-
Loreen 12/28/2011 1:09:00 AM
Fox News talking head Michelle Malkin calls SLC "the single best clearinghouse on the Net for fighting the tinfoil-hat brigade." An endorsement from Michelle Malkin? Shouldn't they just try to keep that quiet? This article is beyond ridiculous.
-
Loreen 12/28/2011 1:05:00 AM
What was the point of this incredibly long article? I was just trying to find out why this whacko carries a light saber. And why is this guy spending his life trying stop people from asking questions about 9/11?
-
Crash 09/02/2011 1:32:00 AM
You write WAY TOO MUCH. Get to point already! I still have no idea what the topic of your post is!
-
Mulligatwny_26 09/08/2010 8:07:00 AM
If what you say is true, then why doesn't anybody know about Building 7? Why was it never reported AFTER 9/11? If your explanation is so plausible why the cover-up? Why does the "Official" 9/11 Report only fleetingly mention the collapse of Building 7? The numerous videos on the Internet show the free-fall collapse from different angles yet these videos have never been seen on mainstream media after 9/11. If your theory is so correct then what is the problem?
-
psikeyhackr 04/27/2009 4:28:00 PM
The word "momentum" did not appear in that entire article. Therefore it made no attempt to address the physics involved in a supposed top down gravitational collapse of a skyscraper.
Since skyscrapers are designed to hold themselves up the designers must determine how much steel and concrete to put on every level. That means a top down collapse must break the supports AND ACCELERATE THE MASS of everything below.
It is disturbing that so man people in the nation that put men on the Moon cannot figure out that that is IMPOSSIBLE!
Gravitational Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
-
Alex James 03/20/2008 6:03:00 AM
It seems the real screwball is the one writing the gossip against 9/11 truth seekers. I guess lies and fabrications is all that the Bush/Cheney/Olmert/Brown supporters have.
Now for some truth:
Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony on Operation Gladio in Europe: "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga: "[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."
" .... 9/11 was an intricately planned act of state-ponsored terrorism concocted by a foreign government (Israel) in unison with an ardently loyal faction of neocon [zionist] crazies who had burrowed their way into the Pentagon." -- Victor Thorn
-
Jeff Gamble 02/07/2008 4:56:00 AM
It's not called conpiracy theory, It's called investigative journalism... More journalists should practice this lost art!
-
doug gerber 01/13/2008 4:24:00 AM
i've seen just about every conspiracy documentary on the internet, and i'll grant that deagle's story would at the very least make a good movie. but you have to look at real historical events such as the holocaust, or present day events like the killings in darfur and the brutal oppression that takes place in china (the home of the 2008 olympics) and it becomes quite clear that a government can become evil. they tell healthy people to check themselves for cancer, that's not crazy, it's not stupid. it can be scary and you can get freaked out over a lump thats just a bug bite, but you have to do it. as we search for things that are wrong with the rest of the world, we need to be vigilant of theings that could be wrong in our own country. you can say these people are crazy if thats really what you believe, but does that mean that you would let the government put a tracking chip under your skin if they actually wanted to? i would not.
-
occision 08/25/2007 4:07:00 PM
yes we are in denial of a real investigation from our gov..we have been denied any video from the pentagon . denied a independent investigation with people not appointed by the criminals in the white house who have used and abused there power ever since .Its funny that every one thinks they have all the answers when all there is a bunch of questions that the gov would like nothing more than to be swept under the rug.well that isn't gunna happen if true American patriots stand up and demand answers!
-
Steve H 08/25/2007 11:39:00 AM
Yeah, Phader, you hit it on the head. I am in denial.
Face it, Phader, you and the other troofers are LOONS!! Live in the real world. I love reading the comments from the other nutjobs like you that say "Just go to (insert website or youtube link here)." In effect, what you are saying is "Let this website or video do my thinking for me."
Well, guess what, Phader, I have a mind of my own. I question what you crazies are perpetuating. I SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE. I investigate plane crashes. I know what is and was is not possible. What your fringe groups spout is UTTER NONSENSE.
You speak from NO EXPERIENCE other than vague warnings about our government. Go join the rest of the Kennedy, TWA Flight 800, Bermuda Triangle, Phoenix Lights and 9/11 wackos and enjoy your delusional fantasies.
But, then, I guess what I have just written must PROVE to you that I am in denial.
Get a life and a mind of your own!!! Gawd, it's scary to think of people like you out there.
-
Phader 08/25/2007 3:13:00 AM
I'm sorry but if you don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy you must be in denial. You must be so scared of the thought that your own country did this that you'd rather remain ignorant to it than to accept the truth: This country lies, kills, tortures, and cheats the people of this planet as well as some of it's own, to further their agenda. But hey, don't just take MY word for it, give it about 5 or 6 years.
"There are none so enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free"
-
Steve H. 08/23/2007 5:48:00 PM
I would just like to ask any troofer if they have ever been at the site of a catastrophic airplane crash (i.e. hitting the earth at full speed).
I have. The term "a million pieces" is reality. What were they expecting at the Pentagon? A Wily Coyote-style outline of the plane in the wall? What did they expect to see in the field in Pennsylvania. Except for some pieces of hardened composite metal pieces (i.e. turbofan blades, etc), you will be lucky to find anything bigger than a notebook at the site.
Thank you, New Times, for exposing the nonsense these troofers perpetuate.
-
Dan Peterson 08/21/2007 9:38:00 PM
OK. . . let's see the author debunk this: www.journalof911studies.com
-
occision 08/21/2007 1:14:00 PM
YOU also dont have any facts.saying he was accurate but I was wrong is total double speak.I do admit there was fire and damage , you said I didnt ,you say we have no facts,um molten steel could not happen from jet fuel.just because you think 7 hours is a long time for a fire to burn ,and its imposs ,is ridiculous why ius it impossiable.paco didnt actually disprove any thing I posted paco only tries to devalue the testimony of the people who were the by saying they were confused and only heard explosions.but they werent bombs they were what again jet fuel..I am not here to try and prove a specific bomb theory,but just trien to prove the official story is a total lie.mono is only convincing to people who know very little about the time line and testimony of the fire fighter and first responders cover up of the crime scene, no pentagon vid,the 911 commission didnt interview any of the fire fighters who had anything to say that didnt support the official lie.but in America its ok to cover up the biggest false flag opp in the history of the world with out any questions being answered .copy and paste some more links to the double speak and strawman sites .next do more than just say its not true.or improbable .mr the collapse started from the top..address that..
-
dMole 08/21/2007 2:18:00 AM
El Mondo Hummus is certainly motivated to "thoroughly debunk" questioning of the official [Saudi Arabian-terrorist/NORAD Incompetence] conspiracy theory "five years later." He has indeed researched one side of the argument very well- he is to be commended for his persistence and efforts there.
I'd like to recommend that 9/11 researchers also visit the following in addition to the links provided by El Mondo Hummus:
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.ae911truth.org
The credentials of the people questioning the "official" 9/11 explanation at these 2 websites look fairly impressive to me, but be your own judge(s) there.
To answer El Mondo Hummus' allusion to steel expansion, John J. Jackson and Harold G Wirtz' "Statics and Strength of Materials" Schaum's Outline [yes, engineers do use Schaum's Outlines during/after college, and most of my other books are at home right now] lists the Average Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion of steel at 7.0E-6 /degree_F or 13.E-6 / degree_C [with the units being either inch/inch or m/m- they cancel out in a linear expansion calculation and "may be in any units" according to p.213 of Jackson and Wirtz, Associate Professors of Mechanical and Civil Engineering respectively, at Vermont Technical College]. There is also a thing called the volume expansion of materials alluded to and a fairly good, accessible source of information on both is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_thermal_expansion
Now why exactly linear and volumetric thermal expansion was cited here escapes me, since a lengthening of steel beams would likely cause "sag" and not structural failure of the beams. In my opinion, the yield point, ultimate stress, and breaking stress of the steel alloy used in the WTC beams, welds, rivets, bolts, and pins are of greater relevance to beam failure, but we would need to know the exact specifications for the particular steel alloy ACTUALLY used in the WTC, and also have stress-strain diagrams for the temperatures actually experienced by the various steel locations (finite element ananlysis probably needed here). MOST of the temperature numbers that I've seen thrown around are combustion estimates and generalities about "steel" instead of a specific alloy actually called out on the WTC blueprints.
"to loosen bolts, crack welds, and displace other supporting assemblies"-- 3D volumetric thermal expansion might actually tighten the bolt-to-beam fit- that's sometimes what happens when an internal combustion engine "siezes" or "spins a rod"; extreme electric arc-welding heat is used to create a weld, and properly certified structural welds should not crack due to heat unless there was gross incompetence on the part of the WTC Design and Construction Teams; displaced structure does not necessarily lead to catatrophic structural failure.
I have seen very few people bring up the issue of steel's thermal conductivity- it is relatively POOR at roughly 20/128, or 15.625% that of Aluminum for comparision (with the units being BTU / (Hr * deg_F * ft^2) /ft according to http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html)
The low thermal conductivity of the steel would likely result in HUGE temperature gradients in the steel structure across the towers with very UNEVEN heating- the temperature distribution would be far from homogeneous, and I'd expect the greatest STEEL temperatures near the greatest concentration of jet fuel near the impact locations. Now if there were a 2nd plane impact in each tower after the fires had burned for 1-1.5 hours, I'd expect the "weak steel"/pancake collapse explanation to hold a little more water, since both towers withstood the plane impact for over 30 minutes each while the fires have been reported to have burned down during this time. I believe that a forced-induction coal combustion yields higher temperatures than jet fuel combustion in air, but I have yet to see a 400-lb. wood/coal burning forced-induction steel stove collapse due to fire. They also don't lengthen appreciably, but I wouldn't recommend touching one with a white-hot coal fire inside.
Now if NIST has some INSTRUMENTED data to support their temperature estimate numbers, I'd question why the thermocouples and temperature loggers were placed inside the Twin Towers before the "Osama Bin Laden/" conspiracy flew the two jetliners into WTC 1 & 2. If you follow the chain of command up from the NIST and the Kean-Hamilton 9/11 Commission, it leads right to the White House- please provide refuting evidence of this statement if you can. I haven't seen any steel scale WTC engineering fire models and mock-plane impacts for that matter, made by NIST or any of the other "official" experts, yet firemen train in mock buildings frequently.
Finally, to answer El Mundo Hummus's question about what it would take to satisfy his stereotypical characterization of 9/11 questioning "conspiracy theorists":
1. An independent scientific analysis of the WTC steel and Ground Zero crash site by non-federal (which excludes the Kean/Hamilton Commission, FEMA, and NIST reports) personnel.
2. An explanation of the NORAD incompetence in failure to intercept the hijacked planes, and an explanation of why the people who allowed this incompetence are still in power and have not been tried for criminal negligence and manslaughter- a drunk driver would have been in prison or on death row by now.
3. An independent, scientific thermal analysis WITH MODELS of the WTC steel structures that supports the "official" OBL conspiracy theory.
4. An independent, scientific explanation of why the Windsor Building in Madrid supported its own weight and the weight of a construction crane on the roof after a fire much worse than the WTC 1,2,&7 fires.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html
5. An independent, scientific analysis of the Pentagon and Shanksville damage with the FULL PUBLIC disclosure of all records, crash-site debris, and surveillance tapes and photos.
6. A detailed explanation of why "trooothers" deserve to be personally attacked for questioning the questionable behavior of the US Governnment, NORAD, and other agencies before, on, and since 9/11 without resorting to ad-hominem attacks or other well-known propaganda techniques. You have your opinion/theory, and other people are entitled to their opinions/theories- our nation was founded upon the principle of dissent, lest you forgot.
An independent, scientific investigation should include Truthers and Debunkers both- 9/11 WITNESSES, naterials scientists, civil engineers, architects, demolitions and fire experts, chemists and physicists, welders, construction and foundry workers that are NOT under the control of the White House and Federal Government. I'd expect that Canadian, Japanese, Middle Eastern, French, German, Swiss, and other countries' industries could provide some experts for a truly independent study not directly linked to the Bush White House.
-
ElMondoHummus 08/21/2007 2:03:00 AM
The 7 hour gap is merely "strange". 7 hours between explosion and collapse. "Strange".
It's not "strange". It disproves the entire thesis of the first video. You cannot claim any factual accuracy out of that video. A 7 hour gap between explosions and collapse cannot be written off as merely being "strange".
Typical dodge. You provide no facts, no sound argument, no proof. You merely claim to "to prove... that something happened in 7 before any collapse". You're right: The "something" that happened was the debris hitting building 7 and the fires starting. The video you provide proves nothing about emplanted explosives whatsoever.
I don't need to tell the witness he's wrong to his face. His testimony is accurate. There's nothing wrong about what he said. He witnessed an explosion. It's *you* who is wrong in assuming what caused the explosion. You, Alex Jones, and anyone who believes that interview is proof of controlled demolition.
You don't even try to challenge any other point. You can't. You have no facts. You have no argument. You merely have your fantasy. This, everyone, is why I call these folks "conspiracy fantasists". Calling their stories "theories" presumes some rational thought, logical construction, and existing evidence. He has none. He can't argue any of the above points.
There were no explosives. Your own evidence shows this.
Truthers put words into their "sources" mouths. Readers, view the videos for yourselves, and judge for yourselves.
Truthers cannot answer basic questions, such as "How were the explosives planted"?
Truthers cannot do any more than ridicule. Did the collapse not start from the top? Don't believe me; watch the video and judge for yourself.
Occision, and by extension the other truthers that generate the arguments he merely parrots is wrong. QED. In the absence of any real defense from him, there's nothing more to say about his arguments.
-
occision 08/21/2007 12:40:00 AM
you seem to have all the answers .but he clearly said the explosion in wtc 7 was before the collapse have not disproven that what so ever.yes the timeline is strange but all I was trying to prove was that something happened in 7 before any collapse.the jet feul didnt explode the basements in the towers either.I bet you would tell that man he is mistaken to his face right..oh yea wtc 7 collapsed from the top ..lol..thats still my fav you tried..
-
ElMondoHummus 08/20/2007 11:16:00 PM
This is how conspiracy fantasists debate. They make baseless claims, then when confronted with facts, they call it "disinfo" and refuse to confront the
reality of their arguments. Again, as the first example, look at Occision's first video: It claims that demolition charges to bring down WTC 7 went off
before 10am (before WTC 2 fell, which was at 9:59am). WTC 7 fell at 5:20pm.
Over 7 hours and 21 minutes after the demolitions were supposedly witnessed.
Over 7 hours and 21 minutes. The explosions went off, then 7+ hours passed before the building fell.
What controlled demolition leaves the building standing for over 7 hours?
How does Occision explain this? How do any conspiracy fantasists explain this?
This is the conspiracy fantasists� claim. Demolition charges went off in WTC 7 before WTC 2 fell, but WTC 7 fell after 5pm. Watch Occision's first video.
Look up the info. Decide for yourself.
The rest of his arguments are like that. Conspiracy fantasist arguments are always like that.
Look at those videos and see where truthers put words into Jennings and Silverstein's mouths. Jennings never claimed to witness *demolitions* explosions.
Silverstein never claimed to order building 7's destruction. That's what the truthers say. The subjects they post never say that.
Fantasist arguments depend on putting words in people's mouths.
Look at what Occision wrote and see how he misrepresents counter arguments. Truther arguments depend on misrepresenting others' explanations, like when
Occision refuses to admit that the truth is that both debris damage *and* fires caused WTC 7's fall.
Watch the Jowenko video and see how the arguments of the conspiracy obsessed depend on pushing that man's superficial and incomplete opinion as final say.
See what Jowenko says, and see how fantasists make too much of it. A hypothetical explanation, and a follow-up phone call that doesn't go into the damage
from the debris in addition to the fires is supposed to be enough to believe in controlled demolitions? Again, he clearly showed incredulity in the first
video when told of the timeline, and he comes out and says he wishes he had more evidence to review. But this is supposedly enough to distrust the extensive
- and ongoing - studies done by NIST, various universities, and many engineers writing for publications like Implosion World, Engineering News-Record, or the
Structural Engineer.
This is how fantasists argue. They isolate individual points, divorce them from context, and try to spin fantasies about what's left over. They also refuse
to confront the facts of the situation, instead dwelling on the narrative they've constructed, a narrative that does not stand up to examination.
Truthers refuse to confront facts.
WTC 7 was not brought down by controlled demolition. The evidence they themselves point to indicates otherwise.
WTC 7's collapse started at the top. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw and decide for yourselves.
Jowenko's argument is unsupported and superficial to begin with. He hasn't seen other studies, such as the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He hasn't
attempted to explain his differences with the NIST studies.
These are the facts. Note that, like all other fantasists, Occision refuses to confront those facts.
Note the truther's distortions. Read the links. Study the info. Decide for yourselves.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://911myths.com/
http://www.jod911.com/
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
http://fo
-
ElMondoHummus 08/20/2007 4:41:00 PM
Everyone: Notice how the conspiracy fantasist dodges the weakness of his argument by trying to call facts "disinfo". Instead of dealing with the argument, he tries to diminish it and push a long disproven story:
He doesn't even try to confront the blatantly improbable timeline problem. Again, if you watch the video, the claim is that the demolitions explosions for WTC 7 were heard before 10am. But that building didn't fall before 5pm. The conspiracy fantasist here doesn't try to explain that.
He doesn't pay attention to the far more probable explanations for the explosions. Fuel lines were there, and WTC 7 had taken damage from the first falling tower, cutting those fuel lines and sparking other fires. Yet, he instead relies on a deus-ex-machina explanation about explosives without confronting the question: How could the explosives been emplaced to begin with?
He puts words into people's mouths. Watch the videos for yourselves. Understand what the witnesses say, and ask how did Alex Jones, Jason Bermas, and the other fantasists, like Occision here, jump to conclusions about things the witnesses didn't say? Ask yourself: Did Jennings say there was a bomb? No. Did Silverstein say he ordered his own building demolished? No.
He misrepresents arguments debunking his own stances in order to make appeals to incredulity. Again, both damage from debris *and* fires were the problem. Separating out one contributing cause without including the other is dishonest.
And: He never, *ever* confronts the facts. Again, see above. No attempt to rebut anything posted. No attempt at counterargument. Simply assertions devoid of supporting argument.
Fact: There was severe damage to WTC 7. No planted explosives are needed to explain its collapse. That's the judgment of emergency personnel who were there as well as structural and fire engineers who investigated later.
Fact: Silverstein does not say pull the building. Again, refer to the links above, starting with:
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
... and understand how conspiracy fantasists distort facts to make their own arguments.
Fact: The collapse is documented as starting in a manner inconsistent with controlled demolition. Again, start by viewing this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw
... and follow up with the http://www.debunking911.com, http://911myths.com/, and http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home sites for further information.
This is how conspiracy fantasists work. By not paying attention to facts, selectively presenting some, and creating out of nothing entire fictions masquerading as facts, these folks build stories that sound incredible and make pretenses at being true, but upon study are internally inconsistent, depend on twisting of arguments, and on the whole completely miss the mark. That's the important thing to remember about their stories: They're not true. There were no explosives. The WTC owner did not order building 7 "pulled". No one witnessed explosives intended for building demolitions.
Understand how the so-called truth movement distorts the event to make their own fantastically improbable claims. Read the links I provide. Study the information. Draw your own conclusions.
-
occision 08/20/2007 4:58:00 AM
a long and drawn out disinfo isnt gunna work paco,the first vid does prove that explosions happened before the towers collapsed.so it doesnt matter what was on the 5th flore .as no damage was done to wtc 7 until after the collapse watch the whole video.
second of your right he doesn't say pull the building ,he said pull it..not them so you draw your own conclusion what he was talking about.
and danny has not retracted his demo theory .
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4
have a good one paco!
arent you the one who said the collapse started from the top..yea thats a good one..
-
ElMondoHummus 08/20/2007 1:24:00 AM
Links for those interesting in studying 9/11 events:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://911myths.com/
http://www.jod911.com/
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64
-
ElMondoHummus 08/20/2007 1:15:00 AM
First video:
There's no proof for any of those claims. You're trusting Alex Jones, known Holocaust denier and conspiracy fantasist over the judgment of those who either personally witnessed the event or personally examined the remains of the towers. Alex Jones provided no proof for his allegations; he has none. The man talking in that interview did not witness a bomb, he never claimed that the explosion was a bomb.
Jason Bermas is no expert, yet he's quoted in the video as if he's a scholar on the event. He is not. He's studied no evidence and talked to no witnesses. His and Alex Jone's claim are empty.
You forget: The emergency generators were on WTC 7 were on the 5th floor; the witness at the center of that video says he was on the 6th. Any explosion he witnessed - and only being one floor above, he would have witnessed them - would've come from the fuel for the generators. And as for his claims the "fuel tanks" were on one side of the building: The generators on that floor were fed by fuel lines *from* the tanks, which were in the basement anyway. Those lines ran up to the 5th floor and fed the fires there. Why would you need explosives to explain an explosion when it's known that there were generator fuel lines gushing up there? That explains the explosion, and the fact that it would've caught all the office contents on fire explains the structural weakening.
Besides, how did the government *get* explosives in the buildings? Every conspiracy fantasist fails to answer that; the most ever presented is that there was a power outage only days before that required people not enter the building (no power, no ability to work). But, that was Tower 2, not 7. How would the government have gotten explosives into WTC 7?
Also: In the video, they make a lot out of the orders to leave the building, but how's that supposed to prove CD? If the government planted explosives, why warn people to leave? More deaths would make the event even more horrendous, not to mention that it would eliminate people who by chance witnessed elements that would reveal the supposed plot. Why set up so many deaths, but yet order people out? The fact is that the evacuation order was issued because of the danger of collapse. Again, refer to the quotes *from firefighters onsite* in my previous post.
And last, stop and think about this: Jones claims the explosives in WTC 7 were heard before tower 2 fell. WTC 2 fell at 9:59 am. If you believe the claims in the video were correct, then explain why the explosions supposedly responsible for the collapse occurred **HOURS** before the tower actually fell. WTC 7 fell late in the afternoon, after 5pm. If you believe the claims were that the explosions were heard before WTC 2 fell, then those explosions happened prior to 9:59 am. Since when in the history of controlled demolition is there an hours long gap between the explosions and the collapse itself?
Second video:
Funny you should post one from a debunker. Here's what he wrote:
"This video shows a large rip in the south side of building 7 before it collapsed. Evidence the building was far more damaged than conspiracy theorists suggest. Note the smoke coming directly from the rip and not building 6 as conspiracy theorists suggest. At 1:33 Min into the video someone says (Firefighters and police were the only ones allowed in the area so it is most likely a firefighter or policeman) "Look at the hole in that building... 7 world... that might come down". Anyone seeing this and suggesting no one knew the building was going to come down is lying."
Yes, the damage *was* enough for the building to be susceptible to the effects of the fires. Refer to the links and testimony provided in my previous post. Again, you oversimplify the argument in order to make your own.
Plus, why are you making judgments about internal damage from watching videos of the exterior? Do doctors determine the presence of tumors, fractures, or internal deformities by looking at someone's body, or taking an x-ray? You make an argument not supported by the evidence you present. Read the testimony and the links I provided; there was *clear* evidence that there was so much damage that the fires were going to make the building collapse. *That's* why people were ordered out. Looking at a low-res video without knowing what happened to the interior does not give you enough information to pass judgment on how badly the building was damaged. The load-bearing elements are on the inside in the case of WTC 7, not on the outside.
Video three:
"yes, it was pulled?"... "that is vid you guys use right..pull it, not them ,it"
How does this video prove your point? Again, he was referring to the firefighters. He never says they pulled the building. Watch the video again, and point out where he says they pulled the building.
For everyone else reading this thread: Occision is trying to push the very old and many times disproven meme that the owner of the Towers, including building 7, ordered the demolition. See here for the explanation on why that is wrong:
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
Video four:
Danny Jowenko's testimony is well known. For those who don't know: Jowenko made his judgment based on a single video viewing session, and was not told of the extensive damage from the main towers' debris, nor of the extent of the fires.
Also: Viewers of that video should note that he was surprised when he was told that the building was supposedly imploded on the same day. He obviously is in disbelief, and then discusses how fast the demolitions men must have worked. Again, in the absence of knowing of the internal damage and the extensive fires, and not having reason to disbelieve what he was being told, he of course goes along with the interviewer and discusses how it *could* have been done, because that's the direction the interviewer is leading him. And his answers to the questions right there should be the tipoff that he's not in possession of all the information he needed: He discusses how a team of perhaps 30 to 40 experienced men could do this, then discusses how to do it **on columns that are either inaccessible due to fire or fallen debris**. How could they implant the cutter charges or make the cuts he describes when they couldn't even get at the columns?
I'm surprised conspiracy fantasists continue to use Jowenko's testimony. He doesn't believe CD was used for the main towers, and he clearly shows incredulity when he's told that WTC 7 collapsed on the same day. On top of that, he mentions that he wishes he had more evidence to review, a clear signal that he's rendering a superficial opinion, not a considered professional one. He makes this wish in the very video you post. Yet, you and others keep trying to push his interview as an expert rendering professional judgment rather than what it truly is: A short interview during a single video viewing of a man rendering initial impressions without knowing all the information.
On top of that, why is he the only CD expert the conspiracy fantasists can come up with? No others hold that view; read industry publications, Implosion World (Brett Blanchard, another industry expert, wrote a short paper discussing the impossibilities of CD (warning: Long URL - you may have to cut and paste it if this comments section cuts it in two): http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
Think. Use logic. You're falling for empty claims and vacuous explanations. You are not critically thinking your way through. You're merely placing faith in YouTube videos as if they're established scholarship rather than contextless information. You are not **studying** the event, you're merely going with the conspiracy fantasy crowd. That's hardly the act of a studied thinker.
Think. Use logic. Evaluate. Study. But don't try pushing videos short of information, empty of context, and distorted on top of everything as proof of some conspiracy. That only shows that you�re willing to be misled.
-
bobby 08/19/2007 9:32:00 PM
The official story is the biggest conspiracy that is unbelievable .The pentagon was hit 45 min after the second tower and the vid occision posted up there is great! It proves that explosions happened before any collapse in wtc 7.
-
occision 08/18/2007 6:10:00 PM
please understand bombs were going off in wtc 7 before any collapsed happened..also the collapse didnt start from the top..the central column was blown. here is first hand testimony from someone in wtc 7.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XuUFAJ5Rrec
is this all the damage you were talking about..deff not enough to make it come straight down.yes there was fire, yes there was some damage..yes it was pulled..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
that is vid you guys use right..pull it, not them ,it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
this is what a demo expert who didnt know wtc 7 collapsed on 911.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
have a good one paco!
-
ElMondoHummus 08/17/2007 4:48:00 PM
Occision, WTC 7 did not collapse "demo style". Buildings demolished through controlled demolition don't have the collapse start at the top, first of all. Read the WTC 7 information at http://www.debunking911.com/ and http://911myths.com/index.html for the total story.
Also, you need to read what I actually wrote:
"No plane hit it, but that ignores the amount of material that did, plus the effect of the fires within."
I was responding to the red herring above about WTC 7 collapsing with "no plane hitting it", which is an attempt to imply that there was little to no damage. There was in fact extensive damage, enough to leave it susceptible to the effects of the large fires.
Read the links I provided. Also, read "NIST NCSTAR 1-8 (Draft) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster":
"� The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.
� The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.
� There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.
... At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to com-pletely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacu-ate the site around the building. The order terminated the on-going rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At ap-proximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was aban-doned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed."
(http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf)
First understand that there were raging fires:
"... you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. �FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF"
"The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. �Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF"
Also understand that WTC 7 was indeed heavily damaged:
"The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. �FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF"
"... you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn�t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too...
... Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�ll head back to the command post.
� Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp"
... and understand that the damage was so evident and the danger of collapse so obvious that not only did the emergency responders on site freely comment on it, but at the time of the event they chose to get out of the way:
". We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. �Chief Frank Fellini
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF"
". Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
Q. A collapse zone?
A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That's about it. �Chief Frank Cruthers
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF"
And finally understand that it was a combination of the severe damage from the falling debris, plus the unchecked fires further damaging the structure that caused WTC 7 to collapse. It's overly simplistic to say "debris from the collapse took out an entire building demo style", and it betrays a lack of knowledge about the subject to do so. Get informed first; with information, you'll be able to construct logical challenges instead of empty arguments from incredulity. And that's all your statement is: An argument from incredulity. That's a tactic only the uninformed use.
-
occision 08/16/2007 6:57:00 PM
man so debris from the collapse took out an entire building demo style ..wow you really believe that...did you see the oak. city building that was blown in half..it didnt just fall down ..I bet you think the Gulf of Ton Kin was a real event also right...
-
ElMondoHummus 08/16/2007 5:37:00 PM
... or in short, saying about WTC 7 that "It collapsed with no plane hitting it" is misleading. No plane hit it, but that ignores the amount of material that did, plus the effect of the fires within.
The links to http://www.debunking911.com and http://www.911myths.com have much information regarding the truth behind the collapse. And no, the collapse of the main towers or WTC 7 is not "against all laws of physics and engineering". Saying that ignores the physics and engineering facts about the collapses.
-
ElMondoHummus 08/16/2007 5:27:00 PM
Steve, WTC7 was hit by significant amounts of debris from the main towers, and also had a large fire raging unchecked, fed by diesel lines installed for emergency generators. Perhaps it wouldn't have collapsed if firefighters were available to contain the blaze, but they were all pulled off for human rescue operations, not fire containment.
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#wtc-7s-sudden-collapse
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
-
fanny 08/16/2007 2:24:00 PM
w/r/t the rate at which things fall:
No need to get fancy. It's pretty simple physics; it's just the sheer quantity of factors involved that make it a difficult calculation.
In a vacuum, in a constant gravitational field, with no other forces acting, with everything else being equal, yadda-yadda, all objects fall with a fixed *acceleration*.
BUT, it is NOT a vacuum, there ARE other forces acting, yadda-yadda. The basic physics remain the same: F=ma. When you have LOTS of different forces and a trillion pieces of mass, the question is one of *quantity* of calculations, not *quality*.
-
Steve 08/16/2007 6:24:00 AM
So let�s see 52 years old never been married, overweight, unkempt, lives in a garbage dump, and has 3,000 comics (can we say loser) and why should I believe this man? What a bunch of trash. While there are whacko�s in every field, I believe a good portion of the information out there about the con job of the governments lies about 9-11. I am anything but a wacko having been in the military, law enforcement, Top Secret Clearance, etc. I knew at the time of 9-11 watching it on TV that the buildings collapse was just against all laws of physics and engineering, and what about building 7? It collapsed with no plane hitting it, how do you explain that?
-
Jock Doubleday 08/15/2007 1:44:00 AM
It's difficult to fill seven web pages with words that say nothing, but Stephen Lemons manages to do it.
Let's all raise our soporific glasses high to a man who would rather think up hundreds of spiffy gossip-columnist-like adjectives than do research.
Signed,
Jock Doubleday
http://www.SpontaneousCreation.org/SC/links.htm
-
Amy 08/14/2007 12:12:00 AM
Oh please, Lemmons doesn�t believe a goddamn word he writes. If the teenagers who made Loose Change lived in Phoenix instead of Curley, we would have been treated to an unsubstantial ode to their collective awesomeness, how scary the manipulative Man is, and how totally friggin� crazy the righties are.
-
ryan lever 08/13/2007 11:07:00 PM
kory is a fighter he will not go down :)
-
dano 08/13/2007 10:28:00 PM
Call their advertisers and let them know you will boycott their products and services due to this article
-
occision 08/13/2007 7:30:00 PM
this is a rediculous attempt to slander real american patriots that fight for the first responders and victims of 911..who ever wrote this is total spineless scum.,and I would be glad to debate any of the liers who are accosiated with screw loose change.its to easy to debunk them as they only use peoples ignorance about that day to thier advantage and donmt ever really explain anything..because if they did they would be rich and famouse.the truth is comming out and the liestimes cant stop it!
-
Tom 08/11/2007 9:12:00 PM
The real issue is why the government imploded the investigation and 911 commission report.
The largest crime scene EVER in the USA and it receives relatively minimal resources to finding the truth. Particularly with respect to examination of the forensic evidence at ground zero.
WTC 7 was mentioned in the report. Not explained, mentioned.
I don't need any scientific explanation or "con. theory" to know that this event was not investigated properly.
I am totally baffled by anyone who is satisfied with the response from our elected officials.
We are in deep trouble, until we take these people to task and demand our money's worth.
-
jmp 08/11/2007 7:55:00 PM
standandresist,
Fact is not disputable. Fact simply is.
Science however, is the search for fact, and RELIES on disputes to winnow out the bogus hypotheses and support the possible theories.
As far as divining fact: opinion is useless, feeling is useless, even profound belief (or faith) is useless. All that matters is the reproducable evidenciary chain and the internal logical consistancy of the theory.
The videos you have presented (and yes, I have seen most of them) are not, in ANY way, science. They do not search for fact, they search for any tidbit of coincidental evidence that may (or may not) support the preconceived hypotheses of the creator of the video. You will note the LACK of any evidence that REFUTES the creator's preconceived hypothesis. In other words, these pieces are propaganda (at best). For reference to this style of propaganda, see "An Inconvienent Truth, or Farenheit 9/11", both are straight up propaganda.
As you say, you must USE your mind. To use it, you must first learn how the underlying science actually works - not how you would LIKE it to work, but how it works in reality. You must also learn how to properly apply Occam's razor, roghly paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best"
We have OBL essentially stating that 9/11 was the work of AQ. We have captured people (I hesitate to use that word for them, but I am being fair) who confirmed that statement independently. We have air traffic control radar records showing the planes from takeoff to impact. There's a TON of other evidence that is available.
For the conspiracy theory to be correct, they MUST dovetail with the existing evidence. Simply put, they don't. Indeed, they CONTRADICT the evidence. They contradict each other. Indeed, there's more contradictions than there are theories.
Almost universally, they require large numbers of conspirators (just TRY to take a plane off from Logan without having at least 50 people AT THE AIRPORT ALONE in on it), a longish timeframe to plan and execute (demolitions, scientists, pilots, logistics, etc all have to be planned out and coordinated), and best of all, they require that ALL (every single one) of those conspirators to be willing to KILL A LARGE NUMBER OF THEIR COUNTRYMEN and never - EVER - spill the beans.
It's that type of theory vs: A group of fundamentalist radical muslums managed to get through security with (at the time) legal items, board planes on the same morning, and turn them into guided bombs.
Now, the really cool part: The evidence (taken as a whole) supports the latter. The evidence (taken as a whole) does NOT support the former. It's really that simple.
And I note that no one backing the conspiracy theories hava answered the question yet. "What reasonable evidence would convince you that your interpretation of the data is DEAD WRONG?"
-
ElMondoHummus 08/11/2007 6:13:00 AM
"That was my point about the temperature. Fire conditions with standard occupancy load is unlikely going to break 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. The reference of 1000 degrees Celsuis sounds very unlikely. That would put it beyond 1800. The color of the smoke can be an indicator of how a fire is burning, but the fuel source is also a factor. The weakening point for tempered steel is over 1200 degrees Fahrenheit."
Unlikely or not, the 1000 degree C figure is not only what NIST has put forth, it is also supported by a Worcester Polytechnic Institute microanalysis on the steel. Levels of oxidation and "intergranular melting" on that member suggests temperatures approaching the 1000C mark. In fact, it's that same "intergranular melting" that's leading some folks who've read Steven Jones's work to make an overly credulous leap of faith to the "thermite" conclusion themselves.
"The weakening point for tempered steel is over 1200 degrees Fahrenheit."
The 50% weakening point of steel occurs at around 1100 or 1200 degrees Fahrenheit (I see both figues when I research this; I don't know why). Steel can start losing load bearing capacity at much lower temperatures, as low (if temperatures this high can ever be considered "low) at 600 degrees F.
"Fire conditions with standard occupancy load is unlikely going to break 1200 degrees Fahrenheit"... Firefighters are taught that flashovers in standard home fires can reach 1500F, which is also the point (flashover, not the specific temperature) that firefighters are taught to be concerned about structural collapse. The only question is whether enough energy is absorbed by the structure to make it fail. And that gets to the crux of the issue: *Energy* is the key to understanding the event. When people talk about jet fuel of office contents not burning hot enough to affect steel (I'm not saying you, Dave, I'm talking others I've read on the net), they're referring to a figure obtained burning in air, not one in conditions like are experienced within buildings. The amount of potential energy - measurable upon release in joules, kilocalories, whatever you want to measure it in - contained in the material matters, and if the environment is insulative - that is, if heat doesn't escape at a high rate, which is the case with grills, campfires, fireplaces, but **not** fires within structures (as well as ovens, kilns, blast furnaces, etc.) - then it doesn't matter what the open-air temp of the combustion source is because that figure will be greatly exceeded. The energy gets produced period, and if it doesn't escape, it heats the structure containing it. And that temperature can be incredibly high. Again, joules more than temperature. The temp achieved in this case is dependent on the production of heat by the combustibles minus what heat escapes. Talking about means or averages, or what's likely based on standard office contents, or the materials used in construction misses that point, and creates a false impression of the fires effect on the towers.
Also: Don't forget, the point at which steel starts expanding is well below the 1100 degree figure (800F? 600? I'm not finding it immediately, will continue to try and relocate it). There is a rule of thumb that for every 100 degrees F temperature change, a 100 foot length of structural steel expands around 3/4ths of an inch in length (I didn't see a volume rule of thumb, and really, the steel would expand in all directions, not just one, but that's the only real quantifcation for this effect that I can find). How much expansion is needed to loosen bolts, crack welds, and displace other supporting assemblies? No, I'm not saying that at 1000, there would have been 750 inches of displacement, all I'm saying is that the temps were enough to displace and therefore compromise other structural supports, not just weaken the steel members themselves.
Why am I saying all this? It's to show 1. That the figures are credible, and that the temperatures are not just possible, but so far supported by study, and 2. To get the point across to other readers that these isolated criticisms or complaints that some answers "don't fit" only occur when people divorce the specific subject being criticised or "not fitting" from the overall context of the event. Sure, the jet fuel - fire issue conspiracy fantasists bring up sounds reasonable on its face. So do others like the cell phone use canards. But when the overall story is seen and understood, those odd anomalies turn out not to be so.
It *is* about studying the event and the claims. And I mean **really** studying them, not just credulously accepting that details separated from context equals research.
-
standandresist 08/11/2007 5:05:00 AM
My objections to the official story of 9-11, and the government may not reflect those of the so-called "wingnuts" or "troofers" or conspiracy theorists as they are referred to here, however they do represent issues that we all should be researching for ourselves, rather than "jumping on the bandwagon".
I have seen virtually every video online regarding 911 truth, and have heard all the contradictory arguments for and against the issue. Overwhelmingly, what I have found is that very few people are willing to look, with objectivity, at the issues. Instead, they focus primarily on discrediting the authors of their respective works. Conversely, while many outstanding members of the 911 truth movement propose genuine questions that need be answered, they undermine their own credibility by producing false or misleading statements or selectively sampling from interviews, statements, or reports and taking them out of their original context.
Regardless of whether or not a person proposes the idea that particle beams had something to do with 9-11, or if they are accused of anti-semitism, or any other unsubstantiated claims, they may very well have other useful information. The information they put forth should be scrutinized and tested as should everything else you believe or disbelieve. Their personal opinions or professions have nothing to do with fact.
I propose to everyone from either end of the issue to focus on fact and reasoning, rather than jumping to irrational conclusions, and childish name calling tactics, neither of which will gain you and inch of ground in my search for the truth.
For those of you that are accusing 9-11 truthers of stupidity, dishonesty and hating the United states, you must understand that for our government to serve the people the people must be diligent in their efforts to hold our government accountable for their actions. We must be involved right, wrong or indifferent. A healthy distrust for your government will only serve to keep them on their toes. Those that are accused of hating their country are only guilty of hating their government.
I suggest that everyone watch these documentaries, and extract for themselves the fact, before they suggest that our government is or is not capable of such huge far-reaching conspiracies:
Bush Family Fortunes, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
Bush's Brain
Imperial Grand Strategy, Noam Chomsky
Iraq For Sale The War Profiteers
Unconstitutional
Uncovered, The Whole Truth About The Iraq War
Weapons Of Mass Deception
Orwell Rolls In His Grave
Why We Fight
You Have A Mind, Use it.
-
ElMondoHummus 08/11/2007 3:48:00 AM
STJ911 does not conduct legitimate peer review. Part of the whole concept of the academic referee process is to have the journal reviewing the works to be independent of the organizations creating the research.
Also: A legitimate refereeing process would have proven experts in narrowly defined, pre-existing fields of academic study directly relevant to the claim. For example: Proper refereeing of Steven Jones' claims of thermite would have to be conducted by a chemist, and the claims of what they did to the towers conducted by a structural engineer. That is not the case with STJ911 papers. Having philosophers and religious studies trained individuals peer review works on topics like aeronautics or fire and structure engineering can be considered a review by peers, but it is no more than a cargo cult implementation of academic refereeing.
There is no honest refereeing in STJ911 works. The conflict of interest is too strong, nevermind the fact that an analogy can be drawn between them and kangaroo courts.
-
Captain Howdy's Ghost 08/11/2007 1:59:00 AM
Ah, all the beautiful open minded truthers.
Same old shit. I bet you all are thinking that its a "jew" owned paper eh?
No proof, no evidence, just the same kooky stuff rehashed every year.
You all are lucky, people were bored with the JFK stuff, now all the dweebs can glom on to their new obsession, telling us the "truth" about the evil cabal that is running the world!
Keep it up truthers, the normal people are on to you, enjoy the fringe, enjoy being laughed at and made fun of, because that is your lot in life. Crazy nuts seeing conspiracies around every corner!
-
James B 08/10/2007 10:47:00 PM
"My understanding is that the fed is a central bank made up of private banks. They create as much money as ordered for budget and covering loans from default World Bank Loans. "
Your understanding is wrong. The Fed is publicly regulated (directors appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate) but does have a certain amount of independence. It has to report on its activities and finances annually to Congress, and its chairman regularly testifies before Congress.
It does not have anything to do with the federal budget. It's goal is simply to provide stability to the banking system, by keeping money supply stable, keeping economic growth solid, and inflation low. It does this through two main actions, regulating the reserve that other banks are required to keep, and through the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which regulates money supply by buying and selling treasury bonds. They do not, however, just print up money and hand it over to the government. In fact they don't even print money, the treasury does that, and they certainly do not charge the Treasury a fee for doing this. The fed also does not make a profit. The money it makes off of interest, for treasury bonds and loans to private banks, it refunds back to the Treasury. About $29 billion last year alone if I remember correctly.
As far as the Grace Commission, that report is over 20 years old, so I am not sure how it is relevent. If there is a specific citation you have a question on, please post it so I can comment.
-
BEL 08/10/2007 10:01:00 PM
JMP
If you are truely looking for scientific data there are a couple good sources. You can view peer reviewed papers at:
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemid=62
another good site is:
http://stj911.org/
-
BL 08/10/2007 9:52:00 PM
James,
My understanding is that the fed is a central bank made up of private banks. They create as much money as ordered for budget and covering loans from default World Bank Loans. As you and others say the amount of money being printed is not based on what is being collected by income taxes. I have to again point you to the Grace Commission report. This report says that the personal income taxes collected are not being put towards the deficit, rather are paying the interest the federal reserve charges the treasury to print the money. Which of course means the personal income tax is not paying for any service for the government other then the paying of interest. This is of great concern because the treasury should be perfectly capable of printing their own money without having to pay interest to what amounts to a private bank.
-
jmp 08/10/2007 9:24:00 PM
The more propaganda that is presented as so-called 'evidence', the more I realize that most humans have the logical reasoning ability of a typical house cat. I've coined a new word for this tripe: Slyence - Sly manipulation of selective data that supports a pet theory with complete disregard for anything that defies that theory. (For examples of these, see DDT, Global Warming, and ETS)
Here's a question for those of you who believe that 9/11 was a put up job: "What reasonable evidence would convince you that your interpretation of the data is DEAD WRONG?"
If your first thought to that question is "Nothing!", then you are not relying on evidence, but on your emotional attachment to the conclusions you have already made based on insufficient evidence. i.e. your mind is closed.
If your first thought is something so totally out in left field that no human on the planet could POSSIBLY provide the evidence, then you are most likely a idological zealot who has not done true research. i.e. you are not thinking, just jumping on the bandwagon.
As for me, the evidence available to date clearly supports the conclusions that A) we were attacked by radical muslum extremists intent on doing EXACTLY what they did - drive planes into buildings. B) We were radically unprepared for the attack, both as a population (psychologically) and in terms of defense (military response).
Now, what could change my mind? Show me logical conclusions backed up by evidence that can be examined independantly by multiple people who are specialists in the areas of aeronautics, civil engineering, electrical engineering, etc. Not ramblings on a blog, theories from wingnuts, or ideas of space weapons from Venus. REAL evidence. So far, none is there. So far, every piece of so-called 'evidence' can be knocked down ('refuted' is the technical term) by looking to the people who KNOW this stuff, who do these type of analyses for a living.
Also, if what the 9/11 conspiracy enthusiasts believe happened really did happen, then where are the insiders who could TRULY blow the whistle, have the documents, have tapes... hell, have a SINGLE WORKING THEORY that can't be knocked down? It would be the story of the millenium - worth millions (if not billions) to the person willing to come forward. Every major news outlet (and Steven too, I bet) would be flying anywhere on the planet blindfolded to get that story, and would pay nearly anything to get it.
As some examples here, Clinton couldn't hide a blow job in the white house. Nixon couldn't hide a low-rent burglery. Reagan couldn't hide Iran-Contra. Bush couldn't hide from photographers in his underwear. Do you guys really, truly, think that something as big as a 9/11 conspiracy would have to be (thousands of people) wouldn't be blown wide open by an insider wanting to be set up for life? That there wasn't a SINGLE person with a conscience in the vast cabal of conspirators who was so filled with remorse that they would spill the beans?
Come on guys, start using the space in your head for something other than a ear spacer. Think for a change.
jmp
-
James B 08/10/2007 9:20:00 PM
With the exception of Social Security, federal tax money does not go to specific items. Since we have a deficit, the amount of income tax money which is being spent is simply 100% of the income tax revenue.
-
Another Troofer 08/10/2007 8:53:00 PM
I'm glad that New Times is free. It's going to be a lot easier to put them all in dumpsters that way.
Dear Advertisers,
Please don't waste your ad dollars on this poor excuse for a newspaper.
-
BL 08/10/2007 7:55:00 PM
James,
Thanks for the link. I looked through the spreadsheets and see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist02z1.xls which is showing the income that seperates the Corporate Income taxes and Personal Income Taxes. So, that is showing what is being collected.
Which sheet should I be looking at that shows where the personal income taxes are being spent?
-
James B 08/10/2007 6:44:00 PM
I did get off that blog and check some facts. I just spent 2 years in grad school studying economics, finance and accounting. I know how to read a budget. You are wrong.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/hist.html
-
BL 08/10/2007 1:57:00 PM
James B.
Yeah, that is correct. I suggest reading the Grace Report commissioned by Ronald Regan that showed not a single dime collected in personal income taxes goes to any U.S. government program or service. Get off that blog, and check some facts for yourself.
-
James B 08/10/2007 12:06:00 PM
Ahh, Zeitgeist, where 9/11 nuttery meets religious nuttery Federal Reserve conspiracy nuttery.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/06/blog-post.html
My favorite part is where they claim that none of our income tax revenue goes to anything but service on the national debt. Hmm, let's see annual interest on debt, about $300 billion a year, revenue from income taxes (not counting corporate or SSI) about $1 trillion. Yeah, that adds up. I am going to follow a bunch of people who can't do basic math.
-
BL 08/10/2007 5:10:00 AM
There is a difference between love of country and love of government. I LOVE this country, but I think it's getting pretty obvious our government can't be trusted.
Suggest watching the doc: www.zeitgeistmovie.com
It's free.
-
Kory 08/10/2007 12:40:00 AM
I guess all the old Kennedy assassination conspiracy nuts found a new hobby.
Yes, it's hard to believe that 19 sexually frustrated losers honestly thought they would get a shiatload of virgins for plowing planes into buildings for Allah. It's hard to believe that one guy could get in some lucky shots from the Texas School Book Depository. But the idea that hundreds, maybe thousands of people would be in on conspiracies this huge....and not a single one of them has ever come forward to admit their part in the "plot"....nor has a single document to back any of this up ever been produced after all this time.....strains believability even more.
Get some meds, get some therapy and get back in touch with reality, troofers.
-
ConsDemo 08/10/2007 12:06:00 AM
Robert Whiteman, are patriots now people who slander their country by accusing it of killing 3K of its own citizens ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER? No, I don't think so. The people pushing this conspiracy bullshit simply hate the United States. They don't have any evidence, so they make it up ("sure looks like a controlled demolition")because it suits their world view. In their minds, America is evil, no further evidence is needed. That is a far cry from patriotism. Rather, the so-called "truth" movement is based on stupidity, dishonesty and hate.
-
BL 08/09/2007 10:14:00 PM
I have to question why this publication chose Mr. Lemons to write this article, when he shows such obvious bias.
The following link is to a site that shows a video clip of Mr. Lemons unprofessional behavior at a 9/11 conference: http://www.911blogger.com/node/6585
Why has Newtimes chosen such a biased author for this piece?
-
Macgregor 08/09/2007 9:40:00 PM
"Dave's" "evidence" for 9/11 as an inside job, or just his questions about all the "lies" told by NIST, The 9/11 Commission, Poular Mechanics, and the American Society of Civil Engineers, or, say, questions about the tons of facts and information they left out of their voluminous efforts, or just this:
"...your ability for bs...any idiot...some homeless guy's toilet paper...you are just a tool...Bzt! Wrong (repeatedly)...neuron gap...get a new job...sorry to steal...it's the filabertos he ate last night...your two digit I.Q....your statements are idiotic...you have it flowing from both ends...pooly written article about a pathetic guy...inferior debate skills...
It's no wonder that after almost six years the 9/11Truth movement is still about where it was six years ago, minus a bunch of homemade youtube videos and web sites no one who isn't a "true believer" pays any attention to.
-
Captain Howdy 08/09/2007 9:01:00 PM
Dave dave dave
I use the name from the Exorcist, didn't realize some kookbait truther used it.
As for you truthers, same old shit, no data, just suppositions and facts you pull from your ass. And when you get called on it, you just make up another set of data, and accuse the person calling you on it of being part of the mysterious "them"
Truthers, America is laughing at you, your fringe BS is meaningless twaddle.
Wake up, think logically and stop seeing conspiracies in every little thing in the world.
-
Dave 08/09/2007 7:10:00 PM
Captain, Captain Captain�Giving yourself a name of truther makes you no more honest than anyone. I hear a lot of talking yourself up but it sounds like you have it flowing from both ends.
This is far from a good article. It is a poorly written about a pathetic guy. I guess he has to debate those with inferior debate skills to make him feel like he has some value.
ElMondo. That was my point about the temperature. Fire conditions with standard occupancy load is unlikely going to break 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. The reference of 1000 degrees Celsuis sounds very unlikely. That would put it beyond 1800. The color of the smoke can be an indicator of how a fire is burning, but the fuel source is also a factor. The weakening point for tempered steel is over 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
The temperature range question has merit. I generally don�t debate it because my knowledge is more limited to fires, not sky scrapers. The question is of research is not a valid one. I think that people are more likely to shift to one side or the other while accepting answers by one side as the truth. I consider myself still questioning a few points that still leak water. It is the casual insults thrown at anyone that questions the story that I have grievance with. If their story is wrong it will be proven so, if it is right� it will still be discredited as delusion.
-
ElMondoHummus 08/09/2007 6:40:00 PM
**I** don't have fire expertise, but firefighters do. And they say that the contents of average homes and businesses can easily reach 1000 degrees fahrenheit or more.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87587
Also, the NIST claims temps could have been as high as 1000 **celsius** in parts of the towers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (although I've not read the NCSTAR final reports yet - there's quite a bit there - so I don't know what NIST's final say is about those temps).
On top of that, I keep seeing the black smoke being used as evidence of low temperature fires. I may not be a practicing chemist, but I was a chemistry undergrad, and I **never** was taught to associate the color of the smoke with the temperature of the fire. I've learned that smoke color can indicate other things - for example, that certain hydrocarbon classes burn yellow, sooty, white, or blue respectively - but temperature was never one of the associated qualities. Plus, trying to determine anything from such a heterogenous mix of combustibles would be nearly impossible; any one component could be responsible for coloring the smoke.
But, if you want information regarding the black smoke as it pertains to the WTC towers:
http://911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html
As far as the Flight 93 data: Again, I emphasize the info at the links, written by people who have studied the details of that claim far better than I. If you want an explanation, sir, please read the links.
I understand that there are reasonable questions, but far too many times, I see conspiracy fantasists pretend to ask supposedly reasonable questions that in fact have been answered over and over again before and are easy to find answers to. And they're always questions about phenomena which have been divorced from the context of their occurrance and put in a light that suggests anomalies where none exist. Your black smoke = low temp fire is one such question; I think I first saw that around Spring of '06. I have a great deal of tolerance for questions that legitimately arise from curiosity, but every question I referenced in my post - and forgive me for being direct, but both of *your* questions too - have been asked time and time again and answered over and over again by many people other than myself in forums other than this.
I really post responses less for those inclined to believe in the conspiracy fantasies, and more for the silent ones who read these threads, see a conspiracy claim, and just don't know where the resources are to answer the fallacies. That's why I post those links: So people can start there, read and click through, and discover the wealth of resources available to debunk the fallacies, canards, and misrepresentations put forth whenever 9/11 events are discussed.
If you're truly interested in finding out why your claims are based on fallacies, then here are some good starting points:
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://911myths.com/
http://www.jod911.com/
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64
You're not an idiot for asking questions sir, but I am disappointed that you haven't been able to find answers I found quite easily. That doesn't make you a moron by any means, but it does bring into question whether you've truly researched the events you ask questions about.
-
Dave 08/09/2007 6:36:00 PM
MacGregor, you are disappointing. You call me out but don�t even answer any of my questions. Also you categorize me inaccurately in presuming I would want to be part of some indictment against our administration. It appears you jump to conclusions with way too little information. All those links still lack credible answers to certain questions. You also make statements as to what myself and Roberts experience and expertise is not coming out of complete ignorance.
Before you erroneously go off on a tangent again let me make it simple for your 2 digit IQ to wrap around. I offered no solutions for anything to do with 9/11. I merely asked questions and made a couple points. Solutions would be saying I know what happened, which I did not. My original critique was on the logic and the spin of the article, not defending conspiracy theory.
Quite simply, your statements are idiotic
-
Captain Howdy 08/09/2007 6:36:00 PM
Wow, its kook-a-palooza here!
Every freaking time a good article comes out, all the nuts come out from under the sink and do endless cut and paste stupidity.
All the 9/11 conspiracy stuff has been debunked, endlessly on several sites.
Loose Change has been debunked, endlessly on Screw Loose Change and JREF.
But, conspiracy theorists are unable to understand this. To them, being disproven is just another part of the grand conspiracy. They can't be wrong, "the man" is trying to keep them quiet. That is why its so freaking easy to be a conspiracy theorist, you just keep saying that anyone disproving you is part of the conspiracy.
Get used to being on the fringe and being laughed at Truthers, your time is up. You went from amusing to kooky to being just plain annoying and stupid.
-
Macgregor 08/09/2007 6:13:00 PM
Wow, dave and robert sure have solved everything to do with 9/11.
Oh wait, they just pulled all that stuff out of a five year old hat full of holes!
Must explain why they got no brief to present to a grand jury, they're not structural engineers, or materials experts, or forensic crime scene investigators, and most importantly not lawyers.
They're just guys trying to find someone credulous to accept their angry amateur's digests as somehow valid beyond these guys:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.911myths.com/
-
Dave 08/09/2007 5:56:00 PM
ElMondo,
At least you did some research. I don't debate structural collapses due to my lack of expertise in the field. I do know a bit about fire though. You cited the contents were burning, not the jet fuel. What temperature do you suggest woods, plastics, and cloths burn at? Also note the smoke was dark, indicitive of a lower temperature fire.
Also the pictures abotu Shanksville 'debris' is still substanitally lacking. If the plane went down in the field like many crashes we would see much more debris. The argument I have heard about a window section among others associated with that site is that the picture did not come out til circa 2004. What explanation is there for that if there is one?
The real issue with this topic is that discussion on it resolves to belittling and insults. There are reasonable questions. Some of the answers don't fit. That does not make me an idiot for questioning or someone that does not cirtique the situation the way I do a moron.
-
Robert Whiteman 08/09/2007 5:27:00 PM
Great country, isn�t it? When people with opposing views can have a forum, have productive discourse, freely exchanging facts and evidence so as to come to a clear understanding of the truth? Except, as we see recently, there�s a large faction of those who have no evidence (who have their opinions handed to them via corporate mainstream media), who need to rely on ad hominem attacks against people that do have facts. You appear to be one without facts.
At first, like everybody else I knew, I was enraged and I immediately got behind our President, a man I did not really believe in or vote for, and who gained office under suspicious circumstances, but hey, I�m an American and he�s my President. I wanted justice for my Country, and for the families of those innocents who were struck down. I wanted those responsible for this act to be held accountable, and I still do.
I started doing research about what happened on 9-11-2001 in March 2004, because of the discrepancies with the �official� version of the tragic events of that day. Some of the things that concerned me were how a meager handful of Saudis overcame the two best-defended air grids in the world, overcame the worlds� most efficient air defense, the worlds� most fierce fighting machine, outfoxed us, tricked our impenetrable radar and satellite matrix and caught us with our pants down. For this story to be true, there were so many coincidences that had to happen all at once that the percentages of possibility were staggering, exponential. Having been around in the days of the Viet Nam war, I understood that once in a while in even a country as great as ours, that we can have a government with an agenda that�s not confluent with our collective interests. On the other hand, I could not believe that the President of these United States could premeditate the murder of 2894 everyday, innocent US citizens. So, I had to go deep into the evidence to find my own understanding of the facts, unspun, to solve the dilemna. I studied everything I could find, cross-referencing, cross checking a wide variety of mainstream and alternative sourced material. I had no preference for who�d done it, I only wanted the truth.
The more info I collected, the harder it was to believe the official account. There are so many holes in that story that it became impossible for a reasonable, rational, thinking man to believe it. And, worse, contradictory facts kept popping up. But I still wasn�t ready to accept that our President could conscionably kill his own people. So, I�ve been involved in an ongoing investigation of this event ever since.
The following are some components of irrefutable truth:
That on 9-11 we were running an unprecedented number (at least 7 ) joint military air drills, all the way up into Canada, using both real and fake radar screen blips, confusing the air traffic management. Why did we do so many that day, and why all at once?
That just a few months before, representatives of Unocal Oil had warned the Taliban leadershipin Afahanistan (with whom they�d been negotiating for a deal to bring a pipeline across their country from the Caspian Sea) that the Taliban would accept Unocals��carpet of gold� or they�d accept their �carpet of bombs� Whose bombs?
That the Project for a New American Century, a right wing think tank in DC, comprised of such influential Bush administration staffers as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and I. Lewis Libby, had issued a position paper called Rebuilding America�s Defenses which stated America needed to establish permanent military bases in Iraq in order to achieve US hegemony (world domination), but that American opinion wouldn�t let the Government bring this to pass: �� absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor�. Chilling.
That the Bin Laden family had close business ties with the Bush family, that Bin Ladens� Father had helped finance GWBushs� first business venture, Arbusto Oil.
That no fighter jets were sent to intercept the hijacked airliners until all the targets had been struck, a full hour and 50 minutes after they�d been identified as such. The ever-changing stories between the Gov�t and the FAA and NORAD regarding faulty communication-a first-normally jets are up on an errant plane in 3-10 minutes-no jets being available (when they really were) why when finally tasked to engage the hijacked airliners, our jets were sent at cruise instead of at intercept speed�the fact that Rumsfeld had ordered a new intercept protocol only months before that made it necessary that he be the only one to issue a shoot-down order (I wondered why; what incident had precipitated this unusual order? None that I�d heard of or could find) That the FAA stated that they had initiated a teleconference with NORAD 40 minutes before the first strike, NORAD said it got no notification until after the first strike�and on and on�
Then I had trouble with what everybody else was concerned with:
That steel and concrete skyscrapers had NEVER burned down after struck by jets though there�d been some that burned longer (days longer) and hotter. Until that day, when 3 burned down, in a matter of minutes� That steel reaches its� melting point at approximately 2700 degrees, whereas an optimally burning kerosene fire-jetfuel, burns at about 1770 degrees. Never heard of a home kerosene heater (they�re made with steel) melting�not that the fires on the towers were optimally burning- the black smoke that emitted means the fires were oxygen-starved, hence way cooler than maximum temps. I started studying the videos caught by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, some home videos,and video footage made by the Gaudet Brothers, a pair of Frenchmen who were on the streets that morning making a movie about the NYFD. I noticed that the 2 towers had literally blown up, sending steel beams that weighed as much as 30 tons into buildings 200 yards away. I watched and rewatched as buildings exploded at their tops, shooting debris out at a 45 degree trajectory. That the towers came down into their own �footprints� only after flashes of smoke and fire squirts came out of some windows that neatly precipitated the disintegrating edge of the building on it�s way down, that clouds of dust emitted like a demolition and not like a fire (called pyroclastic clouds, they are unique to erupting volcanoes and building demolition only) I noted that the city was covered in a thick layer of pulverized dust. Not soot. Not ash. Concrete doesn�t burn. That if the fire was hot enough to bring down skyscrapers, why did it not ignite the paper that was scattered from it, and why were there victim body parts-bone fragments- ��thick- found on the roof of the Deutche Bank, hundreds of yards away, if the building fell in pancake fashion from the heat produced from the fuel? That the towers came down at free fall speed as though they had no resistance on their way down. How can that be? Why fall straight down and not topple over to the fire-weakened side like all other fires? What caused the 45 degree cuts on the support column beams we saw in the remains of the buildings? Why did firefighter Thomas Torelli (sp?) say that the South tower collapse initiated from a floor lower than the plane impacted floor area and say he thought it was coming down with explosives? ��it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom..." Firefighters immediately filmed after the incident unanimously all reported the same thing: they heard and felt multiple, synchronous explosions, as if the building was being deconstructed with explosive charges? Paramedic on the scene Dan Rivera reported ��have you ever seen a building being brought down with explosives? That�s what I thought it was��
What caused WTC building 7 to collapse? No jets hit it, and the scarce fires it had were nearly contained? What was inside that building? Offices of the CIA, FBI, SEC, IRS�storing documentation for pending cases against corporate heavy-hitters, Enron, Worldcom, etc. What caused the center of the roof to cave in at the instant of its� fall, could it have been what is termed a �kink� in demolition language? Why did the multi-millionaire owner of all 3 of the buildings say WTC 7 had been �pulled�, a slang term for demolished? Why had he taken out so much insurance on the buildings right before the incident and insist on a terrorism clause be stipulated in the contract? Did he have so much foresight?
Why did the White House resist for so long an investigation into the cause of the event? And when they finally caved to public pressure for an investigation, why was Phillip Zelikow named chairman of the Commission when he was so close to the White House team, having even co-authored a book with Condi Rice, had been a part of that team, and how is THAT an independent, unbiased committee? What was the real intent, to find the true cause for the attack or to reverse-engineer a plausible story for mass consumption?
Why would Bush and Cheney only agree to testify in secret and only together to the committee? And insist that testimony not be sworn?
Why was the debris immediately taken away and shipped to China for recycling and not treated as crime scene evidence, in violation of our own Federal Law?
Why did these cagey terrorists, smart enough to pull all this off, not know that the Pentagon brass offices-Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs, etc, were in the East Wing, not the West Wing- a side recently renovated, reinforced, and called by Pentagon employees, the �catchers� mitt�?
To what was Dick Cheney referring when an aide came to him in the presence of Norman Mineta, then Dept of Transportation head, the aide asking Cheney, ��it�s 50 miles out�it�s 20 miles out�it�s 10 miles out, does the order still stand?� to which an angry Cheney snapped; �of COURSE the order still stands, did you hear anything to the contrary?�
Why, after Presidential Aide Andy Card informed Bush that the country � was under attack by terrorists� in a Florida classroom while reading a book to kids there, did Bush do nothing but continue his reading, and why did the Secret Service Agents not wisk him away to safety? Instead, the leader of the free world sat there reading, endangering himself, us, the kids, all we stand for. Was he really in danger, or not? How did he know he wasn�t? Why did no USAF jet fighter accompany AF1 when they got him airborn? Why did he say later, when asked, that he�d seen the 1st plane hit ,on TV �I thought it was a really bad pilot� when it hadn�t even been televised before he went into the class? Why did he lie?
I�ll spare you the information I�ve found regarding the inside group that Bush represents, but it�s available to those who want seek it. But then, you�d have to look for it and that isn�t as easy as having your opinion given to youthrough your TV set, via corporate media. Or Yodaesque entertainers. But I guess he sees all this coming, too, like a slow motion boomerang. This guy must really be something, to impress someone as astute as yourself...
�In the beginning of a change, a patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.� Mark Twain
-
ElMondoHummus 08/09/2007 5:23:00 PM
Wow. Do you guys just cut and paste these myths? They don't change, even though they've been debunked.
1. "Never in the history of steel structures has a building collapsed from
fire yet 3 did on 9/11; WTC tower 1,2 & 7. All three buildings came down at
free fall speed with no resistance..."
Never in the history of steel structures have any of them also been hit by large jets travelling at over 400 MPH, nor did they have fires start in spots where the structural integrity was compromised.
I'll do some cutting and pasting myself:
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm">First time in history
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://911myths.com/html/freefall.html
"tower 7 was never hit by an airplane yet came down symmetrically in seven seconds?"
It didn't come down symmetrically. Watch the videos of the collapse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw). The eastern side begins collapse first. Also, it did not come down symmetrically; damage to buildings one block to the north is testimony to that.
Also: It wasn't hit by an airplane. But, it was hit by tons of debris from towers 1 and 2.
"Jet fuel burns at only about 1500 Degrees Fahrenheit in the open air and structural steel does not melt or even get significantly weakened until more than a thousand degrees hotter with a melting point of near 3300 degrees F."
Irrelevent. Jet fuel was no more than the starter fluid for the fires; it burnt off in less than to around 10 minutes. The fires that burned afterwards were the contents of the offices in the towers.
Also: Who says the steel melted? Steel loses 50% of it's load bearing capability at temperatures well below that 3300 degrees - around 1100 degrees, if I remember correctly - and well within the 1000 to 1500 degress estimated within sections of the towers.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
" There is no large plane wreckage in front of the Pentagon from the 757 that hit it."
False: http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-2#flight-77-wreckage
And more on the false claims about the Pentagon, and the oblique argument made that is supposed to shed doubt on the fact that a plane hit it:
http://911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
"All four hijacked planes flew for an average of 40 minutes, 1 hour 50
minutes total, without any fighter jet intercept over NY and Washington. As
you are aware, NY and Washington are some of the most protected airspace in
the world."
See above link; this myth is dealt with in that page's links too. Also:
http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-2#pentagon-damage
... etc.
"Just recently Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international
organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National
Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) in regards to the flight data
recovered from Flight 77. The data provided by the NTSB contradicts the
flight path given by the 9/11 commission report. The flight data that the
NTSB provided shows the 757 that hit the pentagon at 300 feet above the
highway..."
Wrong. PF911T did not properly interpret the data:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047
"Where is the plane wreckage from the plane crash in Shanksville, PA? in
pictures and video all you see is a small ditch with no fires, plane debris,
seats, bodies, etc.?"
The plane wreckage was there. It's a complete misrepresentation to allege that it wasn't:
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-4
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg4.html
http://911myths.com/html/flight_93.html
"How was the Patriot Act and the War on Terror so quickly developed after
9/11? Was this new program a reaction to 9/11 or something that was worked
on before September 11th and just conveniently ready for a terrorist attack?"
"9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation. Sadly, the sophistication of
this operation points more towards state sponsored terrorism than a small
group of bandits inside a cave."
These are thinly veiled accusations that the government either made 9/11 happen or had plans for a descent into totalitarianism. Those plans - the "PNAC" document "Rebuilding America's Defense" and the 1962 proposal "Operation Northwoods" are the sources of those allegations. Those are dealt with here:
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change#a-new-pearl-harbor
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change#operation-northwoods
"fight on in peace. I hope you decide to investigate the truth of 9/11 for
yourself."
I did. That's why I know everything you wrote is wrong.
-
Dave 08/09/2007 5:16:00 PM
Strange coincidence. Just after reading this article one of the advertising sales reps called me asking if I wanted to advertise. I had to laugh. Any rag(the new times lost its credibility with this article among others) that pushes a pathetic peice like this is not where I would advertise.
The author is weak on stringing something about someone he wants to discredit to them, without debating or "debunking" their content. If you can't face their facts, it's ok Mr Lemons. If you aren't up to the debate of a topic then I am sure you will find some other career that fits your ability for BS.
The information about one of the loose change guys leaving the military is suppose to discredit his stetement over that? Before that he cites his "Yoda" is also runs a site about Kerry. Any idiot that is going to run his mouth about how he hates Kerry, but then doesn't having any reference to him being critical of the Bush administration. This reeks of the conservative cattle mentality and lacks any credible objectivity. In the same light as the author casts on those he is trying to tarnish, he should be asking if we would take our arguments form a tubby comic book collecting slob thats only claim to fame is bashing a couple people he is better in debate in, oh, and Yoda reference to himself on some homeless guys toilet paper.
If you are going to be critial you have to put every public figure or peice of information under the same microscope. When you stop doing that, you are no longer a critically thinking human being, you are just a tool repeating someone elses story.
Bzzt! Wrong! Citing that one side claims the cell phone calls were faked & saying obviously they did work is a neuron gap no neural tranmitter could cross. You have to show that there is information the effectiveness of cell phones in that situation.
Bzzt! Wrong! Self appointemt experts? You really need to do your research or get a new job. Many of those that promote their information cite experts, they dont claim to be them. The term self appointed expert fits your Yoda more than anyone else.
Bzzt! Wrong! You have to be accurate with your statements. Stating conspiracy bloggers "threaten violence" in reference to banning someone from a forum is misleading.
Bzzt! Wrong! Sorry to steal your interjection there, but it seems fitting in pointing out errors. Setting up straw men such as the "Keebler Elf Lady" & Icke doesnt make "Yodas" stances right.
Bzzt! Wrong! The plane in Shanksville was reported to have disintegreated, but he soft fleshy peoples remains were able to be identified? How about a picture of a tail section, wing... something?
Bzzt! Wrong! Finally, contrasting one side to the three stooges & a southpark cartoon character while the other to a wise good guy just shows you have to try to sell your view without really having solid backing. Critiquing Griffin for authoring new age books in a country where a signifacant percentage believe a 2000 year old martyr came back from the dead & the world is only 6000 years old. Both of which can be disproved with more substance you have put in this article.
If your Yoda has a feeling inside that moves him, it isn't The Force, It's the Filabertos he ate last night.
-
Caligula Jones 08/09/2007 5:13:00 PM
Hmmm..
"Curley and Bennett aren't professional journalists, they don't have to pretend to be neutral, and they can be as snarky and offensive as they want. Name-calling and ad hominem attacks are de rigueur. Humor, invective, and ridicule are mandatory."
You mean a professional journalist wouldn't write something like "Chickenhaw George Bush"?
I guess the author is admitting to being an amateur.
But even amateurs can get it correct, and it was a good article. But it makes me wonder about 90% of the comments so far: did you even read it?
-
Captain Howdy 08/09/2007 3:50:00 PM
Great article!
Conspiracy theorists are the lowest form of scientific laziness.
They spend their whole lives wasting their time to prove that someone else is responsible for their pathetic life.
Being a Theorist is easy, you never have to do serious research, study, or have qualifications, and when someone disproves you, you can just accuse them of being part of the conspiracy, and you can make up a new one.
-
Frank Greening 08/09/2007 12:25:00 PM
You must be kidding with this article. This just about the worst excuse for journalism I've ever seen, adn that's saying a lot these days.
Now that the Village Voice, owner of the New Times, is owned by the New York Times, they are showing their true colors.
-
Arnold Macgregor 08/09/2007 12:16:00 PM
You'd think the "9/11Truth" movement would have built enough of a case in
five years to go before a grand jury with solid evidence. But claims
that no steel framed buildings besides the ones at the WTC ever collapsed
from fire are false. And those that collapsed before weren't hit by fuel
laden widebody jets doing 500mph. But they keep repeating the same thoroughly
debunked nonsense day after day, week after week, year after year, as if
maybe ignoring their isolation will somehow make them mainstream.
Not that long ago the "Truthers" tried to conduct a "citizens grand jury"
in San Diego, and despite a complete "show trial" meets "kangaroo court"
environment they couldn't secure even a spare, minimal "indictment" for
anyone or anything related to 9/11.
Seems after the mistakes made in Iraq and after Katrina, reasonable people
not suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) are un-willing to believe
the Bush Administration consists of the infallible ubermenschs the entire
"9/11 was an inside job" hypothesis is based on.
Even among themselves their fact and evidence free lies only produce
internal division and bickering among "truthers". There were planes,
no, they were holograms; there was controlled demolition, no, there
were particle beams from space; the phone calls from the hijacked
flights were faked and the passengers were killed, no, the passengers
are living in the lap of luxury on Bali Hai. And why not? There are
equal slices of baloney for all "9/11 truther" claims.
After 5 years they're all still about nothing more than on-line,
or other forms, of rants.
Thanks to Pat Curley and his web partner James Bennett
for providing a breath of fresh air among all the
miserable 9/11 Truth nonsense on-line.
-
N. O'Brain 08/09/2007 12:11:00 PM
"Whats the point of calling people kooky and delusional with these ad hominen attacks."
Well, that'd be because Troooothers are kooky and delusional, and, well, pretty much insane.
I believe the correct description is "nuttier than squirrel poop."
BTW. Einstein would be REALLY be interested in knowing that WTC7 fell "faster than the speed of gravity".
Kudos to the New Times for this article.
-
Frank Santos 08/09/2007 11:58:00 AM
To anyone who is about to post something on the "speed" of gravity: you only need recall your high school physics to remember that gravity is a form of ACCELERATION (9.8 meters per square second) and not a speed.
-
Lou Ciffer 08/09/2007 11:51:00 AM
"Actually WTC7 fell a little faster than the speed of gravity thanks to those well place explosives. At least according to everyone that isn't owned by Hearst corp."
LOL thanks for the laugh, AJfan. That is the funniest thing I have read all week.
"Faster than the speed of gravity!!!" HA HA HA HA HA HOO HOO HOO
-
AJ Fan 08/09/2007 11:14:00 AM
Actually WTC7 fell a little faster than the speed of gravity thanks to those well place explosives. At least according to everyone that isn't owned by Hearst corp.
http://www.alexjonesfan.com
-
Pete 08/09/2007 10:56:00 AM
Pat Curley and his buddy James B. have Zero Scientific background and biggest accomplishment should be noted as running the most backwards, head-in-the-ground, denial, anti-science website in existence.
There is ample proof that the official story on 9/11 is Bogus with 84% doubting it to some degree. But they are anything but objective and focus on straw man arguments like debunking cell phone calls and ad hominem attacks on prominent folks in the 9/11 truth movement.
They will not address any information that contradicts their small view of the world.
Go to WeAreChange.org for an interview with the John Shroeder who was there at ground zero and reports that the lobby of WTC 1 being blown out 5 MINUTES after the plane hit 80 stories above. I think he knows what happened.
Pat Curley and James Bennet should be ashamed for their hand and covering up the truth and disrespecting the victims and families who suffered that day and are seeking the truth of the events from that day.
-
CB_Brooklyn 08/09/2007 9:19:00 AM
The Twin Towers did not "collapse", they were pulverized:
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=57
-
shawn 08/09/2007 9:04:00 AM
Whats the point of calling people kooky and delusional with these ad hominen attacks. argue the evidence instead of attacking the person. There are thousands of well respected non kooky senior military, intelligence-service, law-enforcement and government officials; engineers, architects, pilots and aviation professionals; professors, 9/11 survivors and family members; and entertainment and media professionals that question the official story of 9/11. you can find some of them here-www.patriotsquestion911.com
I have been researching 9/11 for over four years and there are serious
unanswered questions from that day, I will propose 5. I hope you investigate
these for yourself�
1) Never in the history of steel structures has a building collapsed from
fire yet 3 did on 9/11; WTC tower 1,2 & 7. All three buildings came down at
free fall speed with no resistance; tower 7 was never hit by an airplane yet
came down symmetrically in seven seconds? Additionally odd, tower 2 fell
before tower 1 although tower 1 was hit first and tower 2 was hit with a
glancing blow. The explosion/ collapse in tower 2 started above where the
plane hit the tower? Jet fuel burns at only about 1500 Degrees Fahrenheit in
the open air and structural steel does not melt or even get significantly
weakened until more than a thousand degrees hotter with a melting point of
near 3300 degrees F.
2) There is no large plane wreckage in front of the Pentagon from the 757
that hit it. Taking from the official story, the 757 that hit the pentagon
flew over a highway, parallel and 5 to 10 feet above the ground and impacted
the pentagon between the 1st and 2nd floor. You can see the video the
pentagon released here, notice how the 757 is only flying several feet above
the ground- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8
(official story) The airplane did not leave any markings or large debris (ex
wings) on the front of the pentagon. the 757 supposedly was sucked into a
16ft by 24ft hole, before the ceiling collapsed a 1/2 hour later, and
incinerated. how did this plane hit only 15 ft above the ground after
descending so rapidly without ever hitting the ground and flown by an
amateur pilot? The 3 slides the pentagon released to the public shows a
small shaped device flying horizontally, very low to the ground and leaving
a small smoke trail. Just recently Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international
organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National
Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) in regards to the flight data
recovered from Flight 77. The data provided by the NTSB contradicts the
flight path given by the 9/11 commission report. The flight data that the
NTSB provided shows the 757 that hit the pentagon at 300 feet above the
highway and could not have clipped the light poles and subsequently struck
the pentagon between the first and second floor. Please see the article
here- http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_24288.shtml . How
come the Pentagon has not released video from the cameras mounted on the
roof? lastly, after traveling through three rings of the Pentagon, the plane
or whatever it was left a small circular exit hole in the third ring.
3. All four hijacked planes flew for an average of 40 minutes, 1 hour 50
minutes total, without any fighter jet intercept over NY and Washington. As
you are aware, NY and Washington are some of the most protected airspace in
the world.
4. Where is the plane wreckage from the plane crash in Shanksville, PA? in
pictures and video all you see is a small ditch with no fires, plane debris,
seats, bodies, etc.?
5. How was the Patriot Act and the War on Terror so quickly developed after
9/11? Was this new program a reaction to 9/11 or something that was worked
on before September 11th and just conveniently ready for a terrorist attack?
9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation. Sadly, the sophistication of
this operation points more towards state sponsored terrorism than a small
group of bandits inside a cave. I continue to hear government and military
officials saying we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and globally. Does this
mean as the lone superpower we supposedly were attacked by this rag tag
group on September 11th and have been fighting them for the last 6 years
without 'mission accomplished'? How often have our leaders evoked the memory
of 9/11 to rally our people for certain causes (i.e. Iraq)?
fight on in peace. I hope you decide to investigate the truth of 9/11 for
yourself.
Namaste
Shawn Cooper
PS For a summary and the best documentary of 9/11 I recommend watching Loose
Change 2. You can watch it for free here-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+2&hl=en
or visit www.wtc7.net or www.st911.org and start your own research...
-
CB_Brooklyn 08/09/2007 8:19:00 AM
Do aluminum airplanes with plastic nosecones glide through steel/concrete buildings?
Watch September Clues:
(tinyurl link to livevideo.com)
http://tinyurl.com/2yc5l9
-
CB_Brooklyn 08/09/2007 8:15:00 AM
Dr Judy Wood: http://drjudywood.com
-
CB_Brooklyn 08/09/2007 8:14:00 AM
Has anyone seen Dr Judy Wood's 9/11 site? Google her name! Her work has been discussed with government officials, including an official at Kirtland Air Force Base.
-
Kevin 08/09/2007 8:03:00 AM
What a load of crap.
If another unknown author of this once anaonymous blog is foisted on us as some kind of know it all expert, I'm gonna puke.
Where's Rumsfeld's missing 2.3 trillion again?
-
Tobias Ussing 08/09/2007 7:19:00 AM
Nice to see some proper journalism for once, instead of the constant hype and fear mongering. And a very good subject as well.
One of the few proper articles i have read this year..
-
Fig Newton 08/09/2007 6:47:00 AM
"How do modern steel framed buildings collapse at the speed of gravity?" What speed would you like for them to fall at, old bean? The speed of light? Take a look at any video footage of the Twin Towers coming down. The bulk of each tower respectively is falling slower than other debris and detritus from it, which is falling faster. That's because the bulk is meeting resistance as it falls (from the mass below it). The bulk of the towers did not come down at free-fall speed, which is what you mean to imply.
Keep the apple. I'd prefer a martini...
-
AJ Fan 08/09/2007 5:29:00 AM
Nice writing but I got a friend named Sir Isaac Newton who wants me to ask you politely, "how do modern steel framed buildings collapse at the speed of gravity?".
He's offering a nice shiney red apple for whoever can answer the 10.5 second answer.
