful notion of time symmetry in GR. Personally I don't think gravity is time-symmetric. But even if it were, relativity of simultaneity messes things up. Suppose you could "reverse the universe" at a particular instant, run it backwards for a time of t, and then forward for t, and suppose it's possible to end up at the same state as the instant you began reversing it. That instant won't be the same for other observers. Others will see different parts of the universe reverse at different times, for different lengths of time, and as a whole it would never end up in a state that was identical to a previous state. Everyone's observations would be consistent with your observations (in which a true hypothetical time reversal took place), but relativity of simultaneity would give everyone different experiences of it. I think that because time is relative, time-symmetry must also be relative. So if you're speaking of an arrow of time and whether it has a fixed direction, I don't think you can talk about a universal arrow of time. This is before even needing to consider entropy. That is, the underlying physics of relativity do imply that a system that can't be universally synchronized, can't be universally time-symmetric, even if entropy is ignored. I think.

I don't think that that experiment is on-topic nor would I expect a satisfying answer here. It'd probably be best to ask in a new thread in the Quantum Theory forum instead of Speculations. But I think the answer to your question is essentially that the intuitive aspects of time, regarding that experiment, involve causality. The experiment doesn't violate causality. So if you understand why causality isn't violated by the experiment (I couldn't explain it because I only have a vague understanding, just enough to accept that it's true!), then you'll probably find that while the experiment isn't explained by "common sense" (aka. causality in this case), it also doesn't contradict it.

Alright I'll give it a shot because I'm obviously a glutton for punishment. I'm not a physics expert. If you have a simple enough system (say, two simple particles), its state (ie. the state of the particles including relative to each other) may return to the same state it had at some point "in the past". If the two states are theoretically indistinguishable, and there is no possible measurement of time (within the system) elapsed between the current state and its previous state, then there may be no difference between saying that the particle traveled "forward in time" or backward, in an oscillation, or that it moved forward but then returned to the past time. Deciding that it is one but not the other involves attaching false meaning to the physics, and is a common pitfall in metaphysics. This applies only to that one particle's time relative to the other particle. In a more complex system, the rest of the components can continue on independently... it is unlikely that a particle will ever return to the same state relative to all the other particles in -- for example -- an egg. In fact it's statistically impossible. It's the laws of statistics that make a fried egg a one-way process, not some fundamental universal physical aspect of time that applies at every scale. The statistical laws can be encoded as physical laws with the concept of entropy. It is entropy that prevents a fried egg from becoming unfried. If your description of time is not separated from your description of entropy, then time is one-way. If you separate the two concepts, and talk about time independently of entropy (which you might only be able to do in a small enough, simple enough, and/or perhaps a meticulously organized enough system), then it's possible to have things moving backward and forward through time without problem. Philosophically, if you consider the passing of time to be "moving into the future", then manipulation of time dilation could be considered time travel to the future. That is, if all movement "through time" involves traveling through time, then it can be done at different rates (forward only though, when entropy is involved). Since you can't go backward, you can't "visit" the future with the implication of "returning to the present". Whatever your concept of time-travel might be, you'll always be in "your present". All that says is "wherever you go, there you are."