A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Rather than calling it the Cynic's Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE.

Perhaps Nick Pole can explain why Building 007 was totally omitted from even one single mention in the Commission Report he found to be so good and comprehensive?

Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911?

How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each?

All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant – How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within, (according to NIST; the video evidence and seismic data) 10 seconds, when if it were a 417 metres of empty vacuum the top bit fell through – it would take 9.22 seconds Precisely.

How can a building offer next to no resistance yet 1 second prior to the initiation of destruction sequence the very fact the building was upright states it had a minimum of 1 times working load?

Yet if you observe the blueprint the building were designed with 3 times working load in mind as they always have more than 100% redundancy as are the building codes.

So, seeing as for example the UNDAMAGED 50th floor was designed to carry 3 times the 60 floors above it, and we are guaranteed it had to carry at least 1 times the 60 floors above it, and the lower the floors the tougher and heavier they were –

It is just not physically possible to collapse a body through the path of most resistance at near free speed – it defies all common sense and at least three laws of physics.

So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each – what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?

And if it is physically not even possible for Gravity to destroy the burning buildings within 10 seconds as is Physics fact – then it was not the fire or the jet crash nor the terrorist who brought the buildings down on 911.

Even additional bombs in the basement and elsewhere would not destroy the buildings in 10 seconds; it would require precision set, precision timed demolition on at least every third if not every second floor.

Conspiraloon Alert!

3 year old Kid

Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

The question is how can you be so totally ignorant? Go and read the following websites:

9-11 Myths

Screwloosechange.blog

Internet Detectives.

All your questions will be answered.

911 conspiracies = DEBUNKED

to all the counter intelligence people that are posting lies please be aware that the truth will out and you will be punished. Notice that the guy who tried to counter 3 year old kids claims, gave no facts himself, told you to look at a report that he does not quote anything from, etc. Look at all the debunking sites and interviews all of them are obviously bogus as they never tackle the facts just attack the personalities.

http://www.netctr.com

I'm Neil's co-host on the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute (i.e. the other cretin). Just like to note that our website is http://www.radiophonic.org.uk, where you'll also shortly be able to subscribe to a podcast of the show.

You guys have hit the nail on the head. Kudos to you both for having the balls to produce this, I'm sure many truthers will be calling for blood now.

Any report on the kind of feedback you've had since the show?

Please keep us all informed of what you're doing, and thank you to all who had the guts to take part and promote this show.

The cult is slowly being exposed thanks to brave efforts like this.

Yeah these troofers I don't know, I'm sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history).

I'm no scientist so I can't give answers as to how these buildings didn't topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side), I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F.

I'm sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can't seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them). If I predicted someones murder I'm sure it would be investigated thoroughly but this kind of examination of our BBC is not required (an examination would be a bit of a problem as the BBC have said they have lost all of their footage from Sept 11th 2001, quite amazing if true).

Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of 'new Pearl Harbour' is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911)

The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me) and the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building.

Funny how Rumsfeld gave 3 different accounts of his actions on the morning of 9-11 to the commission and they, rather than querying this they combine 2 of the accounts and completely ignore the other.

Of course the fact that good old Dick Cheney says he arrived in the Whitehouse bunker at 10am despite witnesses putting him there some 35 minutes earlier (i.e. before the plane hit the Pentagon). Cheney was also reportedly told about the plane heading towards the Pentagon at 40, 30, 20 and 10 miles out and was asked 'if the orders still stand' and he said that they did (these obviously weren't the scramble orders to jets to intercept this plane as is standard operationg procedure as these orders were never given).

Your freind and mine George Dubya says that he saw the first jet hit the tower before going in to his meeting with his intellectual superiors in the pre-school classroom (this was of course impossible as the only footage of this wasn't shown until the following day). When he was told of the second plane hitting he sat there for another 20 minutes reading a book about goats rather than responding to the obvious problem.

Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack (despite the well known fact that Osama hated Saddam nearly as much as Dubya).

I'm completely with George when he says 'Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th' it's just I don't think that he is looking at the same conspiracy theory as me.

Hey-ho it'll be Iraq next, they are currently being told to stop their weapons program despite the fact that the IAEA have said that they don't have one. There'll be some poxy Powerpoint presentation on their nuclear prowess (that or a false flag of some description). The endless war on terror really will be endless if we carry on chasing weapons that don't exist.

400 professionals? Around the whole world you manage to find 400? Is that it? If there was any fact in these claims then ALL engineers etc would be crying out. In fact from the 400 professionals how many are experts in the fields relevant to the science of these claims?

Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked. You might not like it. It might not sit with your opinion but that's the facts. Deal with it. You got it wrong.

Thank you Reptor, you are really making my day.

Well, go on then just don't talk about it – let us see the maths and actual Physics.

Debunk the Physics, now is your chance old chap.

Give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance due to gravity alone.

Secondly, give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance and falls at nearly freefall speed using gravity alone.

And then just for extra points to prove we qualified folk don't know what we are talking about and how super brainy you are – show the world the maths to back up the claim.

Please show the Physics and the Maths.

Hahaaaa Reptor your entire response to my problems with the official story consists of ‘they couldn’t possibly do that’.

Well I bow to your superior knowledge and reasoning, I can see from your responses that you are totally close minded on this issue. All of the stuff I’ve put in my responses to you are freely available online, have a look in to it.

We aren’t making stuff up, the no planers and space weapons and hologram BS is not where we’re coming from (these theories are at best put forward by idiots or at worst a deliberate attempt to paint all people who don’t fall for the official story as nutcases).

My specific problems as listed above (at the risk of repeating myself) are: -

Only 3 steel framed modern skyscrapers have suffered a collapse due to fire damage. All 3 of those happened on 9-11 and all 3 collapsed into their own footprint. Now as I see it, the damage would have been asymetrical as the planes impact and main focus of the fire would have been on one side of each of the buildings. If this impact and subsequent fire had melted the steel (impossible due to the hardened steel and the burning temperature of kerosene as mentioned above, but even if we ignore that fact) then the buildings would have toppled over due to the second law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy). Now there is always an exception to the rule, so even though it contravenes the laws of physics I could probably write off one of the buildings exhibiting this behaviour as a freak occurence, but 3 freak occurences on the same day? Puhrlease!

The fact that all 3 buildings collapsed at near freefall speed (i.e as if there was no resistance), if you look at the dust clouds created from the crushing/exploding? of the cement those clouds would have taken a lot of energy to create (i.e. made a lot of resistance). If these clouds had been created by the natural collapse of the buildings each floor would have taken an amount of time to collapse and create the dust clouds and this ‘resistance’ would have slowed the collapse substantially (it didn’t).

The fact that WTC7 had no impact from a plane, there were what appeared to be some minor fires looking at the footage but the only propellant they can put in this building is diesel which burns substantially cooler than kerosene, but this building collapsed due to this fire when even kerosene from the planes doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel!

The many eye witness accounts that describe explosions at WTC7 as it was collapsing, to quote on NYFD employee ‘there was a pop, pop, pop as each floor went, like a demolition’

Now you mentioned the insurance companies and this is one that intrigues me, when I see video of the recent purchaser and insured party that owned WTC7 a Larry Silverstein on video saying how he agreed with the fire department to ‘pull’ WTC7 (‘pull’ is a term used by demolitions teams for the implosion of buildings using detonations), I wonder how on earth they agreed to pay out. I’m sure my house insurance wouldn’t pay out if my house burned down and I was on record as saying that I threw a molitov cocktail at it.

Just out of interest I’d like to know where you come up with the idea that it would take ‘THOUSANDS’ of people to do something like this, just think about the staff member in the Whitehouse bunker asking Cheney ‘if the order still stood’, if this order was not to scramble fighter jets to protect the Pentagon then would the staffer have had to have been in on it or would he just have been obeying the commands of his superior? Would he now like to stand up and inform on Dick Cheney, how far would he think that would get him, other than the dole queue and loss of pension etc? What could each person on their own know? It’s exactly how terrorist organisations work, in cells. Ever heard the term ‘plausible deniability’? The whole conspiracy could not be uncovered unless every person in every part decided to blow the whistle, now what each person has knowledge of would be a little part of the big picture and they would see their knowledge as inconsequential.

I mean the evidence for the US and UK going to war was clearly fabricated, the 45 minutes claim, the nuclear and biological arsenal, the mobile chemical labs (something a student dreamed up that was then put forward as fact), how many people must have been involved in that? How many of them are likely to have signed the official secrets act or the American equivalent? How many of them would be willing to risk a spell in jail to blow the whistle on something that on its own doesn’t really carry much weight.

Some other random ones: -

How did the BBC and CNN predict the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before it collapsed?

Why is Osama seen writing with his right hand in the video where he claims responsibility when the FBI website clearly says he is left handed? Did Osama forget which hand he writes with or are the FBI misinformed?

Just because they say you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you ;)

Question everything and look for yourself, don’t believe me or believe someone else, make your own mind up (what I would say is that a commission report that cost 1/80th of the amount of money spent on finding out what Bill Clinton was doing with his cigars is not the best place to start, also NIST couldn’t get real world models of the towers to fall over so they did a computer simulation so they could alter the parameters. Hey it’s no wonder people are asking for another investigation eh?)

What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories.

This has been proven on this very page.

Ashley
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Link to this

“I’m sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history).”

Yes, the logical explanations can be found in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report?

“I’m no scientist so I can’t give answers as to how these buildings didn’t topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side”

You don’t need to be a scientist – for the building to ‘topple over’ it would require a force pushing from the side. There was none. The only force on the towers was the greatest; gravity. The towers had no-where else to go but straight down. What were they going to do, tap-dance around New York for a while? PS. Have you read the NIST report?

“I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F.”

That’s because it’s impossible. The steel didn’t melt, it was heated and LOST STRENGTH, as neatly explained in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report?

“I’m sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can’t seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them).”

Hunt some more (hint: try 9-11 Myths, Screwloosechange or
Internet Detectives.) Everyone involved knew WTC7 was coming down, that’s why they cleared the area and no-one was killed. the building was gutted by savage, multi-floor fires, one side had massive structural damage from debris from the collapsing towers, and the fucking thing was starting to lean over at an alarming angle…so, they figured it was probably gonna fall. Funny that…

Also, it fell down because gravity was the greatest force, or do you believe it should have joined the towers in a pirouette around New York? have you read the NIST report?

“If I predicted someones murder I’m sure it would be investigated thoroughly….”

It was. The 9-11 investigation was the largest in US history (and the world?)

“Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of ‘new Pearl Harbour’ is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911)”

Sigh. The reference to a ‘new Pearl Harbour’ was taken completely out of context bu the 9-11 truthers. The comment came during a debate about military prowess. The speaker suggested that history showed military improvements often came after some sort of dramatic event which spurred R&D within the military. He suggested this would occur if there was another dramatic events like a ‘new Pearl Harbour’.

“The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me)”

One of the major findings of the investigation was a shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc. In short, a level of incompetence. There were THOUSANDS of planes in the sky that day…jeez, go do some bleeding research (hint: read the NIST report).

“the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building.”

Actually, no. There were bugger all cameras ‘focused’ on the building…they were focused on the car entry, the service station forecourt, etc., as most cameras are.

“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”

I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.

“Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack”

You mean Bush was being a politician and trying to use 9-11 to push through his own agenda! Unbelievable!

Enough. You are a moron.

Next….

3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this

“So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?”

Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand?

“Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?”

Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds?

have ANY of your morons read the NIST report?

“Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details”

Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined?
(hint: tens of thousands)

Edward, don’t expect these failed Communist and failed Socialists (NOW claiming to be CULT WATCHERS) to wake up EVER.

The fact is, they are science savvy poor – they are literally unable to grasp and logically process the important scientific 911 facts.

They are so weak minded and so perversely politically driven they allow 911 dust to cloud & choke their judgments; unburned bandannas to blind their vision and this so called “Cult Watch” Characters are the perfect example of were because they were not the centre of attention at somebody else’s public meeting, and because someone just happened to give them a heckle, they now are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and are equivalent to becoming holocaust type deniers.

And all this stuff peddled by the likes of Strug.

Quote:-

“What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories.

This has been proven on this very page.”

Well pardon me for holding a professional scientific opinion about the most important aspect of 911, that being it is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at near freefall speed – it now turns out these characters don’t actually want to focus on what http://www.ae911truth.org/ is actually saying (the HARD scientific FACTS) but how some supporters address & behave at public meetings.

Well what can one say.

How is this for scientific method:-

They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists from “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake UFO expert who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean how sort of low can these Cretins Go?

Paul W

Thank you for your erudite reply and for the assertion that I am a moron, unfortunately this is the same kind of personal attack that tries to discredit an argument by resorting to insults as is commonly used by believers of the offical conspiracy theory (if you can’t discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger with an ad-hominem attack – nice).

Your insistence on repeating your ‘have you read the NIST report’ question does not make our arguments go away. NIST initially tried to use real world models to explain the collapse of the 3 buildings, they were completely unable to do this so then changed tack and used a computer simulation to prove their theories (where they could alter the input parameters to their hearts content). Now call me a cynical troofer conspiraloon but if they can’t get real world models to exhibit the behaviour they claim was responsible for the collapse and have to resort to doing it in theory then I have little faith in their findings.

When you tell me to read the NIST report to find out about how the lack of communication between the different services was one of the major contributing factors I’m guessing you mean the 9-11 commission report rather than the NIST report as the NIST report has no such information in it (of course you know this as you keep asking us if we’ve read it, you wouldn’t ask that question unless you had read it yourself eh ;)

You are clearly out of your depth regarding the idea that these buildings would topple over, if the plane impact and resultant fire was one one side of the building then the stresses on the building would be asymetrical. If the stresses on the building were asymetrical you would expect the top of the building to topple over to one side (as explained earlier think Jenga or if you are feeling up to it google for ‘the law of entropy’).

If as you claim that the steel lost strength then that would give even more credence to the idea that the top of the building would have toppled to one side or the other, a weakened piece of steel would not concertina down on itself rather it would go towards the path of least resistance (it would bend before breaking).

How you can claim that the 9-11 investigation was the largest in the world when the sum total of money spent on the 9-11 Commission report came to approximately $500,000 (just to put this in perspective over $40 million dollars was spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation).

All your sighing and huffing and puffing does absolutely nothing to water down my arguments it just makes you look like you are in the playground rather than having an adult conversation.

With regards your assertion that there were only 2 cameras focussed on the area of impact at the Pentagon is absolutely hilarious, this is the most protected building in the world, if you are really of the mind that the images they’ve shown are the best they can offer then seriously I ask you to reconsider. In all likelihood it would be impossible to walk up to that building without a camera being able to get a good look at your face (this would be to deter terrorists from walking up and putting bombs up against the walls, DOH).

I would dearly love to know what you meant by the following: -

“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”

I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.

Are you in receipt of knowledge that explains this away because you should let people know as no-one else is!

As for WTC7 being ‘gutted from savage multi floor fires’ that is clearly preposterous, go look at some archive footage and come back and say it again. WTC7 was not leaning in any direction whatsoever, there are loads of different angles the collapse was filmed from, please point me in the direction of one which shows this ‘leaning’ (also if it was leaning then the law of entropy would cause us to expect it topple over rather than down and in on itself but the laws of physics don’t seem to be able to convince you of anything).

With regards your question on how long it should have taken WTC7 to collapse, Stephen Jones calculated that just from the resistance of the concrete (ignoring any resistance the steel columns may have had) that the building should have taken just over 10 seconds to collapse rather than the 6.6 it did take (freefall speed with no resistance and in a vacuum would have taken 6 seconds).

As for the PNAC comment being taken out of context, I have read the report myself (it’s freely available online) and I fail to see where you are coming from with this. The gist of it is that America will not be able to spread it’s Pax Americana around the world unless a Pearl Harbour type incident occurs so as to make it a populist move.

With regards the BBC premonition of the collapse of WTC7, I’m sorry your explaination holds no water. This is only the 3rd modern steel framed skyscraper to collapse due to fire damage, no-one could have predicted its collapse some 25 minutes prior.

Please don’t resort to name calling again Paul it only serves to show an element of desperation on your part and that is not a good way to win an argument. Oh btw I loved how you called me lazy and then went on to answer half of my points by calling me a moron, is this not laziness epitomised ;)

Why are troofers ignoring the PEER REVIEW issue?

GET A PEER REVIEW

PEER REVIEW!!

PEER REVIEW!!

PEER REVIEW!!

Without that your science ain't worth shit.

You dismiss a peer review? OMG.

Maybe those who lost their jobs have done so because they have shown themselves to be incapable.

Incase you missed it … http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7″ points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.

9/11 demolition theory challenged

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a “controlled demolition”.

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

“The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse,” Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the “residual capacity” of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

He added that his calculations showed this was a “very ordinary thing to happen” and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive “squibs” can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

Dr. Keith A. Seffen

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy…

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is…

“Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows…

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?”, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it’s not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It’s had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no “theory of intelligent design” except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.”

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

The paper… http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse…

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
“Addendum to ‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis” (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
“WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings”
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

“Construction and Collapse Factors”
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
“Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster”
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

“Dissecting the Collapses”
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
“Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
“Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center”
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

“Collapse Lessons”
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
“TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering”
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
“World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations”
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
“Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
“Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site”
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
“No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report”
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
“Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing”
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center – Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

“WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives”
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

Dr Seffen should be commended for at least trying.

Even NIST did not do the 10-second destruction sequence. (I wonder Why?)

Dr Seffen is a very capable person and his mathematics skills are very good indeed.

However despite being rather imaginative and having a jolly good attempt at modeling the impossible – his analysis has several key glaring flaws some of which I have listed here:-

He has assumed there was no cross bracing. (The WTCs were all heavily cross-braced).

He assumes the towers collapsed uniformly – yet damage and fires were more prevalent on one side and we have a video of the top portion toppling.

He assumes there was no reinforced concrete when in fact there were 300,000 tonnes in each 110 floor WTC building.

His paper defies conservation of energy – there was less than 10% of the necessary energy in the entire upright structure needed to do what Dr Seffen claims happened.

His paper defies conservation of momentum. He claims the top smaller section crushed the heavier lower section whilst the top lighter section stayed in a perfect intact condition until after it had finished destroying the much larger and heavier lower 80+ floors.

These are the less technical problems with the paper of which can be proved easily almost none mathematically via freely available evidence.

Regarding peer review, whilst it is very important, it has one or two very deep flaws.

In the case of this particular Seffen paper the referees are anonymous. So how can this paper be effectively peer reviewed if the referees can not be contacted to make comments and back up their approval by providing actual EVIDENCE.

In relation to all my works, I never have it peer reviewed via journals. I keep it secret because of commercial reasons.

So shipmates and Cult watch pirates – Hands up all those who think burning jet fuel in air can weaken steel? DUH!!!!

Is there anybody else apart from Dr Keith Seffen that believes in Free Energy machines?

If so, does anyone want to buy a safe seafront villa in Baghdad?

RINFer

Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Good effort, but you'll get no-where: truthers are insane.

Just read the ravings of 3 year old Kid, Ashely and Co…it 'aint gonna t work, they're too far gone.

Too many bongs, too much paranoia, too many out-of-whack brain cells, too many insecurities.

Is this attacking the person? Damn right it is – if the NIST /Commission reports and the vast amount of online material from various experts and eyewitness doesn't change their mind, nothing will.

I post here so anyone new to the 9-11 'truth' garbage has an opportunity to listen to the other side. This is a very poorly represented faction of the 'truth' movement; don't expect them to offer debunking sites to newbies so they can compare things.

"I just want to talk facts and not attack the person"….

Pah. It's all troofer bunk. I posted an answer to their idiotic comments, and said 'moron' once, and their reply? They answered NONE of the issues I raised but whined on about name-calling. Pathetic.

All they ever do is run and hide when caught in the headlights of reality.

Have to say though, their later posts on how the buildings should have fallen is a riot. What a bunch of fruit-cakes.

More info on black smoke from 911myths:

"While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful."
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTroubl…

The whole article is: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

Countdown to idiot troofers ignoring the debunking and screaming about other 'anomalies' 5, 4, 3, 2….

Paul W

4 posts on the trot and I am raving lol. Look Paul you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. As for calling me a moron you didn’t just do that you ignored half of my post. You have not, as you claim, answered my idiotic comments (which is in itself another personal attack). Why are you getting yourself worked up in to such a frenzy that you have to insult people. I’m not insulting you so why do you feel the need?

Anyway myself and 3yo kid aren’t alone, 36% of people questioned in a national poll in the US believe that the US administration was complicit in some way. There are former members of the intelligence community that believe it was an inside job, a former prime minister of a western country, physics professors, architects, first responders, employees that were there on the day, firemen, policemen, civil engineers, soldiers and countless millions of other people from all walks of life (but of course you know more than all of these put together).

It is not an open and shut case as you would like the rest of the world to believe and do you know what would appease many of these people? A new well funded and powerful inquiry that covers all the bases, rather than starting with a conclusion and looking only for facts which prove them right.

Some of your responses are clearly wrong, ‘pull’ is an industry term for controlled demolition, anyway what did Larry Silverstein mean when he said it? The only answer he has managed to give is to pull the firefighters out of the building, this is a clear lie as no firefighting took place inside WTC7 according to a member of NIST and according to the FEMA report. Now such a clear inconsistency should be investigated, expecially when you consider more than 3,000 people died on that day and countless others are ill from the dust clouds that they were told were safe (let alone the illegal invasion of a sovereign country that ensued as a direct result).

A new investigation is required and all and sundry should be able to put their POV in to that (even the loopy space weapons and holograms ideas etc) so that every avenue can be explored.

Looking at the evidence, the most obvious cause for those buildings to fall were demolition charges, now believers of the official story are coming up with stuff like ‘the molten metal seen coming out of the building is a UPS that was on the 81st floor’ and all sorts of other explainations to anomolies and you are eating them up like a spoon fed baby (btw Aluminum doesn’t glow bright yellow when molten, go find it out for yourself). Now I am sure you are aware that in the archive footage of the collapse there is a clear shot of yellow glowing metal coming out of the building just before collapse, this is consistent with the use of thermate or thermite. Also there are countless interviews with clean up crews and footage that says and shows in no uncertain terms that there were pools of molten metal in the clean up site. Now if the temperatures weren’t hot enough to melt the steel (which is a conclusion of the NIST report), then where did the molten metal come from?

Please don’t patronise me Paul and tell me how much more you know than me, because at best you look bigheaded but to 36% of Amricans you look like something a lot less generous.

Now I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier when you confused the NIST Report with the Kean Report (9-11 commission report) I am less inclined to do so really but I would stop short of calling you names out of politeness. Stop telling people to go and read the NIST report, you clearly haven’t read it but you seem to place a lot of faith in it.

You say that the buldings didn’t collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition but in a similar manner. For the benefit of everyone reading this please can you outline the main differences as you see them? (oh and I’m not on about what NIST says, I’m on about what it looked like)

You say that the woman seen looking out of the entry hole is there after the fires have moved on elsewhere, I’m interested to know how the steel supports were weakened due to fire as the only place where the Kerosene was is where the plane was (or is there some special non-conspiracy kerosene that climbs up stairwells and ignites itself on higher floors?). The reason I ask this is that a standard office fire without the accellerant kerosene would burn at a substantially lower temperature.

If, as you claim, the fire had moved elsewhere that would imply that the kerosene had all burnt off and that the temperature in that area had dropped low enough for people to walk about in it. How on earth are we to believe that with temperatures low enbough for people to survive, steel certified to 2750F for 2 hours weakened enough for collapse? (at a substantially lower temperature for a substantially shorter period of time).

You say that the symtyrical collapses due to asymetrical damage is explained in NIST (not to the satisfaction of a good deal of people), but then you go on to say it will be explained in the upcoming WTC7 report. Now are you clairvoyant, so important you have been given a sneak preview or just plain guessing?

You just appear to be going off to any site you can find in google and quoting their debunking, now I’d like to know have all of these sources been peer reviewed Paul or are you just taking their word for it?

I don’t believe every 9-11 conspiracy out there as I have stated before, but you appear to hold as gospel any piece of information that gives you a chance to debunk. I have used my own critical faculties to come to my own conclusions from looking at the evidence (archive footage etc), a rudimentary understanding of physics, common sense and real world knowledge. You appear to just be putting all your eggs in the debunking websites basket.

To be honest Paul I hope you are right, because if you aren’t then there are bigger problems in the world than the non-existent nuclear weapons program of Iran and the US hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East.

Do you think it is reasonable that $40M is spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal but only $500,000 on the Kean Report? Don’t you think that it is an insult to those who died on the day and since due to the events of that day?

If I was a relative of one of the victims I would be absolutely outraged that the philandering of one man is seen to be 80 times more important that the deaths of 3,000 odd people and the subsequent deaths from the effects.

Wouldn’t you like to see a new inquiry? All of your debunking could be made official instead of guesswork. Then you wouldn’t have to put up with idiotic morons like me.

Anyway toodle-pip for now :)

No, go and take your filthy lies, hate crimes & Delphi mind tactics elsewhere MaxPane.

What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece Diatribe radio broadcast LIES for what it is – subtle HATE MEDIA.

It is promoting the HATE and distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers at

http://www.ae911truth.org/

from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS – whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics.

The NAZIS used EXACTLY the same type of tactics with the Reichstag fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Let us Examine the scientific method used for this HIT PIECE Cretins Guide to 911 and TAKE THEM TO PIECES, DUST AND RUBBLE:-

They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists/Commey who

set up “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically

trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering [who has

spent time in jail ] & a fruitcake UFO expert who just

happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has

ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom

just because he really read the official pack of lies and

believed it –

when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question

if the CIA actually officially ever wanted Osmar Binladen

for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean how low can these HATE Cretins Go?

So shipmates and "Cult Watch" "HATE CRETS" – Is Osmar

Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 – or NOT?

AND

IF NOT – Why NOT?

And do you still think burning jet fuel can weaken steel? DUH!!!!

The "9/11 was an inside job" theory relies in part upon evidence of molten metal found at ground zero.

Deutsch Bank hired a firm, RJ Lee Group, to conduct tests on the WTC dust as part of a study of how to clean up their area. Their report concludes:

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20St…

Similar spherical particles were found by Professor Stephen Jones.

The melting point of steel and iron is known. Therefore this is direct and irrefutable evidence of temperatures exceeding those which are possible by hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fires. The existance of molten metal on the scene is backed up by eyewitnesses testimony, while these extreme temperatures were also recorded by NASA thermal satellite images.

NIST denies this evidence exists, although they have admitted that they themselves did not look for such evidence, their reasoning being "there's no point looking for something that isn't there."

Can we agree that since there is evidence of temperatures beyond those which are possible by hyrdocarbon fires, then there should be a new investigation?

Could such molten and evaporated metal affect the building collapse? Or is it insignificant? If you think these high temperatures contributed to the collapse, then wouldn't it be sensible to find out what caused such temperatures?

It would help us to more fully understand the mechanism of the collapse and prevent such disasters in the future. The NIST report theorises on the conditions and events that lead up to the collapse of the towers, but stops at the actual moment of collapse.

NIST ignores evidence of molten iron (or steel), because it states that hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel or iron. Therefore, according to NIST, these spherical particles cannot exist.

This shouldn't be about "who is right." This is an important issue concerning the safety of steel structures, especially for those who live or work inside them. There are still questions that need to be answered.

It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?

That was then – this is now!

What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is –

It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS – whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial.

Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :-

I repeat myself:-

They wheel in this disgruntled socialists/ Commey from “Cult Watch” who was told to clear off by “the Troofers” , is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture,

Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake self confessed UFO NUT who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is

a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these brainy Chaps has even the savvy to question if the

CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean – what is going on?

So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT?

Does anyone else see a big problem here?

Does anyone else understand that If the truth is not exposed many more lives will continue to be lost.

Tina

Ummm no I haven't read the Commission report, I don't read fiction. In all seriousness I have no appetite for something quite so dry and I do know for a fact that a lot of the things I mention are not included in the report so reading it is not going to appease me anyway (there aren't answers in it for most of the questions 3yo kid, Toby and myself pose above for instance).

As for branding all truthers as antagonistic I think you'll find I've been called an idiot and a moron but have managed to refrain from name calling myself (have a read if you disbelieve me). I think you'll find that I am trying to discuss it, I am avoiding getting 'all ranty' and am letting the insults slide. Why when 3yo kid calls someone a cretin you jump all over it but when I'm called an idiot and a moron you ignore it? Do you have a bias? Are you being selective with the 'evidence'?

Some of the things I've mentioned I don't need to be a physicist to understand, like asymetrical damage to something should produce an asymetrical effect (I even used Jenga to illustrate my point, that's how little it needs physics). I also don't need to be a physicist to ask where molten metal came from when the fires weren't hot enough to cause it. I also don't need to be a physicist to know that if a fire is raging with enough intensity to 'weaken' steel hardened to withstand temperatures of 2750F that it would not be possible for human beings to be wandering around in it. I don't need to be a physicist in order to ask why no jets were scrambled around the Pentagon, I don't need to be a physicist in order to ask if Osama is left handed according to the FBI then how come he is seen writing with his right hand in the video where he supposedly claims responsiblity (it's beside the point that in the video he looks more like my dad made up to look like Osama than Osama ;) I can carry on but I don't really want to. If these questions are ever going to go away then a new inquiry is not necessary but vital in the intersts of all concerned. I fully expect you not to agree as you have shown your bias in your posting, probably without even noticing it, it's funny how this subject polarizes people isn't it.

Juice

The work of fiction comment was a joke (I thought that would have been fairly obvious by the next sentence starting 'In all seriousness……')

In all seriousness the 9-11 Commission Report started with a conclusion (that 19 Arabs attacked America and the reasons they got away with it is because of incompetence and various other coincedences) and only looked for facts to prove this, there was no other possibilities entertained and so many questions remain unanswered.

The idea of controlled demolition was not entertained so not investigated. If I told you that the collapses of those buildings could definitely have occured due to controlled demolition, would you dispute this?

If I asked you where the molten metal came from would you be able to furnish me with an answer from the report?

Can you explain why Osama doesn't look like Osama in the responsibility video, how come he writes with his right hand when the FBI tell us he is left handed? Would you get those answers from the 9-11 Commission Report?

At the end of the day I'm not going through the questions again as I have put them up plenty of times in this thread. For crying out loud look at the questions that remain unanswered, don't just slag people off as troofers (you are doing what is often claimed of truthers). These questions need answering. Do you have answers to every question I've posed? Did you get those answers from the 9-11 commission report or did you get them from websites?

The actual science has never been peer reviewed, that is very different from not being able to pass peer review.

I'm not after the moon on a stick, I just think that there are so many unanswered question that it demands a fresh look.

Not one of the official story proponents on here have been able to answer my questions. Paul w seems to take one question out of 20, debunk it (using whatever site he can find) and then pour scorn on the questioner in order to try and discredit the other 19 questions.

Thanks for that Juice.

You do make some valid points, even if the report was total TITS UP – one should read it.

That is, unless you know prior to reading it – its an absolute pile of crock.

Here is an analogy you will grasp easily:-

Suppose you have a corner shop, which is precisely 1/4 of a mile from your front door.

Suppose you phone the shop and put in an order for groceries, and when you ask the assistant how long they will be they say – "less than 10 seconds".

Now you put the phone down and sure enough, less than 10 seconds later the doorbell rings and there is the delivery you ordered.

Now let us analyze this rather odd scenario.

The delivery van appears to be just an ordinary Escort van. So, how is it even physically possible for the van to get from the shop to your house in less than 10 seconds?

But hold on a minute – how long would it have taken to pick & pack the order?

So, then you have to get your thinking cap on.

The only possible way the order could have got there within 10 seconds of the phone being put down is if the order had already been picked and packed and the delivery van was nearly outside the house when the phone call was made.

If it was a regular order this is not unexceptional and the Physics makes perfect sense.

However, if the order was not a regular order and no order has ever been put before because you have just moved in from Australia, and the van turns up within 10 seconds of your call à you have 100% proof the guy must have broken the speed limit and that to do so his van would have had to have at least several hundred brake horsepower under the hood.

Now seeing as it is an ordinary escort van, and seeing how the order would have to have been picked and packed prior to transport – you know such a fiction is totally Physically IMPOSSIBLE.

Regarding 911

And so, because one knows the times, heights and the acceleration due to gravity, a simple equation H=1/2gt^2 absolutely proves 911 could be nothing but Controlled Demolition.

And we can know this with 100% accuracy – that is why NIST did not cover the fall sequence and neither did the Omission Commission.

So why read a full report you know is totally wrong?

just read & ignore the conclusions.

Thanks Tina & others.

The powers that be, know most of the population are not science savvy, they also know that of those who are science savvy they can control them from blabbing without even having to lift a finger.

Imagine this, you work 10 years just to become a Qualified Physicist or Engineer or Architect. To even start that you had to work your butt off at school and college.

Now imagine you now have your PhD and a position which is paying you a living or good wage. You have a wife and children to support, mortgage to pay and Kids to get through college etc. You have the car payments, the bill payments and you have holiday money to find.

Along comes 911.

3,000 people die.

The governments of the world say it was 19 Muslim hijackers what done it etc etc.

What do you do?

You have all these personal responsibilities, marriage, children, dog ,cat etc – they all need feeding and clothing etc.

Let’s suppose you know 100% in your own mind the official government story sucks. What do you do?

Well, I will tell you what the smart people do – the smart people say and do NOTHING. They keep their head down, they say nothing to anyone which can rock the boat.

Departments need funding; they get that funding ultimately from taxpayers via the controlling Government funding bodies. If a professor starts blabbing off they are told they are putting the funding at risk, which is putting all of their jobs and reputations at risk. So the pressure to "act responsibly" is very powerful.

The same applies with the military, you will notice only officers who have retires ever speak out.

Well, in academia a scientist never retires really until they die. Imagine if the scientist has retired, do you suppose they are willing to risk the credibility of their life’s work and speak out?

And not only be attacked by the Government side, but by the likes the “HATE CRETS” from “Cult watch”.

Tina, what would you do if you knew?

Dear All,

This is a Physics proof 911 was a Controlled demolition for peer review by you and the whole wide world.

Start of world peer review à

First we must identify what we already know as absolute

FACT: –

FACT 001: Twin towers 1 & 2 were 1,368 ft and 1362 ft respectively. (without TV mast)

Let us pick the tallest one to be conservative and convert the feet units into SI units (Metres)

The tallest tower was 417 m to the nearest metre.

Fact 002: We know near the surface of the earth at sea level we can use g = 9.81 m/s2 (metres per second per second), which is a scientifically accepted approximation of gravity at sea level.

Fact 003: according to the NIST report & video evidence we know the towers fell in just under 10 Seconds each.

Fact 004: Any body falling in a vacuum will always fall faster than if air is present due to the elimination of air resistance.

So now we look in every physics advanced level or degree level text book on the planet, even in Chinese, and look up the equation for a falling body at sea level in a vacuum.

Which is H = 1/2g(t^2)

Were

(H) is hight of fall , (g) is the acceleration due to gravity & (t) is the time taken for the fall straight down.

Let us first run a factual mathematical simulation by excluding all of the air.

417 = ½ * 9.81 * (t^2)

when we rotate the equation to put ( t ) as the subject we get

[Square root (2(417))/9.81) ] = ( t ) = 9.22 seconds

So in a perfect vacumme at sea level if we dropped any mass from the top of the tallest WTC it would take 9.22 seconds to hit the ground.

Now we look at FACT 004 again

Fact 004: Any body falling in a vacuum will always fall faster than if air is present due to the elimination of air resistance.

So in other words, it is physically not possible for anything to fall faster than 9.22 seconds from 417 metres at sea level in air.

Now on 911 the jet slammed in to one tower and then slammed into the other tower.

Let us take the worst case scenario, let us take the case were there are just over 80+ undamaged lower floors below the damage point.

This means there is the largest pile driver or (Top Bit) to fall through the bottom bit.

NIST publish and video evidence state both towers fell in under 10 seconds.

10.00 – 9.22 = 0.78 seconds

So what the BUSH Government is trying to claim is the top bit some 20 odd floors, fell and crashed through the bottom 80+ undamaged bottom floors at almost freefall speed of decent.

Were 9.22 seconds would have been the time of freefall speed in a perfect vacuum.

Now let us hypothetically remove the bottom undamaged 80+ floors for one moment.

The falling top bit would have had air resistance as it fell the near ¼ mile to earth, its footprint was exactly 1 square acre.

But let us ignore any slowing air resistance just to be ultra conservative in our calculations.

So, after ignoring slowing air resistance we now find that the bottom strongest, heaviest lower 80+ floors were crashed through by the top 20 so floors, and the time taken for this was almost identical to if the 80+ floors had not even been there at all.

It simply defies almost every known law of physics, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum etc, and the bottom strongest and heaviest 80+ floors Physically can not offer next to ZERO resistance.

This is not physically possible for a near 1/4 mile of building matter to offer near zero resistance.

This is because less than one second prior to the building starting to disintegrate, the very fact the building held itself upright proves it had at minimum 1 times working load resistance.

Suddenly the same 1/4 mile building structure offered almost Zero working resistance.

HOW?

The only possible way this can happen is Controlled Demolition.

PROVED! 911 was Controlled Demolition and NOT a Gravity collapse.

The Japan times

Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080617…

Now he has the evidence to prove the CD in any court in the world.

Hello again Ashley, 3 year old kid and other readers, I’m back with a few more comments and questions!

Again, I’d like to thank both Ashley and 3 year old kid for their comments and their time.

Ok, firstly to address points raised by 3 year old kid. You mention the fact that scientists who work hard for their qualifications, earn the wage for their homes and family wouldn’t want to risk it all. I understand that.

But as you said, 3,000 people died that day, that may (I would put that in italics and bold if I could) encourage me to speak out, but may not. However, not all scientists would have the responsibilities listed and may well speak out. So, let’s see who I can think of who has spoken out (please add more people as I’m sure this isn’t the complete list)…Dr Judy Wood (mechanical engineering), Dr Morgan Reynolds (economics), Dr James Fetzer (history and philosophy of science), Dr Steven Jones (physics). Then there are a few others who haven’t got an academic background (from what I can tell) in science….Jim Hoffman (software engineer) and Dr David Ray Griffin (philosophy of religion and theology). I could go on with a few more, but these are the people who often get quoted and cited when it comes to issues surrounding 9/11.

Why is it then that the work of Dr Wood, Dr Reynolds, Dr Fetzer and Dr Jones re 9/11 hasn’t been peer reviewed and doesn’t appear in reputable scientific journals?

3 year old kid, you ask what I would do? Well, like I said, it does depend on circumstances and situations. Let’s say for argument sake, I’m a doctor in physics and can prove these things, I have no family (as in no spouse, no children) just have my own mortgage/rent and bills to pay….not a hugely unlikely scenario. What would I do? Share the work I’ve done with others, aim to get it peer reviewed. At the end of the day, I’d be fighting for the memory and tragic loss of the people and families on that day, and for truth. That would be a risk worth taking. On the flip side, if I had a spouse, children, maybe the answer would be different.

But, there are scientists out there sharing their work. I won’t repeat myself at this point.

You later talk about a ‘world peer review’. Nice idea, but again, we (the population at hand) are not the correct peers, we are not the experts.

Ashley – I apologise if I implied the ‘they’ meant the whole truth movement. I obviously did not word this correctly. Again, I know that you have not conducted yourself in a manner which has resulted in name calling and that you have been called name yourself here. It was the case that the first person to respond was from the truth movement calling names and getting (what I consider) a bit ranty. Again, I apologise to taint all truthers with this.

Commission Report – I know that the report was meant to be independent, but surely we know that the government had a hand in it. I’m not saying (and haven’t said) that the report is true or accurate. What I AM saying is that you need to look at both sides of an argument to make a complete conclusion. You can discredit any information you choose when making your judgement, but you still need to look at the evidence presented. It is a concern of mine that people ‘pick and choose’ the evidence that best fits, rather than looking at opposing arguments.

Ashley – I agree with you on the war criminals but I’d include a few others in there too, like Blair.

Back to the physics, again 3 year old kid loses me with the science. I’m not scientific, I was no good at it at school! If you’re aiming the equation explanation at me, I’d need it in proper layman’s terms.

Oh, and I don’t see how Yukihisa Fujita “has the evidence to prove the CD in any court in the world.”

It is also a shame that some of my other points weren’t addressed.

Ok, now that I’ve addressed some points….took a while, sorry! I’d like to ask some other questions/issues concerning controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition (CD) – I’ve read that during a CD, explosives are placed at the bottom of the building and it is the explosives purpose to destroy the structure of the building. During this CD, it is the force of gravity which is used to bring down the building, not the explosives. So, with this in mind, regardless the towers were subject to CD, they would have been brought down by gravity anyway.

People seem to judge the way that the towers fell, fell at free-fall speed. But if you look at footage, debris from the building falls faster than the structure. The debris also falls faster than the dust cloud…the cloud falling faster than the structure. So, did the structure fall at free-fall if debris was falling faster?

When the towers fell, didn’t they fall from the middle? Around the 80/90th floor? So if explosives were put at the bottom, why didn’t it fall from the bottom?

However, if the argument is to go that the towers were fitted with explosives throughout, wouldn’t this be a massive job? And why would explosives be needed to fit throughout, surely it only needed one lot at the bottom? This then poses other questions like, how did they manage to set off the explosives whilst it fell and how did they manage to fit the explosives with no one knowing.

The Hudson Building (over 100ft shorter than WTC1 and 2) was brought down by CD. It took 12 people 24 days to put in the 4,118 charges into the building. So, if WTC1 and 2 are both taller than the Hudson Building, is it really possible that they managed to sneak all those explosives in over such a long period?

I’m going to leave it there for now. I’d appreciate some thoughts on the matter and I’m not saying I have answers or have made my mind up on what happened. These are questions that I’d like some clear answers to.

Thanks :)

"The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down. " http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.h…

Ahhhhh its Mr paul W who knows all about the Holocaust or should we say "burnt offerings". Good morning Sir, did you sleep well?

Have you just got up and thought of that?

Well, here is some more ignorance for you to learn, the term SEMITE as in "ANTI SEMITISM" actually refers not to just Israelis but Arabs who occupy the surrounding Israeli areas too.

What the "TRRRRRRROOOOOOOFFFFFFEEERS" dislike and are against is the murder and mistreatment of ARAB SEMITES by ISREALI SEMITES.

ZIONISTS today ARE equivalent to NATZIS in 1930s Germany. It is Zionists (Israeli NAZIS) "TRRRROOOOOOFFFFFFERS" would like to stop from doing EVIL – good Jewish people are indeed victims of these Israeli NAZIS (Zionists) just as much as the Arab Palestinians are.

So to educate Mr PW with yet more “TRRROOOOOFFFEEER” ignorance See here a real nice group of Jewish chaps trying to tell the world how it really is and being attacked by some crazy ZIONIST NAZI type.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

Basically Jewry has been hijacked by Atheist Nationalist types (Zionist NAZIS) after many good Jews were murdered in the 1930s by Hitler’s Nazis.

Anti Zionist is not Anti Semitism.

Only a political opportunist would try & confuse the two.

For Example, I personally seriously dislike NAZIS, but I like most Germans? So it is with Israelis, I strongly dislike Israeli Nationalist (Zionists NAZIS) but I like Israeli people in general.

Hi Tina,

You are correct, Gravity is what brings a Controlled Demolition and a Gravity Collapse down.

The way we can prove the difference between a Gravity Collapse and a Controlled Demolition is by seeing if the material underneath the damaged 80+ floors offered any resistance to the material falling through.

As the peer review physics clearly proves for the world to see – the bottom strongest and heaviest 80+ floors offered near Zero resistance hence proving Controlled Demolition.

Sorry if this Science upsets you but I have a duty to inform.

The difference being of course Controlled Demolition on 911 would mean most of those 3,000 victims were murdered by Terrorists, but not the 19 Muslim hijackers, because remember they were supposedly on the plains.

I am sorry to say this but the official US Government jet fuel gravity Collapse story is not even Physically possible for it defies just about every law of physics.

What the governments are doing is rewarding with promotions such as Dr Keith Seffen those who help support the Gravity Collapse theory, but those who offer conflicting proof are victimized and vilified, indeed some whistle blowers have been sacked.

Not only that but then the likes of “HATE CREEPS” like “Cult Watch” also go around trying to discredit these whistle blower professionals too.

Well I say now is your opportunity to try and learn some Physics Tina, copy and past the proof I have posted and put it past an Engineer of Physicist or Mathematician you know and trust.

I really do wish I was wrong, but I am not.

I would like nothing better than for someone to prove this physics wrong.

3 year old kid, thanks for the response, but I'd be grateful if you could also address the other points that I have made.

I don't mean to be rude here, but you seem to be repeating yourself in the last few coments you have made.

Science doesn't 'upset' me, I just don't understand it. I've explained this already.

I am guessing that you disagree with the link I gave about CD in an above comment?

Also, it may be worth you looking into the history of the term 'anti-semitism' and the dictionary definition.

Oh, and as far as 'peer review', have you published a paper and submitted it to the relevant bodies for peer review? Or if you haven't publihsed a paper, why don't you do it?

See, I've responded to your comments, could you please address the comments I've made in this and previously.

Thank you.

Thanks Ashley for your response.

As you mention, it would take a long time to put all those explosives and charges into such a large building. Again, I'll post in what I said before about the Hudson Building…

The Hudson Building (over 100ft shorter than WTC1 and 2) was brought down by CD. It took 12 people 24 days to put in the 4,118 charges into the building. So, if WTC1 and 2 are both taller than the Hudson Building, is it really possible that they managed to sneak all those explosives in over such a long period?

Again, so if it were CD how much time do you think they had to fit all those explosives and charges without anyone noticing or becoming suspicious?

I can't find a quote at the moment, so I may be wrong about this. But I'm sure I've read that security and sniffer dogs were apparently removed from WTC1 and 2 for around 5 days. But 5 days surely isn't enough time to fit the explosives and charges?

Tina

I'm no expert in CD so I am guessing a lot of stuff. Logistically I admit it does seem difficult but then on the CDI website in the details of the CD of the Sheikh A. Alakl Residential & Commercial Center they say 'At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations. – Now this is only a 17 storey building but I don't think the idea of 9-11 collapses being controlled demolition can be written off from a purely logistical perspective.

I guess that a lot of the time fitting out a building for implosion is the wiring of it all, if as some suggest the charges were set off by radio then these could have been made and readied prior to install (thus making the time to ready shorter than with conventional wiring). btw this is complete supposition.

I don't have blueprints of the towers but as I understand it the central core (the area within the central columns) is given over to lifts, stairwells, services etc. These would certainly be the easier areas to get to. As for the columns on the periphery of the building your guess is as good as mine. There was a power down for 36 hours in one of the buildings on the weekend prior but that is only one tower so I don't know.

Like I said I don't have all the answers, but I do have a lot of questions.

Tina

Yes I am aware of that, looking at the pictures there appears to have been quite a lot of it left.

My logic says to me that as this had partially collapsed, that it would have been a more difficult environment to work in and a lot more care would have been taken whilst wiring the building hence more time (supposition again I'm afraid as we don't know how stableunstable the building was).

As mentioned in their info, they had to be careful about how the building fell so as not to effect the excavation of bodies in the already collapsed portion, so it wasn't a case of chuck a load of dynamite at it and see what happens.

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that they wouldn't have seen this as an easier job than a still standing, complete and structurally sound building. I doubt they would have viewed a partial collapse as a helping hand or a head start.

What did you people think of this vid?

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

Basically it states Jewry has been hijacked by Atheist Nationalist types (Zionist NAZIS) after many good Jews were murdered in the 1930s by Hitler’s Nazis.

Does this video prove Anti Zionist is not Anti Semitism?

Or do we need more evidence?

Watch as Zionist Nazi thugs beat up a real peaceful jewish chap and stab him in the back.

Should I be against Zionists NAZI People or not?

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

I am sorry about sending the same link several times I meant to send links to different videos as evidence for discussion, here are the links as they should have been.

—————————————————————————————————

A real nice group Jewish chap tells about the Evil Nationalist (NAZI) Zionists part 001

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

——————————————————————————————————-

A real nice group of Jewish chap tells about the Evil Nationalist (NAZI) Zionists part 002

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

——————————————————————————————————-

Zionist Nazi thugs beat up and stab a nice Jewish holy man in the back.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

So am I a bad person if I don’t like these Zionist thugs?

The blinking links are not doing what they are supposed to do, to get the different videos go to the links on the left hand side and you will see the videos there.

Ms T

If I am able to answer I will be delighted, please send me your question again and excuse me for missing you out the first time around.

I did not claim to be politically correct Ms T. The fact I do not like Bully thug Zionist Nazis proves that.

I stand by what I said about this particular program as it failed to even ask or answer the most simplest question – why is Osmar Binladen not want ed by US law enforcement for 911?

Re the CD I suspect the Explosives were already set prior to the jet crashes. From what I recall there were reports of secondary explosions prior to the collapse sequence initiation. However I can only prove for certain it was a Controlled Demolition any other information will have to come from in-depth investigation.

The following is in response to 3 year old kid, but of course, anyone is free to answer.

Questions I have previously asked:

if what the truthers are saying is true, what next? What do the truthers want to achieve from this? Of course one answer would be the ‘truth’, I understand and support that! But what else? 9/11 has been and gone. There are major issues going on in the world right now that need to be stopped! I almost worry that some of these people continue to spend their lives questioning, without any real answers (as in “what did happen on 9/11?”) and for what? What outcome do you want to see?

Why is it then that the work of Dr Wood, Dr Reynolds, Dr Fetzer and Dr Jones re 9/11 hasn’t been peer reviewed and doesn’t appear in reputable scientific journals?

People seem to judge the way that the towers fell, fell at free-fall speed. But if you look at footage, debris from the building falls faster than the structure. The debris also falls faster than the dust cloud…the cloud falling faster than the structure. So, did the structure fall at free-fall if debris was falling faster?

Why would explosives be needed to fit throughout, surely it only needed one lot at the bottom?

Also, it may be worth you looking into the history of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ and the dictionary definition. I wonder if you have done this?

Oh, and as far as ‘peer review’, have you published a paper and submitted it to the relevant bodies for peer review? Or if you haven’t published a paper, why don’t you do it?

Re the video link, I’ve seen it before. Do you know anything about the group of Jews who were talking?

You say you are a professional, maybe I have missed this, but a professional in what?

Does calling people ‘cretins’ and using terms such as ‘Zionist Nazi’ part of your professionalism? (If your reference "I do not claim to be politically correct" is your answer, our definitions of 'political correctness' and 'abusive terms/name calling' differ).

Tina,

I've answered a few of those questions already for you, namely: -

if what the truthers are saying is true, what next? What do the truthers want to achieve from this? Of course one answer would be the ‘truth’, I understand and support that! But what else? 9/11 has been and gone. There are major issues going on in the world right now that need to be stopped! I almost worry that some of these people continue to spend their lives questioning, without any real answers (as in “what did happen on 9/11?”) and for what? What outcome do you want to see? (see my comment 'to be proven wrong')

Why is it then that the work of Dr Wood, Dr Reynolds, Dr Fetzer and Dr Jones re 9/11 hasn’t been peer reviewed and doesn’t appear in reputable scientific journals? (see my comment 'which academic journal is likely to print it when academics are losing their posts for questioning 9-11')

Why would explosives be needed to fit throughout, surely it only needed one lot at the bottom? (see my comment 'Controlled Demolition Inc's demolition of the 32 storey building with charges on 11 floors to make sure it fell safely', I suggested that the safety of surrounding buildings on 9-11 may have been a factor)

I'll attempt to answer a couple of your other questions for you if that's OK

People seem to judge the way that the towers fell, fell at free-fall speed. But if you look at footage, debris from the building falls faster than the structure. The debris also falls faster than the dust cloud…the cloud falling faster than the structure. So, did the structure fall at free-fall if debris was falling faster?

Please can you point me in the direction of a video showing this, this one -> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc+collaps… clearly shows the molten metal that doesn't exist according to NIST and then goes on to show the collapse, the collapsing floors outpace the debris as far as I can see. It may be that lower down there were no explosives (and it was relying on gravity to do the work so the debris may very well have overtaken it if that was the case. It certainly wasn't the case for the floors shown in this video), like we have agreed we don't know enough about controlled demolition to offer a definitive answer.

Also, it may be worth you looking into the history of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ and the dictionary definition. I wonder if you have done this?

The Online Etymology Dictionary definition of a Semite is: -

1847, "Jew, Arab, Assyrian, Aramæan," from Mod.L. Semita, from L.L. Sem "Shem," one of the three sons of Noah (Gen. x:21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites (in the days when anthropology was still bound by the Bible), from Heb. Shem. Semitic (1813 of languages, 1826 of persons) is probably from Ger. semitisch (first used by Ger. historian August Schlözer, 1781), denoting the language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, etc. In recent use often with the specific sense "Jewish," but not historically so limited.

Re the video link, I’ve seen it before. Do you know anything about the group of Jews who were talking?

They would be Neturei Karta I'm guessing, a very anti-Zionist group of orthodox Jews. They believe that Israel should not exist according to the Torah and the Talmud. Any discussion regarding Israel is a challenge ('Like riding two bikes at the same time' – Robert Fisk), but more moderate anti-zionists such as Gilad Atzmon and Tony Judt are called 'self hating Jews' for their opinions and the term anti-semite is regularly used for those who disagree with the way Israel conducts itself. This name calling does nothing to further understanding on either side of what is imo a very difficult subject to discuss critically. I mean does this help? -> http://masada2000.org/list-A.html

HTH

Greetings Fellow Earthlings

Re Ms Ts post: Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Go to http://www.ae911truth.org/ if anyone wished to learn more about the 911 Controlled Demolitions or indeed the members impeccable credentials.

At impact the chap means as the tower hit the ground at 202 mph in 9.23 seconds.

To hit the ground at anything like 202 mph the bottom 80+ floors offered almost no resistance at all.

This proves my point exactly.

So the structure hit the ground at about 202 mph, but clearly parts of the structure hit faster.

This again is yet more evidence of Demolition Explosives, as some parts are blown up and out and some are blown out and down.

If it had been a gravity collapse would you not have expected to see 110 squashed pancaked floors stacked up at the bottom like all the other gravity collapses?

Regarding what I do when I let my hair down in my own time, sure, its ok to call Zionist NAZI thugs who stab a defenseless Jewish chap in the back – Zionist NAZI thugs.

And what term should be given to groups who appear on radio attacking qualified professionals regarding 911 and do not even bother to find out if Osmar Binladen is even wanted by CIA for the official 911 plot – if not CRETINS?

Or how about "Logically challenged" or

"brainwashed delusional"

Hi 3 year old kid thanks for the response.

Again, you haven't addressed all the points I re-pasted in (unless you are doing this as I type).

Re the equation thingie that I posted in – as I'm not a physics expert, I didn't understand all the equation part but as I found it, I thought I'd post it to see what you response was. Thanks for your reply. I'm wary about asking you (3 year old kid) questions now (as I don't always get a response)but…what about the part where it says if it was CD, it would require 272 tons of TNT?

Call people what you want, I can't stop that. I personally wouldn't use such abusive terms, but there again, thats me. Each to their own I guess.

Whilst I look at the url you gave me to check out these "impeccable credentials" I hope that not only that you are well, but that you have the time at some point to address the points I have now made twice :)

Update – (I like this new edit function! Very handy! ta!) Ok, looked at ae911 site. Yes, impressive list of many architects and engineers. Although it is my understanding that engineering is a pretty big field, so those most relevant would be in civil engineering? Anyway, although the list is impressive boasting around 500-600 architects and engineers (including 'degreed', licensed and retired) this is only a very small amount compared to the amount of architects and engineers worldwide? So where are the others? And dare I mention those two words? I'll give you a clue..first word begins with 'p', the second begins with 'r'.

Hi Ashley, Thanks again for your response and I’m sorry about the misunderstanding of the questions!

When I refer to the historical origins of the term anti-semitism, I’m referring to Wilhelm Marr. I guess (again possible apology from me as I may not have been so clear) is the origin of the term rather than the words.

I’m wary of the masada2000 site, seems a bit too hateful and extreme for my liking. It has been brought down a few times and I’m not suprised! Nasty site!

Ok, without getting too rude here, one thing we both most realise about each other. You believe that CD were used on 9/11, I do not. (I hope I have your opinion correct there). So when you ask me about explosives in the towers, I just don’t see it. That’s why I do not automatically address the matter. Also, I have already said (I think!) that I do not pretend to have the answers!

Not to be picky here, but there is a difference in almost free fall speed and free fall speed, isn’t there?

You mention that I haven’t commented on hermetically sealed explosives. Well, thats because I don’t believe any explosives were used! Where do you think these hermetically sealed explosives were? Throughout the buildings?

I also don’t believe that WTC towers came down in under 10 seconds. See this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ow0y5q7MHw

Take care.

Ashley,

I have said several times that I am no physics expert, no CD expert, that I haven't got all the answers and that I am still questioning things. I've been looking into 9/11 for a few years now and heard arguments from CD to beam weapons to no planes and the like. Up until a few months ago I was more or less convinced that CD was the only explanation, but then I realised something…I was only looking at one side of the argument (surrounding what happened on 9/11…official version vs conspiracy in the simplist terms). I then started to look at the other side of the coin, just out of interest to see what they said. As compelling as I thought the CD theory was, I began to see flaws in the theory, and thats where I am at now. I've been "it was CD and thats that" from me a while back, I've been there. But now I have serious doubts and its this that I'm sharing with yourself and anyone else who is reading. I've not made my mind up and to be honest, I don't think I ever will. Although I put time and effort into debating on this article thread, I have thought "well, 9/11 has been and gone. Whatever happened on that day, happened, regardless of how, if, why, what…There are far more important things going on in the world RIGHT NOW that we should be focusing our engergies on imo….civil liberties, illegal wars, formation of the EU, etc" Yes, some (maybe all) can be argued that this happened or was pushed forward by the events of 9/11, but we can't turn back the clock and stop 9/11. We can stop (or at least attempt to stop) an illegal war, people unfairly imprisoned, the destruction of Iraq and the Iraqi people, etc.

People who research and investigate 9/11 don't bother me, of course I still look into it. It's just difference of opinion and different priorities.

You mention that I didn't reply to your points, I'm sorry if I over-looked something you said as I did think I'd addressed what you said.

You see, when it comes to CD, I simply don't buy it (in the same way that you can't see how it is anything else but CD).So when you ask me about explosives (be it hermetically sealed or not) I can't see how it can be proved. I've looked at evidence before and I've looked at counter-evidence. The latter has convinced me more at this time. Again, the issue also relies on advanced knowledge and understanding of engineering, mathematics and physics (and I'm sure a few more areas)…something that I can not begin to admit that I have. So I have to rely on experts in that field, regardless of what they say, they are experts, not me.

If you could point me to (or explain in more detail) how heretically sealed explosves work, how they are fitted, where they would be fitted, pros and cons, etc, then I'm more than willing to look at it. How can I pass judgement on something that I have little knowledge of?

[quote post="3838"]I mean if there are only a handful of demolition companies in the world that will even try to demolish a building in to its own footprint (from your ‘howstuffworks’ link), perhaps we ought to go in to the demolition business.[/quote]

So, if only a few companies can do it, how long do you think they spent planning and rigging both towers?

I don't want to sound rude here, but do you believe that planes went into the towers? It wasn't like there were a few small fires that happened in those towers. A jet plane with an awful lot of fuel went into the building. The impact and the fuel caused huge explosions! When the buildings fell, not everything (the building) went straight down. There was huge damage all around. The towers were hit towards the top, buckled from explosions and continued to pancake down. Part of the building went into its own footprint (due to gravity I would of guessed) but the building also destroyed several buildings around it.

Light a fire in the top of high rised building. Fly a jet plane with a lot of fuel into the same building. Do you think the results would be the same? Look at the building in Madrid that burned and burned (often quoted in support for CD), but was there a plane that flew into it? Would this be considered a fair scientific comparison? The only way to truly know is to repeat the same again, which is not what I want to see and God forbid, anyone would do!

Last point of yours, anti-semitism. I'm asking to look into the TERM anti-semitism, the way it is used in modern day as a term coined by Wilhelm Marr, not the single words 'anti' and 'semite'. If you look at the history and meaning of the TERM anti-semitism, you'd notice a big difference. There is also a big difference between terminology and etymology. I believe that it is understanding the difference between the two when using as people do today.

I'm sorry that this is long but I hope you understand where I'm coming from. By the way, did you watch the vid I gave the link for?

Tina

[quote post="3838"]I began to see flaws in the theory, and thats where I am at now. [/quote]

I thought that was what we were doing here, you were telling me what you saw as flaws and I was looking at them and trying to provide reasons (as I see it) that your flaws do not necessarily rule out CD. If any of my suggestions have been implausible please could you point them out to me so that I can either defend them or retract them? If you have any flaws that you’ve not mentioned up until this point, well now’s your chance (not that I can guarantee to be able to explain them away, but I’ll try)

[quote post="3838"]I’ve not made my mind up and to be honest, I don’t think I ever will.[/quote]

whereas in your previous post you said:-

[quote post="3838"]You believe that CD were used on 9/11, I do not. (I hope I have your opinion correct there). [/quote]

OK it’s decision time, are you taking the money or opening the box?

[quote post="3838"]I have thought “well, 9/11 has been and gone. Whatever happened on that day, happened, regardless of how, if, why, what…There are far more important things going on in the world RIGHT NOW that we should be focusing our engergies on imo….civil liberties, illegal wars, formation of the EU, etc” Yes, some (maybe all) can be argued that this happened or was pushed forward by the events of 9/11, but we can’t turn back the clock and stop 9/11. We can stop (or at least attempt to stop) an illegal war, people unfairly imprisoned, the destruction of Iraq and the Iraqi people, etc. [/quote]

I can kind of see where you are coming from with this, but if the US government was complicit in this and the fact they have used it to erode civil liberties protected by the constitution and wage 2 illegal wars, then they should be held to account (the murder of 3,000 people, plus victims of the dust plus the victims of 2 illegal wars, puts lying about WMD in to a very distant second place!)

[quote post="3838"]If you could point me to (or explain in more detail) how heretically sealed explosves work, how they are fitted, where they would be fitted, pros and cons, etc, then I’m more than willing to look at it. How can I pass judgement on something that I have little knowledge of?[/quote]

As I said this idea came from the top of my head, hermetically sealed basically means airtight. I’m no expert but if you seal something airtight and clean the outside well enough then a sniffer dog isn’t going to smell it (if you had access to a sniffer dog you could even check each one prior to trying to get them in to the building). Other than that they’d be the same as the packages that CDI and their like use I guess. They would probably need a radio device of some sort and whatever else would be required (I’ve never worked for a CD company so sorry if this sounds a bit vague ;) As for how they are mounted I don’t know, pros and cons – none I’d guess (other than being able to walk them past sniffer dogs) as the only difference is that the explosive is in an airtight container of some sort. Which brings us on to: -

So, if only a few companies can do it, how long do you think they spent planning and rigging both towers?

As long as they liked to plan it, I’m guessing they’d do a lot of that off plans/blueprints. As far as rigging the building, if the charges couldn’t be found by sniffer dogs, as long as they liked. We have seen from the CDI website that they can rig a building very quickly (they could probably do it even quicker if they were pre-packaged charges that just needed to be attached in the right places).

[quote post="3838"]I don’t want to sound rude here, but do you believe that planes went into the towers? It wasn’t like there were a few small fires that happened in those towers. A jet plane with an awful lot of fuel went into the building. The impact and the fuel caused huge explosions![/quote]

Are you trying to imply that I’m a no-planer? Yes planes did go in to the buildings. IIRC I’m sure I read somewhere that the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a 707 (a very similar sized and specification aircraft to the 767). You can go on about ‘huge explosions’ and ‘awful lots of fuel’ as much as you like, the buildings were still designed to withstand it.

Edit – Actually I’d like to reconsider my last comment, I am a no-planer (at least when it comes to WTC7)

With regards questions of mine that you haven’t answered: -

[quote post="3838"]I am Welsh, if I coined the term anti-celt and unilaterally decided that it meant anti-welsh, do you think the Bretons, Cornish, Irish, Manx and Scots would have something to say?[/quote]

[quote post="3838"]If these other groups were seen in an unfavourable light by the Welsh could this behaviour be seen as devisive?[/quote]

[quote post="3838"]Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans are semitic peoples, sticking ‘anti’ in front of the word does not change the meaning of the word does it?[/quote]

[quote post="3838"]Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more?[/quote]

[quote post="3838"]Thanks for the link to the video, it does appear that the debris on the one tower does overtake the collapse, would this be consistent with the higher storeys being wired with explosives and the lower floors relying on gravity to do the work? (as per the link you put earlier, this could explain how it was ‘almost’ free fall speed rather than exactly free fall speed). [/quote]

Sorry this is so long too ;)

Ok, back again.

Firstly, 3 year old kid – it is sad to say that I do not think I can communicate or respond to you any longer. My reasons for this are simply that you do not respond to me. Your talk, I answer you…I talk, you ignore it. I’m sure that most people will see how this is frustrating to me. How can you talk to someone when they don’t listen in the first place? IF 3 year old kid is willing to listen and respond, fair enough, but if not, well, all the best to you.

Ashley – [quote post="3838"]I thought that was what we were doing here, you were telling me what you saw as flaws and I was looking at them and trying to provide reasons (as I see it) that your flaws do not necessarily rule out CD. If any of my suggestions have been implausible please could you point them out to me so that I can either defend them or retract them? If you have any flaws that you’ve not mentioned up until this point, well now’s your chance (not that I can guarantee to be able to explain them away, but I’ll try)[/quote]

I think you’ve touched on something here. Like I said, I used to agree with the CD theory, it makes a very compelling argument. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know the CD argument, I know the theories, the ‘evidence’ to support it and so on. But over the last 6 months or so, I’ve had a change of heart. I’m afraid that after knowing what I already know and heard about (which is what you suggest Ashley – with explosives, free fall, etc) I can’t see anything new that is going to change my mind in the near future. I can never say never, but everything so far that has been said here, I already know about and the simple answer is, I just don’t buy it anymore!

Carry on doing your own research if you want. Carry on telling people about. What is important to one person may not be important to another, but does that mean we can’t say what we feel and think to be true? No. The crucial element is HOW we do it, and this is what I believe the radio programme which started this debate here implies and focuses on.

[quote post="3838"]I can kind of see where you are coming from with this, but if the US government was complicit in this and the fact they have used it to erode civil liberties protected by the constitution and wage 2 illegal wars, then they should be held to account (the murder of 3,000 people, plus victims of the dust plus the victims of 2 illegal wars, puts lying about WMD in to a very distant second place!)[/quote]

I agree with what you are saying, they should and MUST be held accountable for any wrong doing. My issue is people who just let the outcomes (war, civil liberties, etc) carry on! Now, I’m not saying that Ashley, 3 year old kid or anyone else reading this does this….but I know an awful lot of people from the truth community who sit around and question all day about something that has been and gone, where all the crap is going outside their window! Do you understand my frustration?

Ashley, no I wasn’t implying that you are a no-planer. Thats why I asked that you DO believe planes went into the towers.

You posted a series questions for me address, but I’ve addressed these twice already. I’ll do it again but this time I won’t group my answers, I’ll divide them up like you did with the questions.

Firstly, lets put the questions into context. You asked me a series of questions when discussing the term ‘anti-semitism’.

Ok, lets go through this again and then I will answer your question.

I orginally asked if people knew the history of the TERM anti-semitism. The TERM not the word. There is a difference between something in terminology and the origin of the word. The WORD ‘Semite’ means as Ashley has previously stated. So by putting the prefix ‘anti’ before it gives the meaning ‘against’ something. So, anti- anything means against. I’ll come to this again in a few minutes when looking at the questions.

On to the TERM ‘anti-Semitism’ which, as I have said before, was coined by Wilhelm Marr in 1880. You can look this up. This TERM is to mean (as defined by Marr) as “prejudice and hostility toward Jews”.

PLEASE note there is a difference between the WORD and TERM. Do some research into if you really don’t get it.

So, if you can remember that I refer the meaning of the TERM anti-Semitism….this has a different defintion to the words.

This will now allow be to go on to questions….

[quote post="3838"]I am Welsh, if I coined the term anti-celt and unilaterally decided that it meant anti-welsh, do you think the Bretons, Cornish, Irish, Manx and Scots would have something to say?[/quote]

Sure, but isn’t interesting that the person who coined the term anti-Semitism wasn’t Jewish and he himself hated the Jews! Again, I don’t think you did go and look at the historical background of the term. It is not a term originally coined by Jewish people.

[quote post="3838"]If these other groups were seen in an unfavourable light by the Welsh could this behaviour be seen as devisive?[/quote]

Did you mean divisive or derisive? Again, this is all based on the issue if a Welsh person coined a phrase for their ‘people’ – this is not the case for the term I refer to. If we follow your argument here, then the answer is yes, but this differs from what I am saying.

[quote post="3838"]Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans are semitic peoples, sticking ‘anti’ in front of the word does not change the meaning of the word does it?[/quote]

Not if you look at the meaning of the WORD. But I am talking about the TERM. Again, theres a difference.

[quote post="3838"]Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more?[/quote]

You are talking about WTC7 here. For this, I could go on for a while. I know that you would of seen video footage and photos of the north side of the building, but have you seen video footage and photos of the south side? The firefighters have already been quoted as saying that the building was already insecure, there were big fires inside, they had no water to put out the fires. The damage on the south side was intense. When the building fell, the north side ended up almost on top of the rubble as it was the south side that had given way.

No theory, just using the facts from firefighters and footage from the day.

[quote post="3838"]Thanks for the link to the video, it does appear that the debris on the one tower does overtake the collapse, would this be consistent with the higher storeys being wired with explosives and the lower floors relying on gravity to do the work? (as per the link you put earlier, this could explain how it was ‘almost’ free fall speed rather than exactly free fall speed). [/quote]

I thought I had already explained about the fact that fuelled planes went into the towers. I know the argument for CD but I still do not believe that was the cause. How can I argue in support of explosives being used when I simply didn’t think it happened that way. Plane hits tower with a lot fuel towards top of tower. Big explosion. Weakens structure. Begins to fall around area of impact. Force of gravity on other floors – pancake effect.

Ok…I feel like I’m going around in circles here. I don’t mean to sound rude Ashley, you will not convince me about CD with arguments I’ve already heard, once believed in and now believe to be false.

I mean this with sincerity, please, just at least look at counter-evidence….even if you find flaws in it, even if it doesn’t sit right with you. It is so important to see both sides of a picture before coming to a conclusion.

Tina

Thanks for the reply

You have gone from: -

[quote post="3838"]You believe that CD were used on 9/11, I do not. (I hope I have your opinion correct there).[/quote]

to: -[quote post="3838"]I’ve not made my mind up and to be honest, I don’t think I ever will.[/quote]

to: -

[quote post="3838"]I think you’ve touched on something here. Like I said, I used to agree with the CD theory, it makes a very compelling argument. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know the CD argument, I know the theories, the ‘evidence’ to support it and so on. But over the last 6 months or so, I’ve had a change of heart. I’m afraid that after knowing what I already know and heard about (which is what you suggest Ashley – with explosives, free fall, etc) I can’t see anything new that is going to change my mind in the near future. I can never say never, but everything so far that has been said here, I already know about and the simple answer is, I just don’t buy it anymore![/quote]

That’s more flip flopping than the Bush administration ;)

For arguments sake we’ll take your majority decision and go with you not believing the CD theory.

‘A change of heart?’ – sorry if this sounds rude but that makes it sound like you are basing this on a gut feeling or intuition. I have heard your arguments against CD and I have proposed counter arguments that I believe to be plausible. As I asked before, if any are’t then please could you point them out to me? If you believed in CD up until 6 months ago, what vital evidence did you garner that made you jump to the diametrically opposite POV? (please let me know what it is, you never know you may get a new convert ;)

If you ‘just don’t buy it anymore’, what precisely changed your purchasing preference?

I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, we’ll get to those in a minute.

You have not said if you think the idea of ‘sniffer dog proofing’ the charges prior to taking them in to the building could be a possible solution to your ‘lack of time argument’. Now being that none of this theory relies on anything that is remotely unbelievable can we assume that you have no problem with this suggestion? (I mean it’s only the equivalent of what drug smugglers have been doing for years’

[quote post="3838"]Carry on doing your own research if you want. Carry on telling people about. What is important to one person may not be important to another, but does that mean we can’t say what we feel and think to be true? No. The crucial element is HOW we do it, and this is what I believe the radio programme which started this debate here implies and focuses on.[/quote]

I completely agree, how we do this is vital, but rather than it being based on ‘what we feel and think’, imo it should be based on logical deductions based on the available evidence.

You haven’t made a comment about the towers being designed to withstand the impact of a plane that is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the one that did hit it (after comments of huge explosions and awful lots of fuel).

I think this arguing about the word anti-semite is immaterial, if you look at the etymology of the word it quickly becomes obvious that the usage of the compound word is misleading. At the very least it could mean two different things to two different people, I’m sure I’m not the only person who thinks that the Semitic peoples doesn’t just mean the Jewish people. I’m probably not the only one who sees the adding of a prefix to a word as not altering the meaning of said word. Perhaps judeophobia might be a better word to use so as to avoid any confusion. I understand the common usage of the word but my logic says that as it was clearly created and used in error by someone ignorant of the facts then why carry on using an erroneous term? Aren’t we continuing the ignorance? (wiki claims – The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase “antisemitic prejudices”.)

I asked you the following question: -

[quote post="3838"]Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more?[/quote]

You didn’t really address the issue, it is probably because I didn’t make myself clear. My question isn’t why WTC7 collapsed it was about how long it took in comparison to a CD. Let me put it another way, if an 8 storey building took 6 seconds with explosives (1.3 storeys per second), how on earth could a 47 storey building collapse in under 7 seconds due to fire damage(over 6.5 storeys per second)? This is less of a ‘physics question’ than a ‘how on earth do you explain that question’ ;)

[quote post="3838"]Ok…I feel like I’m going around in circles here. I don’t mean to sound rude Ashley, you will not convince me about CD with arguments I’ve already heard, once believed in and now believe to be false.[/quote]

As I asked earlier what was the vital piece of evidence that clinched it for you?

[quote post="3838"]I mean this with sincerity, please, just at least look at counter-evidence….even if you find flaws in it, even if it doesn’t sit right with you. It is so important to see both sides of a picture before coming to a conclusion.[/quote]

With due respect I know the official story, planes hit, fires weakened steel, buildings collapse (that’s the short and tall of it). I know 12 year olds who can blow that out of the water.

I don’t care what you believe, it’s fairly obvious that if two non-scientific people like you and me can argue for this long, it makes it even clearer to me that a new inquiry is warranted.

Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntz7SWm-xWo

Is there any wonder we have so many problems to solve with crud like this peddling HATE against women & children?

Instead of attacking tree huggers like the truth movement "CULT WATCHERS" should spend at least some of their time keeping an eye on these characters.

Go and ask Ashley.

I simply cannot help you understand that steel girders can do some things and not others, and going through other steel girder structures without encountering stiff resistance is something steel girders cannot do.

Now if you cant grasp that concept there is no hope in trying to tell you gravity, which is a warp in the fabric of space-time can not be exceeded unless there is another source of input energy.

The drop was in 10 seconds, the top of the top bit hit the ground in that 10 seconds. So how can a body fall through another heavier body as though it was just falling through air?

Timed Controlled Demolition to blow out any support so that it is only falling through air.

Even videos show squibs 20 floors below the demolition wave.

How can debris fall faster than gravity permits if not explosives?

Paul w

Can you let me know which of your questions I have not tried to answer?

btw don't feel compelled to apologise for being so rude earlier in this thread.

As I see it this rudeness when disagreed with is exactly what truthers are accused of. Just because I disagree with you, do you think that gives you the right to be insulting? As far as I'm concerned you are living proof that this problem occurs on both sides ;)

It seems that a few people have read the 9/11 conspiracy books written by David Ray Griffin, but apparently not anyone in the establishment news media or the government.

This is going to be shorter than others as I feel that what I've been saying has not really been understood.

Let me make something clear. I did not start off talking on this thread wanting to dicuss theories nor have I expressed my own belief in CD. Far from it. I thought I had explained my background that once I did and now I don't. When entering into this 'debate' I did not ask for someone to convince me about CD….I've been there in the past.

Isn't it simple to understand? I used to believe CD. Now I don't. But I still have some doubts about 9/11, not about theories and 'how it happened', but how there was intelligence that at the least, seems to be ignored. There are many questions about 9/11 that many people have and I can't pretend to have the answers.

It feels like Ashley is trying to twist my words.

Ashley, if your intention is to convince me about CD, you might as well stop. Thats not what I came here for, although it seems like Ashley and 3 year old kid have made it into this. Read my first comments on here – nothing about CD.

It is interesting that Ashley uses the word "convert".

I am not here to "convert".

Ashley, may reasoning for changing my thoughts on 9/11 comes from reading the counter-evidence. I thought I had made this clear. There isn't one piece, there are so many! Thats the point. So much other evidence out there that I had ignored. Again, I suggest repectfully that you look at some counter-evidence.

Ashley mentions WTC7 and says I didn't properly address it. Did you read the part when I said I don't believe it fell with 7 seconds?

Then to finish it all off, I invertedly get told that my reasonings can be disputed by a 12 year old. Nice. Comparing my intellect to a 12 year old?

I'm going around in circles here. Some are not reading everything and avoiding points. Whats the point?

Is it just me when I think some people have their head buried in the sand?

As far as 3 year old kid goes, you simply don't get what I am talking about and referring to. Maybe if you enter into a debate, you should be prepared to listen to others and respond. If not, you are simply talking to yourself.

"Ashley is much better at explaining concepts to simpletons than I am, probably because I have had my brains scrambled learning high level Physics, Mathematics & Engineering Concepts and applications." Ahhhh, I see! We are simpletons! So because we aren't obviously at your superior level we just wouldn't be able to understand. I guess you class Ashley as a simpleton too? I hope I have taken this the wrong way, otherwise you are rude and arrogant.

Greetings Tina & others,

Its not a matter of believing this that or the other like some sort of religion.

Experimentation has developed laws of Physics over hundreds of years. The acceleration due to gravity is one of the best physical phenomenon understood by science and has been understood since Newton.

It would help if you stopped reading physics which was fundamentally flawed for a start, like the stuff you posted up. (no I don't want to go there)

Assumptions are key here, don't assume anything. Only use hard known facts.

The proof I gave you assumes nothing and only uses hard provable facts, and when you do that it proves the towers did not come down due to Gravity alone. Period.

If the CIA have never wanted Osmar Binladen for 911, yet we were all told by the US & UK government "it was him wot dun it".

Then we have been lied to big time.

Can anyone else see a problem here?

As far as I'm concerned, we've gone as far as we can.

Ashley – You say that I apparently won't tell you about my counter-evidence. I've mentioned a fair amount in previous threads. I've said that it isn't one single piece but many. Too many to list. In the same way, would you like to offer all your arguments for CD? I'm sure you have a lot and I'm sure it would take you a while. Same here. There isn't one thing but several, a fair amount that I have already discussed here. If you want to find out more, look it up as I feel that if I post it here 1 – this debate would go on for weeks (literally) and 2 – you wouldn't properly look at it ('m suggesting this as you have already said that you have no interest in reading things like the Commission Report).

I've answered your questions, sorry if I haven't provided the answers you are looking for or wanting to hear from me.

As far as 3 year old kid goes…they say that they'd respond and then don't. Then they suggest that they are reading from a 'script', or that we are 'simpletons' so wouldn't get it anywhere, or simply that they 'don't want to go there'…I mean, if they can't answer some simple questions or answer half and miss out my key point, whats the point? Wouldn't you feel the same vice versa?

I'm interested in your wife teaching 9/11 conspiracies in school. I'm aware of teachers being fired or issued severe warnings about doing this. I hope she isn't teaching this as fact.

If I have the following wrong, I apologise. You seem to suggest that 12 year old kids (who are hugely influential) can disprove my arguments IS an insult. It is basically saying "come on, even a kid knows the arguments/evidence better than you". This coming from someone who was quick to point out to me that they had been insulted and never retalliated.

Anyway, like I said, I can't see this going anywhere. I'm finding the comments on here getting towards more of a condescending attitude. I'm not interested in that.

Can anyone confirm as fact one way or the other please, is or has Osmar Binladen ever been wanted by the CIA for 911?

Thanks for that EVIDENCE Xior.

So, THE EVIDENCE is clear, Osmar Binladen is NOT wanted by FBI or the CIA FOR 911.

He is wanted for other crimes but NOT 911 of which he is only a suspect, of which is because there is next to ZERO Evidence and even that is dodgy video footage with dubbed over speaking.

Here are the key points of the official CIA notices:-

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

CAUTION
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
also

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH
USAMA BIN LADEN

CAUTION
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

"a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world"

So here we have a SUSPECT being peddled by Governments as ACTUAL Attacker.

There is NO MENTION OF 911.

HENCE we have been deceived by those media and Governments who state as fact Binladen did it.

In fact two of the FBI/CIA 19 Muslim Hijackers still fly for Saudi airlines and are suing the US government.

Xior

There are some problems with the links you put up.

As 3yo kid says, it does not say that he is wanted for 9-11. In fact if you look at this link -> http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html you'll see that the FBI admit they have 'no hard evidence' linking Bin Laden to 9-11. They don't have enough evidence to accuse him of 9-11 but they had enough evidence linking him with it to bomb the cr*p out of Afghanistan. Hmmmm

The links you put up state that Bin Laden is left handed, the tape where Bin Laden claims responsibility shows the 'Osamalike' writing a note with his right hand, see -> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-20657441…

The 'Osamalike' does not look very much like any picture of Bin Laden that I've ever seen (this is also mentioned on the video above, it's from Loose Change which a lot of people slag off but the video evidence is there for you to see).

In this video -> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=164176004… You can clearly see Bin Laden wearing a gold ring and a gold or gold plated watch, this is not something the real Bin Laden would be likely to do as it is forbidden by his faith (for evidence of this see -> http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?page….

How can all of this be I ask myself? These problems defy rational explaination, other than 'it wasn't Bin Laden'. If it wasn't Bin Laden either the intelligence agencies don't have as much intelligence as we thought, or we were knowingly deceived as to the veracity of this claim of responsibility. The former (whilst pretty unbelievable) is the less worrying of the two options. If the US government lied about this then what else have they lied about?

Thanks for that SuperNova, but before I take their lies to pieces for you do you want to admit now that you simply would not know if they were telling you the truth or not?

Come clean now please, would you know for example that number 04 is total none sense? Would you even know why number 04 is none sence?

Greetings fellow GM Earthlings,

Absolutely SteveH, to swallow the official 911 Balderdash and Piffle one must believe in an absolutely ridiculously improbable coincidence theory.

Take a peek at the construction of WTC001, everything about these buildings was massive. Check out the 300,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete, particularly the flooring. Also check out the multi directional cross bracing too.
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+…

Does anyone seriously think burning jet fuel could weaken any of those massive core columns evenly so they would all fail simultaneously – what do you suppose the probability of that happening without Controlled Demolition?

Just about infinitely impossible that what.

Hi everybody,

This should explain things for Supernova and others who have not yet realized the US BUSH Government are crooks.

What we already know as provable facts:

We are almost certain that jet crashes followed by structural damage & fire damaged,weakened both twin towers, and falling debris damaged building 007 more on one side than the other. In each case there was more damage on one side of every building on 911 i.e asymmetrical damage..

Let us first take the situation were we have at least 80 lower undamaged floors.

What is the probability of the initial floor collapse being symmetrical and almost instantaneous on all 47 massive core columns and the hundreds of outer columns despite the damage being far more prevalent on one side and considering the massive cross bracing supporting those columns laterally?

Structures always, without exception, gives at the weakest point first.

So this probability is almost infinitely improbable. It is almost infinitely improbable that all cross-braced columns gave instantaneously and symmetrically due to asymmetrical damage..

Then we have to consider the next floor collapse due to gravity alone. What is the probability that all of those core and outer columns will give simultaneously and symmetrically despite the initial damage being far more prevalent on one side?

Again this is almost infinitely improbable.

And so the scenario continues down to ground level.

So the probability that gravity alone could NOT bring down All 3 WTC buildings on 911 symmetrically.

3 * (almost infinity) *80 *(almost infinity) *80 * (almost infinity) *47 = more than almost infinity cubed.

So what is the probability that gravity alone could bring down the 3 buildings on 911 = near ZERO

And all because we know that structures break first at their weakest point ALWAYS.

Example, a chain always breaks at its weakest link every single time.

Hi Vilume,

Firstly its not theory, its Hypothesis, secondly who said anything about Explosives?

And I for one do not do hearsay, I only do Physics.

And the Physics shows the towers were not gravity collapse therefore another investigation is needed as to find out the details you seek.

A few quotes from 3 year old kid:

[quote post="3838"]because it is SO Obviously a Controlled Demolition…..

Would anyone like me to explain in easy steps as to why 911 was a controlled Demolition?…..

a simple equation H=1/2gt^2 absolutely proves 911 could be nothing but Controlled Demolition……

the 911 destruction was controlled demolition.[/quote]

So, with you recently saying:

[quote post="3838"]secondly who said anything about Explosives?[/quote]

Was it not you who said:

[quote post="3838"]Re the CD I suspect the Explosives were already set prior to the jet crashes…..

This again is yet more evidence of Demolition Explosives, as some parts are blown up and out and some are blown out and down……

So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each – what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?[/quote]

I am now confused.

Are you saying it is controlled demolition or not?

If not controlled demolition, what do you think happened?

If you believe it was controlled demolition, I thought they would have to use explosives. Am I wrong?

PS Volume

“Why would you expect me to speculate and know the detailed answers without first detailed scientific investigation?”
3 year old kid

You’re dealing with an idiot.

Ahh its Mr paul W – hope you are well. Did you have a good sleep?

So,

Is there anyone who disagrees that a chain always breaks at its weakest link every single time?

Hello Paul

Lovely to see you are still in top form when it comes to insulting people. I would dearly love to know where I can learn debating skills like yours. Now we are f*ckwits – tremendous, you are a shining wit aren’t you ;) Just as an aside is this insulting behaviour exactly what troofers are accussed of when people don’t believe them?

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]For example, Ashley (I think) moaned that steel could not be melted by jet fuel. This was never suggested by NIST, or any other official report, and no-one else for that matter because it’s nonsense, and everyone knows it. Even the NIST said it was nonsense.[/quote]

First off I would like to point out that I did not ‘moan’ about this, I pointed it out. You are using loaded terms in order to try and discredit me and give yourself a headstart on trying to convince others. Please don’t use emotive language like that Paul, it’s almost cheating ;)

If the steel did not melt then where did the pools of molten steel in the clean up site come from? Don’t skirt around this, don’t ignore it, don’t hide from it, just try and debunk it. As per the link that Toby put up ->

[quote post="3838"]http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf[/quote]

and as per the reports of many of the people involved in the clean up, the thermal images of the clean up site and the video of it. Also would you be good enough to tell me what the bright orange molten metal in this video -> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc+collapse&sitesearch=# comes from? Please do not reply that it is molten aluminium as that would vapourise before reaching that colour (one debunking theory says it is a UPS situated on the 81st floor – and you say we clutch at straws lol). So the statement ‘jet fuel cannot melt steel’ is true and in this case a reasonable statement to put forward (due to the fact there were pools of molten metal!).

Your blind faith in the official documents is hilarious Paul, do you believe everything you read? You say that troofers discount anything official – not true, I have quoted from the Kean report in this thread. Earlier in this thread you were under the impression that the NIST report had details of: -

[quote post="3838"]the shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc.[/quote]

Now to the best of my knowledge the NIST report had no such information in it, these areas would have been covered by the Kean report (the 9/11 Commission report). Either, you made a mistake or you are trying to use evidence that you have no knowledge of, which is it Paul? (to quote you ‘Have you even read the NIST report?’)

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]A prime example of their ignoring reality is the Windsor (or was it Madrid?) fire. They say the building didn’t collapse after a huge, lengthy fire. [/quote]

It’s actually both Paul, it is the Windsor building in Madrid. Yes this is often cited by SOME troofers, but if you look on this thread you’ll find the only people to have mentioned it are you and Tina (both arguing against us). I would thank you to try and stick to debunking things that the people on this thread have mentioned, otherwise you might as well debunk holograms and space weapons which no-one on here has mentioned either (mind you, you’ve debunked the no-plane theory at the Pentagon and no-one proposed that particular theory either, so I suppose there is precedent for this illogical and irrational behaviour on your part). There are several steel framed skyscrapers that have burnt for a long time without collapsing, namely: -

The One Meridian Plaza Fire (Philadelphia) – Burnt for 18 hours over 8 floors, did not collapse

The First Interstate Bank Fire (Los Angeles) – Burnt for 3.5 hours over 4 floors, did not collapse

The 1 New York Plaza Fire (New York) – Burnt for 6 hours, did not collapse

Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) – Burnt for 17 hours over 40 floors, did not collapse.

If I was to argue this point (which I don’t believe I have) I would use one of these examples instead :)

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]most troofers believe a missile (not a plane) hit the Pentagon[/quote]

Do you know this as a fact? Have you done some kind of scientific survey? Or is it true because Paul says? Do me a favour Paul, don’t try and tell us what we believe. I personally do think a plane hit the Pentagon and the no plane theories are a straw man argument that can be used at some point in the future to persuade people that all 9-11 conspiracy theories are not worthy of consideration.

Yes Paul I did mention Jenga, basically this was just in case some people didn’t understand the theory of entropy (something you failed to mention that I brought up – obviously this was omitted by accident rather than purposefully to try and discredit me).

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]I just re-read my first replies to Ashley and 3 Year old kid. I debunked quite a few of their comments (all?) yet neither of them made any real effort to debate the points I made. This is how they operate. They ignore the comments you make and simply ask more (ignorant) questions.[/quote]

IIRC you resorted to calling me a moron rather than answering half of one of my posts, I think what you are describing it the way YOU operate. I think any impartial observer of this thread can see that you have been more interested in ad-hominem attacks rather than debating what happened that day. It is absolutely obvious that you fail to be able to entertain that the US government could in any way shape or form have had a hand in this (and then you have the bare faced cheeck to say that we are close minded!).

I have another question that I would dearly love you to answer. Do you believe that Western Governments have ever planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events to further their own agendas? Before answering you might like to google ‘Operation Northwoods’ and ‘Operation Gladio’.

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]“Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.”
This is the opinion of some of the best engineers in the world, and after months of hard, painstaking work. But Ashley and 3 Year Old Kid know better! Hilarious.[/quote]

If this took ‘months of hard painstaking work’ then it’s hardly any wonder they didn’t find time to answer any of the questions that are still outstanding.

Paul, I do believe I asked you this before, would you have any objections to a new inquiry?

I let the first one slide, but please don’t insinuate that I smoke drugs Paul, as I don’t. Whilst I see what you are trying to do with this comment I would remind you that it is in fact libellous and there is no need for it.

Toodle-pip :)

Oh dear. Have I been unkind? Poor things, calling you horrible names!

I’ll try and stop, okay?

Ashley
“If the steel did not melt then where did the pools of molten steel in the clean up site come from?”

You really are a fuckwit, aren’t you?

This one idiotic comment proves you have done NO research other than checking out the moronic troofer sites.

Now, some time ago one you morons moaned about me ‘just posting links’ and not evidence…so, ignoring the idiocy of that comment (er, the link IS the evidence), here is a link:

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

This is 9-11 Myths last word on the ‘molten steel’:
“To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There’s no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming “molten steel” have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.”

Okay, now I know opening a link is hard work for you cretins, so here is the full comment from another debunking site, Internet Detectives;

“(Dylan) Avery quotes the aforementioned American Free Press article again, highlighting these sections of it in a way that makes it appear to be actual newsprint:

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

First, Mark Loizeaux never saw the molten steel:

Mr. Bryan:

I didn’t personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being “dipped” out by the buckets of excavators.
I’m not sure where you can get a copy.
Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman’s Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
http://www.controlled-demolition.com

Second, there is no evidence that the molten metal was actually steel, or that any tests were performed on it to determine its composition. It could have easily been another metal with a lower melting point, such as aluminum, which was used on the WTC’s facade. Furthermore, are explosives used in demolition supposed to leave molten metal that smolders for weeks?

Avery continues quoting the AFP article, and states that highest temperature was in the east corner of the South Tower, where a temperature of 1377 °F was recorded, and that the molten steel in the basement was more than double that temperature. However, no indication is given that the temperature of the molten metal was ever actually measured. Additionally, the highest recorded temperature exceeds the melting point of aluminum, 1220 °F, making molten aluminum a distinct possibility.”

Any comments on this, gentlemen? Come on, I’m sure you have some foolish thing to say, sure you have!

Re:

The One Meridian Plaza Fire (Philadelphia) – Burnt for 18 hours over 8 floors, did not collapse

The First Interstate Bank Fire (Los Angeles) – Burnt for 3.5 hours over 4 floors, did not collapse

The 1 New York Plaza Fire (New York) – Burnt for 6 hours, did not collapse

Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) – Burnt for 17 hours over 40 floors, did not collapse.

Sigh. You utter, utter moron. Go and research these fires (and NOT by using troofer sites you lazy imbecile) and you will find these relevant facts: firefighters fought fire/fire proofing intact/no plane impact damage/fire went out/etc.

And by the way, I remember when researching these that for two of the buildings the firefighters feared a collapse and so cleared the area and removed all fire-fighting operations.

And 3 year old kid, you really don’t get it, do you?
Riiiiiiiiiiiight…okay then, just for you…the fires did not stay in one area but covered the WHOLE floors, moving around as more fuel was available (office furnishings, etc), as fires do.

So, the WHOLE area was weakened. Also, did you note how each of the top towers tilted slightly before they fell, one quite noticeable? Yes? Good. And did you note the initial tilt was over the areas damaged by the plane impacts? Yes? Good.

Okay, as are we both clear on that…now I suggest you read this very, very slowly so you understand the point I’m trying to make…and re-read it if you have to…as the fires were quite savage and gutted most of the floor area and weakened the core supports, the first section to fail was still that area damaged by the plane…got that? Okay, as this area went down the remainder of the structure, having been weakened by fire, followed suit.

Do you understand? You’re sure? Are you you’re re sure?
No? okay, go back and read it a few more times. get out some Jenga blocks if need be…

So, to continue, as the engineers of the NIST report made quite clear, because the building was designed the way it was, i.e. the floors did not support the building, the core and outer skin did, once that top section came down, there was no stopping it.

From the moment the top section slipped those few floors down, gravity took hold and the only direction was straight down. Not sideways. Not up. No a step to the left then a step to the right…but straight down.

As for the rest of the inane garbage you two fuckwits, morons, cretins, tosspots and dicks-for-brains spout and moan about…sorry, but its paranoid, ignorant rubbish.

There. Was that better? Did I keep the insults to a minimum?

PS. Yes, a chain does break at its weakest link…

PPS. om my god, INSIDE JOB!!!!

By the way boys, go and debate at screwloosechange.blogspot
If you dare…no? Thought not.

Dear Mr paul W, welcome to my Elephant trap.

Quote paul W

"And 3 year old kid, you really don’t get it, do you?

Riiiiiiiiiiiight…okay then, just for you…the fires did not stay in

one area but covered the WHOLE floors, moving around as

more fuel was available (office furnishings, etc), as fires do.

So, the WHOLE area was weakened. Also, did you note how

each of the top towers tilted slightly before they fell, one quite

noticeable? Yes? Good. And did you note the initial tilt was

over the areas damaged by the plane impacts? Yes? Good."

End Quote

Thank you indeed for that information Paul W.

And I hardly call nearly 45 degrees slight tilting old chap.

Can you now write to Dr Keith Seffen of Cambridge University and ask them to correct his ludicrous paper as they claim there was symmetrical instantaneous collapse. Yes, despite there being images to the contrary.

Is this not the very same paper you were peddling as being correct only a few posts ago, but now have contradicted?

So why was it good then and not now? Did it not suit your purpose to be truthful back then?

OR, Are you confused Paul W?

So, How can there be symmetrical collapse at nearly freefall speed through the path of most resistance, despite both the tops toppling over at initial collapse due to asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical collapse initiation?

Physics states the toppled tops should have fallen off and followed the path of least resistance had there been no Controlled Demolition.

Your statement has now proved the Controlled Demolition hypothesis is valid old chap.

WELL DONE!!!

Jolly Good show!!!!

Ashely and 3 Year old kid

I’ve just read your latest posts and realize I’m wasting my time. It’s obvious neither of you two clowns have a clue.

I could pick any number of idiotic comments, but I’ll pick this (it’s as good as any):

“Now you mention the plane hitting the building, the plane which hit is almost identical to the one the towers were designed to survive. Now you can harp on about the fuel and the damage and the blah blah blah, but that does not detract from the fact the towers were designed to withstand the direct impact of these planes.”

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who can post such drivel simply has not done any research other than scouring the troofer sites. This has been debunked so many times, but I’ll mention it for those who are reading this.

I’ll put this simply…the buildings DID survive the impact. What caused them to collapse was the damage combined with the fires combined with the loss of insulation from some of the core structure combined with the design of the building.

And by the way, it’s debatable they were even deigned with an aircraft impact in mind. There was an informal study done during the design/building that considered a plane landing at the nearby airport, getting lost in fog and hitting one of the towers – low speed, not much fuel.

The report cannot be found (although some of the official 9-11 reports thought it did exist), but one of the building’s designers said it was done, and he said the report suggested (note that word) the building should (note that word) survive an impact from a low speed jet liner.

He also said the report DID NOT consider fire damage, so therefore we can only conclude the report was only interested in the integrity of the structural design and a plane impact.

As I said, the towers DID survive the initial massive impact, thanks to the great work by the designers, resulting in many thousands of people escaping. Naturally, the troofers twist and distort this so it can support their own inane concepts that it should not have fallen as it ‘was designed to withstand plane impacts’.

Don’t believe me? Then get off your lazy backsides and go do some work.

For anyone reading this, Ashley and 3 year old kid are pretty typical of the mentality of troofers I’ve wasted my time trying to debate.

I became interested many years ago when I first heard the questions of the troofers: The pilots were not skilled enough to fly the planes? (they were); the fighter planes were stood down (they weren’t); there were unusually few people aboard thew planes (the numbers were low but abou average); government people were told not to fly (they weren’t); the pilots should have been able to fight off the hijackers (while strapped to a seat and trying to fly the plane?); no plane hit the Pentagon (hundreds saw the thing and one ‘thought’ they saw a small jet – guess which view the troofers took?); no wreckage etc at the Pentagon (tons of it, and including the bodies and the black box – all photographed and collected); the damage to the Pentagon didn’t ‘fit’ a plane impact (it did); 85 videos of the Pentagon (the inquiry viewed all but only two were of the Pentagon and this, unsurprisingly, was aimed more at the car entry than the building – and its low frame rate meant the chance of capturing the plane was very low); the pilot had to do a skilled turn and skilfully fly the plane to impact the building (he didn’t do a ‘skilled turn’ it was a big, lazy turn and he nearly missed the fucking thing and smacked into the lawn); the towers were brought down by explosives (completely demolished by numerous debunking sites and, not the least, by the hundreds of experts in the official reports); explosions were heard (quite normal in big fires, especially in buildings – firefighters are quite aware of the danger from things going bang); ‘squibs’ (none present in any of the videos); it was a ‘typical’ controlled demolition collapse (no it wasn’t); Thermitre found (Thermite is never used in CD and none was found, other than in the mind of Stephen Jones, idiot troofer – whose paper, incidentally, has not been peer-reviewed by any independent experts or authority); melted steel found (no it wasn’t. Pools of molten ‘metal’ were found in the debris days later, which the NIST report and others consider not unusual considering the massive amount of debris, the fires and mix if combustible materials); WTC7 was CD (no, it wasn’t, the report is out soon); Silverstein said ‘pull it’ (he was talking about the firefighters operation to ‘save’ WTC7 and ‘pull it’ is not an industry term in CD); BBC knew the building was going to fall beforehand (yes, along with everyone else…it had massive fire and structural damage from the tower debris, and was starting to tilt)…what else, oh yes, the other air defense excerises made sure no planes were in the sky that day (the air force did this all the time, it wasn’t unusual and is called training)…what else…oh, fuck it.

Ladies and gentlemen, you will find heaps of ‘anomalies’ in that. Such is the nature of any disaster. The difference between normal people and toss-pots like Ashely and 3 year old kid, is they do not have the cognitive skills to separate fact from fiction.

That, or they’re just dickwads…

As I said earlier, if you have any question, go to 9-11 Myths, Internet detectives, Screwloosechange.blogspot, the NIST report and all manner of other sites.

The truth is out there.

Thank you for that paul W,

or should one say

Mr Mu Pit.

Controlled Demolition Hypothesis Confirmed!

Confirmed!

Confirmed!

Confirmed!

For anyone reading this, and interested in the reality behind the question from Ashley about other high-rise fires did not cause collapse, check this out from Internet Detectives, ‘Skyscraper Fires’

“…a 38-story skyscraper in Philadelphia burned for over 19 hours with the fire spreading to 8 floors, and did not collapse. The building was One Meridian Plaza, and structural damage indicated the possibility of a collapse:

Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted — some as much as three feet –under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage

All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors.

…a 56-story skyscraper in Venezuela burned for over 17 hours with the fire spreading to 26 floors and reaching the roof, but did not collapse. This was the east tower of the Parque Central Complex in Caracas, and firefighters in the building were evacuated after fears it would collapse:

At 7 a.m., some of the booster pumps started to malfunction, and the fire regained intensity, spreading vertically at a rate of about one floor per hour until approximately 10 a.m. Around 11 a.m., the fire breeched the fifth macroslab, below the 39th floor, and around noon, the stairwells’ fire enclosure started to fail. Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned.

…Madrid’s Windsor Building, a steel-reinforced concrete building which burned for nearly 24 hours, destroying its upper 10 floors without causing the building itself to collapse.

…the Windsor Building had a concrete core with a concrete frame supporting the first 16 stories and steel perimeter columns for the upper floors, which collapsed while leaving the concrete core standing. Further collapse was prevented by the 17th floor, a concrete “technical floor” used to strengthen the building.

This is from 9-11 Myths:

“The Madrid Windsor fire is sometimes cited as being relevant to the WTC collapse, but in reality there are major differences between the two situations.

No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn’t sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning.

The Madrid Windsor Tower was much smaller than the WTC, too, at 32 storeys. More significantly, the design of the Madrid Windsor Tower was entirely different to that of the WTC.

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two ‘technical floors’ – concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

No reliance on steel frames here, the core was mostly concrete. And what happened to the steel that it did include?

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.

Yes, it failed. Other photos reveal how the concrete was all that was left on the upper floors.

The same story suggests it’s only the key design differences from the WTC that kept the Madrid Windsor Tower standing.

An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower’s concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse

The fire is significant in terms of its potential similarities between the collapse of the building’s steel frame above the 17th floor and the experience seen at the World Trade Center. Notably, one of the recommendations of NIST’s interim report on the World Trade Center disaster is for tall building design to incorporate ‘strong points’ within the frame.

Others confirm the advantages offered by the Windsor Tower design.

Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.

So what does the Madrid Windsor Tower fire show? That steel columns will collapse in a fire, that concrete is more fire-resistant, and, uh, that’s about it. It’s hard to see how any of this, especially in such a different building design, can have much meaning for the WTC case.”

Hope you all enjoyed reading that. Now, on a personal note, I first thought Ashely was more of an idiot that 3 year old kid…but then changed my mind….then changed it again…but got so confused between the two that from now on I’m calling them Bill and Ben.

Interesting the way it was presented. Just name the buildings and use this as ‘proof’ that steel-framed buildings don’t (cannot?) fall down due to fire. Like much of the troofers, it’s all smoke and mirrors; once you look at the details, and it isn’t difficult, it all falls apart.

Also, much of it is supposition; other buildings didn’t collapse, so why the towers, etc. This is another troofer method and works really well with the likes of Bill and Ben, for those who do not have a reasonable questioning ability or are easy led to ue anything to support their own fantasy.

After reading the above, check this out from Ashley in an earlier post:
“Regarding the building fires that you claim make me an utter, utter moron. I’ll concentrate on just one (to make it easier for you to hold the information in RAM), now if you can remember this fact ‘The WTC South Tower had a fire for just over one hour on 6 floors and it then collapsed’, the Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) – Burnt for *17 hours* over *40 floors* and did not collapse. Just to simplify it for you further:
1 hour fire on 6 floors = collapse
17 hour fire on 40 floors = no collapse”

It all sounds so plausible, eh? And so simple. Yet look behind a little and it all changes. This is how troofers like Bill and Ben operate and why it’s impossible to hold any form of reasonable debate as there just ‘aint much backing them up. Sad, really.

For access to the 911 Controlled Demolition Evidence and open source video lectures from a veteran high rise steel frame architect go here:-

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Also be aware we now have the blueprints which were denied us by the US Government, which clearly show there were in fact 47 massive steel core columns with 300,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete in the core and on top of every floor pan.

The core was described as "indestructible" at the time of construction.

Paul W, some unsolicited advice:

Never argue with an idiot, as passers by won't be able to tell the difference.

What you need to know about 3 Year Old Kid, and many other truthers is that, for them, 9/11 was an inside job because they WANT it to be an inside job. Nothing you or anyone else says will persuade them otherwise. Ever

3 Year Old Kid – I'd be interested to see how many of the "architects, engineers and physicists" you hold dear in the truth movement have looked, objectively, at evidence from both sides, and aren't just getting their information from YouTube videos.

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you're not allowed to be a nutcase.

[quote post="3838"]can see 3 CDs on 911[/quote]

Don't believe everything you see.

[quote post="3838"]shut up[/quote]

Translation = "LALALALA can't hear you. 9/11 was an inside job LALALALALA. Muslims in caves couldn't do this."

Were are your Qualifications to make the claims you do?

I'm finding this "debate" very insensitive to those who lost their lives on 9/11 or from the effects of 9/11, including family members and friends who have lost loved ones.

Please remember that thousands of people lost their lives that day, regardless of what you think happened.

WTC 001 and WTC 002 were top down demolitions and building 007 was bottom down conventional demolition.

"You are absolutely impossible to debate with. Your idea of reasoned debate is pasting pages and pages of information from debunking sites, that half the time I don’t think you’ve even read." Ashley (Ben)

Geez, this is like shooting fish in a barrel…

Ashley, you ask simple questions then whine if the answers aren't simple and quick. Life's not like that, son. For example, the question 'what is love' can sometimes take a lifetime to answer.

You don't understand that, do you? You want a quick, witty reply like the quick, idiotic comments you troofers so love…'the buildings were designed for a plane impact', 'WTC7 was not hit by a plane', etc. All easy to say, and completely inaccurate, yet to reply ACCURATELY (note that word) it takes more than a 'no, it's not'.

But I'm not really doing it for you, Ben. Just like the other tosspot, Bill, neither of you want to slog through the NIST report, and all the other reports. You much prefer the troofer nonsense that sounds great and requires nothing more than repetition. Maybe it's the TV generation thing; you want jingles and logos.

It's amazing that one of you morons complained that I just put in links to my evidence, now you're moaning there's too much!

Sigh. READ the stuff I posted, and go to the links and READ them.

But that's not gonna happen, is it?

3 Year Old Kid, I have no science or engineering background, I'll admit that.

However, I do know that everything that the "truth" movement offers has either been debunked or is based on a false premise.

Where are the people who planted the demolitions? Who are they? Why has nobody involved come forward?

Louise – One of the reasons the "truth" movement annoys me so much is because they spend their lives sitting in front of their computer screens playing parlour games with the deaths of 3000 people, all the time talking about how much they "respect" them, before, in the next breath, sneering at them or their loved ones.

Paul

The 'troofer' sites I put forward are not space weapon/hologram sites. The sites are reputable and are written by professionals (architects, pilots, civil engineers etc etc). You STILL haven't answered my questions, are you being deliberately evasive or are you just stupid?

As for my age (what that has to do with it I do not know), I am 40 in 3 weeks, as far as my qualifications are concerned I hold a Bachelor of Science with Honours (2:1), although not in a related field. If I was young (which I unfortunately am no longer), I'm guessing you were planning on being condescending (I guess now you will do the 'you're old enough to know better'). I have taken the liberty of quoting my qualifications before you start down that road.

Paul I'll quote my main questions again that you seem either unable or unwilling to answer, please add one to the number of times you have been asked: -

[quote post="3838"]

Paul have you read the NIST report in its entirity? (as I’ve asked you 3 times prior)

Paul can you find an explaination for the spherical particles of iron? (as I’ve asked you two times prior)

Paul do you have a problem with a new inquiry? (as I’ve asked you two times prior)

Paul do you believe that Western governments have planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events in the past? (as I’ve asked you two times prior)[/quote]

Here's an interesting link: – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fis… this is authored by Robert Fisk, a very well respected reporter for the independent, this guy checks his facts and his sources impeccably. The headline for the story is 'Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11'.

Thanks for your post Neil.

Thanks for confessing you are not Science or Engineering literate.

How would you know if in fact it was debunked if you are not qualified to judge so?

Do you even know what moments of inertia are?

Go here to see what all the fuss is about, put the link together in your browser:

http://www.

ae911truth.net/omnitv_interview.htm

Learn what questions still need answers.

Neil,

You said this:

"However, I do know that everything that the “truth” movement offers has either been debunked or is based on a false premise."

I'm impressed. Where is this "debunking" information you claim to know about. Popular Mechanics, perhaps?? No, that can't be. They've been shown to be complete idiots on the subject. The 9/11 Commission's Report?? Nope, not there either. They give no logical explanation for WTC7 nor many other anomalies of the day. Perhaps Walt Disney's movie, Fantasia. Yes, you might be right there.

You wrote this:

Where are the people who planted the demolitions? Who are they? Why has nobody involved come forward?

You sound like a lot of Americans in the 60s and 70s. "Commumism can't exist. I have never seen a Communist therefore they can't exist." That type of illogical thinking is not only nonscientific, it's irrational. Do you really believe that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed Kennedy?? No one else has come forward claiming to be the actual hitman so we have no choice but to believe the Warren Report and not our own eyes. Such logic is good for appeasing the masses, but it fails in any scientific study of 9/11.

Ahhh, now we come to the crux of the issue. The real reason you spent hours, days, weeks, months creating your special little project:

Louise – One of the reasons the “truth” movement annoys me so much is because they spend their lives sitting in front of their computer screens playing parlour games with the deaths of 3000 people, all the time talking about how much they “respect” them, before, in the next breath, sneering at them or their loved ones.

The above is a rather blatant racist remark which shows what your real motives are. You state that 100% of ALL those who question the events of 9/11 "sneer at [the deaths of 3,000 people]." You should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you hate people going after the truth. Such racist remarks are better left for radicals to spew forth, not someone who "supposedly" is looking to solve the mystery of 9/11. I completely resent the fact that you say I "sneer at them." I am looking for the truth, not slander. I think it's become obvious which path you took.

A 20 year Architect tells it how it is, here are some of the questions which require answers re 911:

http://www.ae911truth.net/omnitv_interview.htm

"If you like the laws of physics then you could explain to a wondering world why all three building collapses to the PATH OF GREATEST RESISTENCE. There is no other event in known history where objects took the path of greatest resistence. Perhaps you care to explain this abnormality." Toeg

Here, dear reader, is an example of why it is impossible to debate a troofer – they have no idea. None. Zero. Zilch.

"No other event in known history where objects took the path of greatest resistance."

Sigh. How many times does it have to be explained? Let me try, one more time, but with a question none of you morons have, or will, answer: where else, in god's name, were the buildings going to go?

Maybe a shuffle to the left? Maybe a shimmy to the right? Maybe up and little, hover for a moment, then settle back down?

Try and grasp, if that is remotely possible, the concept of gravity, but before we go there, let's make clear what you mean by the 'path of greatest resistance'…you mean the lower section of the towers?

Are we all agreed on that? Good.

Now, here's the bit you fuckwits don't understand – the top section had enough mass and force to overcome the resistance of the lower section.

In other words, the top section went straight down (as gravity dictated), and because the lower section of the towers were unable to resist (as explained in the NIST report), it ALL went down.

Had the top section fell onto a granite outcrop the same size of the lower section, then things would be different.

But, it didn't. It fell on the lower section, which was unable to resist.

What, in the name of all things sane and normal, do you dickheads not understand about that?

And for all this garbage about me not answering questions, I asked the following at the very beginning, right at the start, which neither Bill and Ben, nor any other troofer posting here has ever answered, and which I will repeat again: where else was the building going to go?

And your answer is…?

For those who have questions about 9-11, here's another site answering (and debunking) most questions posed by the troofers:

http://www.debunking911.com

Paul

Are you going to answer my questions? For your benefit here they are again: -

Paul have you read the NIST report in its entirity? (for the 5th time of asking)

Paul can you find an explaination for the spherical particles of iron? (for the 4th time of asking)

Paul do you have a problem with a new inquiry? (for the 4th time of asking)

Paul do you believe that Western governments have planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events in the past? (for the 4th time of asking).

Name me another steel framed building that has collapsed due to fire damage.

Also I'd like you to provide me with the details of the plane that you claim crashed in to WTC7.

btw the Bill and Ben thing makes you look like a child Paul. As for either of us not answering the question that you posed at the beginning (where else was the building going to go?), I have answered that question a number of times (just not with the answer that you claim is true, that involves ignoring the law of entropy). Now you can try answering some of mine, like the ones above, like the questions I brought up about the bin Laden responsibility video. I'm quite sure you'll ignore these AGAIN, as there are no answers, there is no debunking of them.

You are hilarious, it's like trying to argue with a fish. Try answering my questions Paul..

Thanks for your posts Neil & Paul W.

As I have stated before, this media diatribe was a Cretins Guide to 911 – by CRETINS – for CRETINS.

What has a UFO specialist got to do with 911? Yet out they wheeled this former MOD mouthpiece turned UFO authority to spew fourth his balderdash & piffle.

Then of course there are the "Cult Watchers" LOL. I mean, who the heck are these characters?

Well it turns out they are a rabble band of discredited Commies and Socialists. Now please don't get me wrong, I have no problem with any of these Commies & Socialists per-say, but what do these CRETINS know about the 911 Physics and Engineering I ask?

For all these MU PITS knows the WTC was made up of a “COMMMMMUUUUNITY” of racially different GIRDERS all glued together in a flimsy construction because it was in need of some “REAL Social Cohesion”!

What the heck do ANY of these FOOLS know about ANY of the 911 Physics or Engineering issues?

Absolutely ZERO, and they have ADMITTED SO!

Well done!

Neil

I love downloading mp3 interviews about politics, sport, culture, etc. You know, interesting stuff. Got any recommendations?

Cheers

We ARE on the brink of total destruction, and the corporate media are reporting nothing but Euro 2008 and other irrelevant nonsense.

If BUSH attacks Iran it will be another illegal attack on a sovereign nation, just like Afghanistan & Iraq & just like Hitler did in 1939.

Iran, although they are not my cup of tea, are perfectly entitled to have nuclear power. Indeed it was the USA who sold them their first nuclear reactor.

Quote Wikipedia:

Nuclear program of Iran

The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.[2]

End quote

This is not paranoia, this is for real.

If the Gulf oil is cut off, even in part, what will happen to our food prices?

If Iran does retaliate as it has promised, what do you suppose the USA will do to counter that?

If China losses its oil supply for its industry, what will it do to protects its economic infrastructure and prevent starvation & unrest of its population?

If you can not see this Paul W & Neil, then you need to realize one thing – Corporations in the USA and elsewhere will gladly profit from both of your deaths and give you absolutely nothing in return.

Continue peddling your filthy lies and distortions of the 911 facts. Watch as your planet turns to blood and mud. But don't bother to come asking me for solutions once it all kicks off because there will be only one outcome, the total inhalation of at least 80% of the world population including many of your family members. PERIOD.

Nobody listened to those who warned about Hitler & his Nazis, and today nobody is listening to the warnings about Bush and the NEOCON adgender.

911 was an inside job, a pretext for starting World War 3.

[quote post="3838"]I am trying to stay neutral but I have to admit the Physics posted by “3 year old kid” does make a lot of sense.[/quote]

NO IT DOES NOT!

An A Level student could tell you the errors in his workings.

Dear Victor E,

Thanks for your post.

I will try and be more polite to other posters even if they are MU PITS.

Chill out Paul W, Ashley is talking a lot of sense.

So building 007 was hit and damaged by falling debris. OK.

But that damage was asymmetric damage, yet building 007 came down symmetrically at almost freefall speed into its footprint.

It should have toppled over, not straight down its footprint.

Also, the fires were over 20 floors below the penthouse on the roof, yet the penthouse collapsed first.

How did fire damage 20 floors below collapse the Penthouse 20 floors above?

Come on Paul Wake up!!!

[quote post="3838"]I love downloading mp3 interviews about politics, sport, culture, etc. You know, interesting stuff. Got any recommendations?[/quote]

radiophonic.org.uk is where it's at, then!

Seriously – there is a series of podcasts out there called the Sceptics Guide which may interest you, as may maximumfun.org.

Timesonline do some good ones, as do The Guardian.

Hi Neil,

Is that honestly skeptical or Irrationally skeptical?

When you have any spare time between your Yellow journalism perhaps you could look at these skeptics too –

Here are a group of 400 + qualified Architects and Engineers who are deeply skeptical of the US governments 911 account, indeed they explain why the official story defies the known laws of Physics and is a great big dump of smelly lies:-

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Dr. Spalding come in Dr. Spalding are you real or a FAKE Dr Spaulding?

Can you now confirm the Science please, were is the science incorrect as you claim in your post of Jun 30th, 2008 at 2:22 pm.

Quote Dr. Spaulding: NO IT DOES NOT!

An A Level student could tell you the errors in his workings. End post

10.00 – 9.22 = 0.78 seconds

How could a massive building with a 1 square acre footprint offer only 0.78 seconds worth of resistance to quarter mile of steel and concrete building 200,000 + tonnes?

How is this even physically possible?

And for the south tower it was even less resistance, the top 10 or so floors fell 90+ floors and they offered next to zero resistance.

And As these two buildings were constructed identically, should these different masses falling through different resistances have had significantly different times?

So why both just under 10 seconds Dr Spaulding, its not like both of these pile drivers were the same weight is it as one was half the weight of the other.

Controlled Demolition Proved. PERIOD!!!!

Now either come clean and post the Physics or withdraw your 911 LIES DR Spaulding.

Dr, your not even a MU PIT!

What are you on about Sprite?

[quote post="3838"]Interesting. I have a macro which shows me everyones comment ID handler. 1 person here is having a conversation with him/her self, paying himself/herself compliments and trying to make it look like there is more support for the conspiracy theories then there actually is. What a dirty troofer trick.

To the person posing as multiple people; come clean and admit it or I will do it for you.

There’s only 2 people here who believe in a conspiracy theory. The majorioty of people on here do not believe in conspiracy theories. Just 2 of them.[/quote]

The comment ID is the unique ID of the comment, it's got nowt to do with the poster.

OK you've got me, I'm really Paul w too, can't you tell from the similarities in our writing?

Bill and Ben

What a laugh. I go away for a couple of days working and come back to see you two idiots frothing at the mouth. You are so funny.

Bill – "the building (WTC7) should have toppled over"

You are an idiot

Ben – Not only will I ask Neil about any decent mp3 downloads, but anyone else who is reading this, even you, dipshit. Why? Well, I figure 'Neil' might have similar interests as me, and as he's involved in the internet media, so to speak, I'll ask. It would be nice if he answered with some hot shit sites, but he doesn't have to. Not sure about me wanting a signed photo of him, though. If he was a hot chickky babe, then hello pussycat, but I doubt it. Sigh)

I'm wondering why you mentioned it. Do you feel you're missing out? A bit upset I didn't ask you? Oh, poor thing. The reason I'm asking you this that from I can gather, the average troofer is male, single, and without many friends (and I don't mean 'colleagues', I mean friends). Not every troofer, but most.

And gee, you're impatient, eh? "Where's my reply?" It's coming, dick-for-brains, you just have to wait – been very, very busy with work. Don't worry – you'll notice it, you moron.

It will also be my last major effort with you, Ben. You're a bit dim and monotonous, but have been lots of fun to rattle. The only real question I have is whether this is a piss-take. If it is, well done, you got me! If not, you poor, sad, lonely bastard. You must feel very isolated in life. Believe me when I say I hope you recover and reconnect with life; no-one should suffer, and life is short.

You know, I do wonder how many people are reading this. Any chance of a hands-up?

Hey its Paul as his usual self – bitter and twisted with a topping of Cretin.

Are you not pretending to be Dr. MU PIT Spalding today paul?

Are you Dr. Jeckle and Mr hyde – 2 in 1?

Can you just change back to Dr. Spalding and answer the Physics question Paul please?

What is

10.00 – 9.22 =

How can a 1 square acre, 200,000 + tonne quarter of a mile of building offer almost absolute zero resistance?

Come on Paul, were is your Answer?

Your answer is Gravity, can anyone see a big fat problem with Paul's answer?

You sure do make a good SLAVE paul.

All I know is 911 and 7/7 were both inside jobs and the science prove it.

In the July prior to 911 Alex Jones warned that 911 was going to happen because he had a tipoff by CIA insiders – check this out:-

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=alex+jone…

And I thought those who don't know 911 was an inside job were thick until I came across this French guy:

ht

tp:

//yournewreality.blogspot.com/2008/07/watch-this-video-again-next-time-you.html

Paul

You clearly aren't reading my replies, Fisk says troofers are deluded? See: -

[quote post="3838"]Here’s an interesting link: – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fis… this is authored by Robert Fisk, a very well respected reporter for the independent, this guy checks his facts and his sources impeccably. The headline for the story is ‘Even I question the ‘truth’ about 9/11′.[/quote]

re: The books, there are 3 books that are faith based (Tolstoy, Bell and Ross). I am a Christian (probably not a very good one but I guess that is why we need/ask for help).

My faith has little to do with the faith that the religious right in the US promote (warmongers like Hagee etc).

Faith has been used to wage war from the crusades up to the wars currently raging in the Middle East. Bush thinks he's doing the work of God, I'm not sure that God thinks the same.

My personal opinion is that God would want us to wage peace rather than war. I think The Sermon on the Mount and in particular The Golden Rule are the signposts as to how God wants us to try and live (we all fall short of the mark unfortunately).

Is there another one of these yellow journalism hit pieces because I want to have another laugh?

Sprite,

Wrong.

We have 7 people who use this department computer.

One of our team is a specialist in Gravitational fields.

So, no its not a lack of confidence its departmental fun.

[quote post="3838"]We have 7 people who use this department computer.[/quote]

LOL!!!

Let 'them' all post at the same time then!

Also, I take it that your 'department' is open 24 hours a day?

I believe the firefighters who stated there were loads of explosions and controlled demolitions etc.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Artic…

Why should I think the firefighters are lying on oath?

Paul w

Here is a very interesting link: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7485331…

The BBC say that NIST are indeed almost ready to publish their report on WTC7 and apparently it collapsed totally due to 'normal building fires' and according to the BBC 'That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire' (they ignore the 2 big towers that fell on the same day, is this a tacit admission of controlled demolition? ;).

You might want to bear this in mind when you eventually 'publish' this long awaited reply that you keep promising, as you have been giving the impression that there are other steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire damage. Is this hunt for another building that has shown this behaviour the cause of the delay to your promised opus?

It is interesting to note that NIST used computer simulations again, is this due to the fact they can't get real world models to exhibit the behaviour they claim is to blame for these 3 collapses?

I'm sure you'll eat this report up with similar gullability as you have the other 'official' stories. Pardon me if I'm a bit more cynical.

There is no way in the world (maybe there is in a computer modelled world, but not in the real world) that asymmetrical damage and chaotic fires could drop a building with such uniformity, not only is it contrary to the laws of physics, it doesn't even make sense in laymans terms!

How could all four corners of this building all decide to fail at the same time when they were subject to different levels of damage, different temperatures for different periods of time and on different floors? It collapsed like it had the rug pulled out from under it, if the building was going to fail, it should have failed in a manner that matched the damage.

The BBC say 'Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke', the other 3 sides showed hardly anything from what I can find (they don't show or link to any of these photos, if you know where these are I'd like to look to see if all 47 floors on that side do indeed show the damage the BBC claim and where these photos have been for the last 7 years).

Logically would you expect this building to fall over towards the side exhibiting this damage, or would you expect it to fail on all four corners at the same time and collapse through the path of most resistance? I do not for the life of me understand how you are buying this Paul, I really don't. Is this another case of 'The Big Lie'? (like Iraqi WMD, the Saddamin Laden link or the 'all new' Iranian Nuclear Weapons program)

The BBC are showing another of their highly scientific, and in no way biased, 'Conspiracy Files' programs devoted to this particular subject. Anyone who is interested in how Physics laws were suspended on 9/11 can catch the show on July 6th @ 9pm on BBC2 (no doubt they'll trot out some loon with space weapons theories, or pods or holograms and then use them to disprove CD a la Neil and his cynics guide).

Also I bet my bottom dollar that they fail to even mention their premonition of this collapse and show the footage of them saying it had collapsed, whilst it was still stood there bold as brass in the background (I'm pretty sure it would be difficult to show it as according to point 4 on this link -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/par… the BBC have lost all their tapes of their 911 coverage and can be seen asking the public to provide it with some footage of it! They have lost all of their footage of what can be seen as a defining and seminal moment in our lifetimes. Either they're lying or they are so incompetent that I want my license fee back!).

I don't understand for the life of me how you can eat this up. How does a tree fall when you chop one side of it? Does it fall over, or does it pile drive through itself turning itself in to matchsticks in a nice neat pile roughly the same width as the original trunk. Open your eyes, use your brain. It does not make any sense whatsoever, it is just not possible and it happened 3 times on 9-11!

[quote post="3838"]I have enjoyed reading this thread, particularaly the stupidity and science nievity of some who are correctly described as of lower inteligence.

Of all the natural forces such as Electricity & Magnetism, gravity is by far the weakest force.[/quote]

Are you serious? The weak forces? That is preposterous, as is your name if you're evoking 'those are the weak forces' as an argument. Are you suggesting that these 'lower intelligence' bearing people should rather consider the strong forces at work on that day? This is not a micro/macro argument and Gravity would be the dominant force on that day. As you know, Gravity alone can change the shape of space-time, or maybe you still, incorrectly, use Newtonian physics to predict the orbit of Mercury:)

I grow very tired of this level of debate. Calling your opponent a name (stupid) doesn't even pass the first level of the disagreement hierarchy. And in keeping with that, I submit that gravity was the most dominant force on that day, since none, not one piece, save of some unknown helium, of the WTCs left the Earth's gravity that day and the event did not go atomic.

This is not to say that I don't agree with you that explosives took down those buildings, and they certainly did. Occam's razor and all combined evidence points to that as the only method. However, I will not agree with either side simply looking down their nose at each other. That argumentative method only provides ammunition to the men in this article who contend that we don't look at the facts and then attack anyone who disagrees with us because we have no real foundation. That is what Rupert Murdoch does and slowly but surely people see one corner debating fact and one corner name calling; the name callers win in the first few rounds but as more people learn facts, name calling loses the battle quite quickly.

It is no small wonder that more Physicists and Engineers do not come forward in support of a new 911 investigation. It's hard to tell the World that the Earth is not flat when the public then pummel all those who say such outrageous blasphemy.

A word of uninvited advice: I choose reality, don't sink to their level and give out fictitious labels to your enemy, you'll then easily be discredited. Oh, and they've invented this crazy thingy that checks your spelling too.

veritas

Take a magnet and pick up a paperclip with it.

So which is stronger – Earth's Gravity at sea level or Magnetism?

Take an electomagnet and switch it on, pick up the same paperclip.

Don't compair the gravity of black holes to earths gravity at sea level CRETIN.

Bill and Ben

Hey dingbats, been missing me?

3 Year Old Kid: "In earths gravity it is physically imposible for 911 to be anything other than Controlled Demolition. PERIOD"

Er…ummm….er…geez, hw to reply to a comment like THAT?….ummm…er…moving quickly along…

Ashley: You're right, I was confusing Fisk with Cockurn and St. Clair at the Counterpunch website. Man, that Fisk sounds like a troofer! What a moron!

By the way, my reply will be sent later today or early tomorrow. Are ya ready? Sure you ready? Are you REALLY sure you're ready???

Paul W

What is the "W" for?

Willing to be Educated by facts?

Wrong nearly every time?

Wanker with shit for brains?

Just curious Paul, were you ever dropped on your head as a child?

Dear reader.

My apologies for such a lengthy post. Troofers like Ashley ask many questions, which is fine, but the answer often takes time and effort on both our parts – I have to get the info, you have to read, and think about it. Do I expect this reply to change Ashley’s mind? Not a chance…this is for anyone out there who would like some facts, rather than the superficial questions so loved by troofers.

Ashley and Co may sneer at the NIST and 9-11 Commission report, but whether they like it or not, both reports were put forward to public scrutiny only after a huge amount of effort and time by a team of dedicated experts, and their work has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of engineers, architects and so on throughout the world.

The only complaint has come from troofers, yet even a brief look at their ‘evidence’ often reveals major flaws, inconsistencies and glaring omissions that would embarrass anyone interested in the ‘truth’. Ashley is like other troofers I have debated; big on questions but quiet on evidence. I hope the following will highlight this as I try and answer each and every question he put forward, and ask a few of my own.

Not that it matters; this reply is irrelevant to troofers, as is anything that doesn’t agree with their warped, paranoid view of reality; that of an all-powerful evil that is readying the population for conquest and slavery, a New World Order. The good news is that their view isn’t even close, the sad news is that TV and the likes of Paris Hilton are creating a greater threat to young minds than George Bush could ever imagine.

The simple, sad truth of 9-11 is a handful of dedicated, intelligent and brave young men used a brilliantly simple plan to destabilize, if just for a moment, our view of a safe world that some of us are privileged to call our own. That some politicians used this murderous horror to push forward their own agendas is a tragedy, but not unexpected. For my mind, another tragedy is that the genuine anger and concern felt by many who have suffered under our comfort, be they in the Middle East or elsewhere, has also been forgotten in the shock of 9-11.

But this is about Ashley and the troofer mindset, and I am not the only one to suggest theirs is more a faith-based belief than one centered on reality. Unsurprisingly, it seems to attract those of a religious faith – check out how many of troofer ‘leaders’ have a background of religious studies. Theirs is a belief that requires one to bend reality to fit, hence the bizarre claims of no-planes or holograms, stand-downs, missiles, space beans and such. Kudos to Ashley for not believing in many of these, but he does believe in controlled demolition, and also questions if there was actually a plane at the Pentagon. In other words, he’s certainly less loony than the rest, but is still avoiding the reality.

I’ll finish this rave with an observation by a debunker. He noted a troofer website turned this eyewitness account… “If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap. There’s nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It’s just littered with small pieces…” into this; “Witnesses Report Lack of Plane Wreckage at Flight 93 Crash Scene” As the debunker commented, how does littered with small pieces become lack of wreckage? By going through the troofer mindset of an Ashley, that’s how.

This reply is in response to Ashley’s post on……………. As it covers quite a few of the troofer beliefs, I figure it’s as good as the rest. I will use his quotes in full, and reply as best I can. For clarification, NTR means ‘note to readers’.

A: “You are absolutely impossible to debate with. Your idea of reasoned debate is pasting pages and pages of information from debunking sites, that half the time I don’t think you’ve even read.”

I have found inconsistency to be a major feature in your ‘truth’ movement, and its supporters; either you or 3 year old kid whined that I just posted links, now I post the info and now you whine it’s too much. It doesn’t really matter, as either way you have to actually READ the information. Re “…that half the time I don’t think you’ve even read.”, can you supply some proof or reasoning why you believe this? To answer, I have read all the links I post, other than the voluminous 9-11 Commission report. NTR: question answered and questions asked.

A: “Paul have you read the NIST report in its entirity?”

Yes. NTR: question answered.

A: “Can you find an explaination for the spherical particles of iron?”

No, I haven’t bothered to look as I presume you have, otherwise why ask the question? So tell me, what is the relevance in mentioning spherical particles of iron? And please, try and have reports/details supporting your belief and not just a repletion of the question….in other words, reports that detail it as an anomaly. NTR: question answered and question asked.

A; “Paul do you have a problem with a new inquiry?”

Yes. We’ve already had one, and it has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of its peers throughout the world, i.e. scientific, engineering, aeronautical, architecture/building etc. Could you please forward me the reports YOU have read that disagree with the inquiry? NTR: question answered and question asked.

A; “Paul do you believe that Western governments have planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events in the past?”

I believe they have. That however, does not prove that a Western government(s) DID it or WILL do it. Do you believe terrorist organizations have attacked Western countries before, and do you believe they would do 9-11 if they had the opportunity? NTR: question answered and question asked.

A: “Good job on debunking the Madrid Building fire, just a damn shame that the only people to mention it are you and Tina (both fighting the same corner). What you have done is debunk a theory that no-one had put forward, that is not relevant (the building was constructed in a completely different fashion from the WTC buildings) and then tried to use this debunking to discredit the Caracas building argument (which is valid and relevant and similar in construction to the WTC buildings). You aren’t comparing apples with apples Paul, I very much hope this was a mistake on your part rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead people.”

Thank you for agreeing that I debunked the Madrid fire. As I (hopefully) made clear in the original post, I was talking about troofers in general and how they tend to ignore some things but not others. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. Anyway, after reading my reply about the Madrid fire, you now realise the steel-framed section of the building DID collapse. In light of this, are you disagreeing with those troofers who use the Madrid fire as an example that steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire?

A; “that is not relevant (the building was constructed in a completely different fashion from the WTC buildings)…”

Surely the point is that construction IS very relevant in a building fire? An example is the collapse of the steel-framed section of the Madrid building, and not the concrete-framed section of the building. Do you believe construction is not relevant? NTR: questions asked.

A: “and then tried to use this debunking to discredit the Caracas building argument (which is valid and relevant and similar in construction to the WTC buildings).”

Are you now saying construction IS relevant? Or does it mean that ONLY buildings of a similar construction are relevant? Here’s what you stated in the post I was replying to: “There are several steel framed skyscrapers that have burnt for a long time without collapsing, namely: – The One Meridian Plaza Fire (Philadelphia) – Burnt for 18 hours over 8 floors, did not collapse. The First Interstate Bank Fire (Los Angeles) – Burnt for 3.5 hours over 4 floors, did not collapse. The 1 New York Plaza Fire (New York) – Burnt for 6 hours, did not collapse. Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) – Burnt for 17 hours over 40 floors, did not collapse. If I was to argue this point (which I don’t believe I have) I would use one of these examples instead :) Okay then, Ashley, let’s take the Caracas: “…around 11 a.m., the fire breeched the fifth macroslab, below the 39th floor, and around noon, the stairwells’ fire enclosure started to fail. Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned….” So Ashley, THIS is what you’d use to argue the point that burning steel-framed buildings did not collapse; a fire in which firefighters were worried the building might collapse? Do you consider this a strong argument? Also, if the steel-framed section of the Madrid fire DID collapse, surely I can then use it as an argument to show steel-framed buildings could and do collapse due to fire? As an addition, fighters were also worried that the One Meridian Plaza building was going to collapse due to the fire. Does this concern from firefighters that the buildings might collapse be an indication that, even though no large steel-framed building has collapsed due to fire, that one COULD collapse? NTR: question answered and questions asked.

A: “I very much hope this was a mistake on your part rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead people.”

No mistake, and I had, and have, no intention of misleading people. NTR: questions answered.

A: “You look very arrogant when you post your material from 911myths and screwloosechange and internetdetectives as these are just the other side of the coin from wtc7.net, ae911truth.org and 911review.com (they are no more or less valid)”
What is it ‘arrogant’ to post details that support my arguments? Are you saying that I should I NOT post material from these sites? Also, I believe the troofer sites are not ‘more or less valid’ as the ones I use as I the troofer ones I have seen are highly inaccurate, full of misquoting and worse, falsification of evidence. In my opinion, that is not the case of the debunking sites, and why I use, and name them. NTR: questions asked.
A: “Are people supposed to believe your anti-troofer websites because they are anti-troofer or because you posted them and you are so highly intelligent you can answer all of the arguments…”

I have no idea what the people reading this believe. Do you? I posted them because they answer the troofer questions. NTR: questions answered, question asked.

A: “You are boring the life out of me Paul, I’m losing the will to live talking to you. There is no logic, there is no reasoned debate. All you are doing is calling people names, pasting large chunks of the internet and ignoring direct questions.”

I believe there is logic and reasoned debate in my replies. I certainly call people names i.e. Ashley is a fuckwit, but I also try to provide details which you now whine about as it seems too much. I see no problem in posting details to support my argument. Once again, what do you want, the details or just links? Either way, the material has to be read. As for ignoring direct questions, I answer those that time and frame of mind allows, as is proven by this lengthy, time-laden reply, now that I have the time, and am in the right frame of mind. I don’t expect you to answer all the questions I will make here, but an effort would be appreciated. Is this fair enough or do you want me to answer ALL your questions? If so, please answer ALL the questions I ask here. NTR: questions answered and questions asked.

A: “This big paragraph that you posted and then just dismissed everything in it without any evidence is just typical of you. “

You have already noted that I post evidence, re the whine about links or pages of information, so clearly, it is not ‘typical’ of me otherwise you would not be complaining about too much info or ‘large chunks of the internet’. I believe ‘typical’ of me is trying to debunk your questions and making fun of you toe-rags (with the occasional name-calling). NTR: Question answered. NTR: After complaining that I just “paste a large chunk of internet’, Ashley then pasted ‘a large chuck of internet’ that I wrote to him:

“Quote: I became interested many years ago when I first heard the questions of the troofers: The pilots were not skilled enough to fly the planes? (they were); the fighter planes were stood down (they weren’t); there were unusually few people aboard thew planes (the numbers were low but abou average); government people were told not to fly (they weren’t); the pilots should have been able to fight off the hijackers (while strapped to a seat and trying to fly the plane?); no plane hit the Pentagon (hundreds saw the thing and one ‘thought’ they saw a small jet – guess which view the troofers took?); no wreckage etc at the Pentagon (tons of it, and including the bodies and the black box – all photographed and collected); the damage to the Pentagon didn’t ‘fit’ a plane impact (it did); 85 videos of the Pentagon (the inquiry viewed all but only two were of the Pentagon and this, unsurprisingly, was aimed more at the car entry than the building – and its low frame rate meant the chance of capturing the plane was very low); the pilot had to do a skilled turn and skilfully fly the plane to impact the building (he didn’t do a ’skilled turn’ it was a big, lazy turn and he nearly missed the fucking thing and smacked into the lawn); the towers were brought down by explosives (completely demolished by numerous debunking sites and, not the least, by the hundreds of experts in the official reports); explosions were heard (quite normal in big fires, especially in buildings – firefighters are quite aware of the danger from things going bang); ’squibs’ (none present in any of the videos); it was a ‘typical’ controlled demolition collapse (no it wasn’t); Thermitre found (Thermite is never used in CD and none was found, other than in the mind of Stephen Jones, idiot troofer – whose paper, incidentally, has not been peer-reviewed by any independent experts or authority); melted steel found (no it wasn’t. Pools of molten ‘metal’ were found in the debris days later, which the NIST report and others consider not unusual considering the massive amount of debris, the fires and mix if combustible materials); WTC7 was CD (no, it wasn’t, the report is out soon); Silverstein said ‘pull it’ (he was talking about the firefighters operation to ’save’ WTC7 and ‘pull it’ is not an industry term in CD); BBC knew the building was going to fall beforehand (yes, along with everyone else…it had massive fire and structural damage from the tower debris, and was starting to tilt)…what else, oh yes, the other air defense excerises made sure no planes were in the sky that day (the air force did this all the time, it wasn’t unusual and is called training)…what else…oh, fuck it.

A “The first sentence about how you became interested many years ago is a deliberate attempt to try an assert some authority due to you being an old hand.”

Can you prove this was deliberate on my part, or is this just your personal opinion? For the record, I was simply trying to open the paragraph with a standard intro: how I first got involved. Can you suggest other ways of introducing this? Also, I was trying to show my ‘credentials’, so to speak, regarding the 9-11 ‘truth’ movement and its arguments. I did not infer that I knew everything, but that I had heard enough to formulate an opinion. Why is that a problem? NTR: questions asked.

A: “This doesn’t work as I could look at brain surgery for many years, it wouldn’t make me a brain surgeon.”

True, ‘looking’ at brain surgery for many years will not make you a brain surgeon. If, however, you are saying that having to perform successful brain surgery simply from reading, and me scouring the troofer and debunking sites, reading the various reports etc., is somehow comparable, then…er….er….umm…er…..umm…NTR: What the fuck??????

A: “You seem to have probably just enough intelligence to tie your own shoelaces,”

True. NTR: observation verified.

A: “you seem unable to grasp the theory of entropy with regards the collapse of these buildings, this in itself makes me dubious as to whether I should listen to you at all.’

Please explain the ‘theory of entropy’. NTR: question asked.

A: “You say the pilots were skilled enough to fly the planes, we’ll take the pilot of the Pentagon plane as a ‘for instance’. The Washington Post had this to say about him: -
Hani Hanjour, the Saudi pilot who flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, “had lived in the United States off and on throughout the 1990s, mostly in Arizona, intermittently taking flying lessons at several different flying schools.” He was, in the view of one of his flight instructors, “intelligent, friendly, and ‘very courteous, very formal,’ a nice enough fellow but a terrible pilot.” He finally got a commercial license from the FAA but was unable to find work here or in the Middle East.”

Thank you for proving my point: he received his commercial license from the FAA, which meant he could fly. Do you believe the FAA testing for a commercial pilots license is NOT proof he could fly the planes? Can you publish any proof of this or can you explain further this opinion? This seems to be the case, so what, in your opinion, is the problem with the testing? As for his flying abilities, you are correct, he was considered ‘terrible’ by some (FBI letterhead memorandum, interview of James McRae, Sept. 17, 2001), but can you tell me the date he was considered ‘terrible’? The only reference to him being a ‘terrible’ was on February. 24, 2000, well over ONE YEAR before 9-11. Did you know this? If you did, why did you not reveal this with the quote? If you did not, what did you do to find out if it was correct? Also, do you believe it accurately represents his ability as a pilot on 9-11?

Did you know that Hani continued training after this? “In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa. An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing. Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.” (9-11 Myths). What about this FBI report, “Summary of Penttbom Investigation,” on Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 5257; Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. How about this: ‘And as Marcel Bernard pointed out, the hijackers wouldn’t have required all the skills of a regular pilot: “Despite Hanjour’s poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. “There’s no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it,” he said”…“People will still say that the Pentagon attack was too difficult for Hanjour to have pulled off…Salon produced a recent example of the second type, written by an airline pilot: ‘As I’ve explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour’s flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757′s autopilot. Striking a stationary object — even a large one like the Pentagon — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn. It’s true there’s only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes’ navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won’t be good, but you’ll be good enough.’

And what of these quotes from 9-11 Myths: “They’d done their homework and they had what they needed,” says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. “Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness.”……”As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive,” says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. “Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren’t relevant.”…..”The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft,” agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. “In much the same way that a person needn’t be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone.”….That sentiment is echoed by Joe d’Eon, airline pilot and host of the “Fly With Me” podcast series. “It’s the difference between a doctor and a butcher,” says d’Eon.

Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia agrees: In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

Slightly off-topic, but relevant, is the story of the other pilots, from the 9-11 Commission Report: ‘Atta started flight instruction at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, and both Atta and Shehhi subsequently enrolled in the Accelerated Pilot Program at that school. By the end of July, both of them took solo flights, and by mid-August they passed the private pilot airman test’ n mid-September,Atta and Shehhi applied to change their immigration status from tourist to student, stating their intention to study at Huffman until September 1, 2001…in late September, they decided to enroll at Jones Aviation in Sarasota, Florida, about 20 miles north of Venice. According to the instructor at Jones, the two were aggressive, rude, and sometimes even fought with him to take over the controls during their training flights. In early October, they took the Stage I exam for instruments rating at Jones Aviation and failed. Very upset, they said they were in a hurry because jobs awaited them at home. Atta and Shehhi then returned to Huffman (the aviation school in Florida)…Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August…Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
A: “He was also refused when he tried to rent a Cessna 172 in Florida as they said he wasn’t good enough to meet the standards for insurance.”
From 911Debunker: ‘Hanjour tried renting his Cessna at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland. Despite failing his test to rent that Cessna 172, the Chief Flight Instructor at that airport, Marcel Bernard, had this to say about Hanjour: “There’s no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” Why did you not include that last bit Ashley? Also, after reading all the above comments, do you still believe the comment about him being ‘terrible’ is an indication of his flying ability on 9-11, i.e. he was not good enough? If you do, on what basis do you make this decision? NTR: question answered and question asked.
A: “With regards the CCTV at the Pentagon, only 2 pieces have been released.”

The investigation looked at EIGHTY FIVE surveillance tapes, but only a handful proved worthwhile – most showed the inside of petrol stations, etc. If the tapes did not show anything of the Pentagon or the plane impact, why do you believe it would be worthwhile? NTR: questions asked.

A: “This is most likely the most surveilled building in the world, there are without doubt other angles and views.”

Is it an opinion or fact that the Pentagon is the most ‘surveilled’ building in the world? What proof do you have of this? NTR: questions asked.

A: “My personal theory is that these are being withheld in order to attract interest in the no-plane theory which can later be disproven and then used to dismiss all 9-11 theories. The deliberate attempt to garner interest in to what hit the Pentagon is also, I believe, an attempt to distract from the real smoking gun, WTC7.”

Fair enough. Do you agree this is simply a personal opinion, and no facts have been made? NTR: questioned asked.

A: “The big lazy turn you speak of was described by air controllers as follows: – ‘”The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane,” says O’Brien. “You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”‘. Now unless you are an air traffic controller in your spare time (while you’re not out debunking laws of physics), I’ll take their opinion over yours.”

The air controllers statements are accurate: they didn’t expect commercial planes to be flown that way, so figured it was a military aircraft. Can the point be made that as the plane wasn’t being flown as a commercial jet, but poorly and unsafely, the controllers simply figured it was the military? Does this observation – that the plane was being flown dangerously, support the argument that one of the hijackers, a crappy but adequate pilot, was at the controls? Also, you are correct, I am not an air traffic controller in my spare time and yes, I take their word over mine and yours, the same way I take the other pilots’ words over mine and yours, those pilots who say he could have done it. Also, when have I ‘debunked physics’? NTR: question answered and question asked.

A: “A good site I’d recommend to you is http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org and specifically http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html for this particular big lazy turn. These people are pilots, they fly planes, do you?”

Re http://www.pilotsforturh.com, I emailed them a few years ago about the pilot skills and received no answer. I also posted the same question to one of the three founders on the screwloosechange blog recently and received no reply, so I take a dim view of their professional standards. I do not fly planes. NTR: question answered.

A: “You say that there was no evidence of Thermite/Thermate but failed to answer my question, what was that orange molten metal seen pouring from the tower? Remember I said it couldn’t be aluminium as it would vapourise before it reached that colour and you said ‘it could have been aluminium’ (DOH).”

First, let’s visit the website, Debunking 9-11, and the ‘Rethinking Thermite’ section: ‘Jones claims to have found traces of thermate (thermite with a small amount of sulfur and a large amount of barium nitrate added) on a piece of steel from the WTC. This claim is unsubstantiated. First, Jones does not cite the chemical composition of actual spent thermate signatures, for comparison. Second, Jones has not provided a chain of custody for the steel he tested that would preclude its contamination by other sources. Third, and most importantly, there is nothing unexpected about finding sulfur and trace metals on WTC steel and dust samples. Sulfur-based drywall was the third most-used construction material at the WTC. Thousands of gallons of fuel oil containing sulfur was spilled beneath the rubble piles, along with numerous other sulfur-containing inflammables. Thermate typically contains only 2% sulfur, so if the sulfur Jones detected was from ther-mate, we would expect to see the reaction byproducts of its main ingredients, iron oxide, aluminum, and barium nitrate, in proportionally greater amounts. The qualitative chemical analyses performed on sulfidated steel from WTC 7, 1, and 2 shows no signs of the presence of the incendiaries Jones says were used, nor did it reach anywhere near its melting point. 9-11 Myths says this: ‘For now, perhaps we should leave the final word on this issue to Brent Blanchard of Protec, from his paper A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint: “Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal.” Ashley, do you disagree with these comments, and if you do, with what aspect? NTR: question answered and question asked.

Re the orange molten metal; first you ask a question, and then tell me how I should answer, i.e. not mention aluminum? Is this because all the independent research suggests it was aluminum? The ‘orange molten metal’ pouring from the building has kept many people busy. A point was put forward by Henry62, at the ‘11 Settembre’ website….“the flowing material has not been identified beyond doubt. The prevailing expert opinion is that it was molten aluminum, not steel, mixed with other materials from the affected floor which came into contact with the molten or very hot metal. NIST clarified its opinion on this matter in the FAQ document it published in August 2006. Its conjecture is that the flow originated from a puddle of molten aluminum from the structure of the Boeing 767-200 that hit the Tower at the affected floor, with the addition of other materials, such as resins, plastics, glass from office furnishings and from the interior walls. As the floor trusses of the 81st and 80th floors failed and tilted, the puddle was provided with a path to flow outward. The failure of these floors is documented also by photographs taken from outside the building, which show the floor trusses assuming positions which differed greatly from their design configuration. According to NIST, therefore, light alloyed material from the aircraft and from the building melted and pooled on the floor. This melting was allowed by the very high temperatures of the raging fire which affected the 80th and 81st floor near the north face of the tower. The material flowed probably from the 81st floor onto the 80th and then flowed outward from there, after entraining materials, such as calcium sulfate (gypsum) and plastics, which were abundantly present in the building. My opinion on this subject is fairly straightforward: I don’t think it is molten steel for the simple reason that this material flowed for several minutes from the same position, yet there were no signs of any melting of the supporting steel structure of the building face, which would have been in direct contact with this molten material. It is quite obvious that the steel structure of the face would have been affected if the temperature of the molten flow had been close to the melting point of steel (approx 1500 °C) but it would have had no trouble withstanding a molten light alloy at 600-650 °C, even if it had been superheated to approximately 800 °C…”
Henry62 found out that the 80th and 81st floors held UPS – Uninterrupted Power Supply. These can be used for home computers, which are connected to the things so a power surge or spike does not affect the unit – the UPS will supply power long enough to allow the return to mains power (or in the case of the Towers, long enough to start the Diesel generators.) In conclusion, he says this: “…given these facts, it is very likely that the flow was due to light-alloy aluminum but also to the lead of the batteries, combined with other materials originating from the contents of the 81st floor. This combination of materials, after the failure of the floor, poured onto the 80th floor and from there flowed out from the building face. In my opinion, the weight of the batteries and the weakening caused by the fire on the 80th floor (which compromised the structural capacity of the overlying floor trusses) had an important role in the failure of the 81st floor…” Also, from 9-11 Myths: ‘In addition, many conspiracists have suggested that the molten material seen in photos of the south tower while it was standing, and described in the basement levels of the rubble, could not have been aluminum, because aluminum does not glow when molten. It’s true that aluminum is a dull silvery color at its melting point of approximately 660 C, but continue to heat it and it does glow. This is especially true if the metal is adulterated with impurities, as any molten material in the WTC buildings would likely have been.’ Ashley, in your opinion, what is the material seen flowing from the towers? Do you agree or disagree with the above opinions? If you disagree, why? Can you also publish the details for your belief that aluminum would ‘vapourise’ before it reached that colour? NTR: Question answered and questions asked.

A: “I would be very interested to know where the Sulfur that was found at ground zero came from (as mentioned in the FEMA report).

See above. NTR: question answered.

A: “You say that no squibs were visible in any of the videos, I’m guessing that you are claiming that the things that resemble squibs are debris being forced out from the collapsing building (up to 15 floors below? Yeah right :)”

I’ve watched the videos of the collapse and saw a few plumes of material being ejected form some windows. What I have NOT seen is the massive, simultaneous explosions of material easily observable on each floor of a controlled demolition, nor did I hear on ANY of the videos the clear and deafening boom, boom, boom also easily observable with a controlled demolition. How many ‘squibs’ did you count in the collapse of the Towers and WTC7? Did the ‘squibs’ continue all the way to the ground, as in a professional controlled demolition? Did you hear the clear and deafening boom, boom, boom also easily observable with a controlled demolition on any video or recording? Will you link or publish these videos or recordings? NTR: Question answered and questions asked.

A: “You claim that WTC7 was starting to tilt, give me your source for this claim. As far as I can see from every video available it wasn’t leaning in any direction.”

You are correct, I meant bulging, not tilting. My mistake. This report from 9-11 Myths (WTC Damage section): Battalion Chief John Norman, Special Operations Command, 22 years experience). ’From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.’
Captain Chris Boyle, Engine 94 (18 years experience):
Boyle: …on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then 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.
Firehouse: 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?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about 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. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe: The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Division 1 (33 years experience): …also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
You’re right, Ashley, it wasn’t tilting, but it DID have this: “it was very heavily damaged,”… “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’…..”there was a huge gaping hole and it (fire) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it”…. “the damage indicated that it was severe”…”severely damaged”…”the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” Re these comments, what do you believe was the condition of WTC7 before the collapse? Also, do you believe the observed condition of the building could have contributed to its collapse? Do you have alternative eyewitness accounts of the building’s condition? NTR: question answered and question asked.
A: “If it was leaning the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy) would mean it would have fallen over rather than in to itself.”

Please explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy) and how it ‘would mean it would have fallen over rather than in to itself.’ NTR: question asked.

A: “You are again purposefully muddying the waters with regards the BBC and WTC7. You act as if this premonition was reasonable.”

Is it not true to say that “premonition’ WAS reasonable considering the above comments? Does not the observation that “the building’s integrity was in serious doubt” indicate this ‘premonition’ was reasonable. Also, I’d like to add a comment about this from TV reviewer Thomas Sutcliffe of The Independent, ‘The Weekend’s TV: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower’ , Monday, 7 July 2008: ‘As did Jane Stanley, a BBC correspondent at the time of the attacks who became notorious to conspiracists because she discussed Building 7′s collapse in a two-way with the studio in London at a time when it was still visible over her left shoulder. This is another cherished “smoking gun” for the cranks, and one that’s nicely illustrative of their thinking. Asked what she could tell viewers about the reported collapse of Building 7, Stanley replied, “Well, only what you already know. Details are very, very sketchy.” She was thinking on her feet, she explained, having been confronted with a statement that she had no way of checking. She described it as “a very small and very honest mistake”, which wasn’t quite true, since the “very honest” response to the original question would have been “I can’t tell you a bloody thing about any collapse because this is the first I’ve heard of it, and frankly I don’t know which way is up right now”. One wishes BBC correspondents would occasionally adopt this degree of candour, but habits die hard and the engrained instinct is to conceal your ignorance rather than advertise it. So you have a choice: either the BBC had inadvertently revealed that, in concert with other broadcasting organisations, it was working from a prearranged script drawn up as part of the biggest conspiracy in world history, or a flustered reporter did the best she could in the middle of a breaking story.’ Ashley, do you believe ALL the main media concerns, including reporters and camera operators, were reading from a pre-arranged script? NTR: question answered and questions asked.

A: “I have given you 4 or 5 examples of massive fires in steel framed buildings that burned for longer and on more floors than any of WTC1, 2 and 7 and didn’t collapse”

See section about building fires above; it was feared the Madrid and Caracas buildings could collapse. Does this not indicate collapse is possible? If you disagree, on what do your base this belief? NTR: question answered and questions asked.

A: “You have given me precisely zero other steel framed skyscrapers that have fallen due to fire damage (the reason you’ve given zero is the fact that the only 3 steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire damage are the 3 that fell on 9-11).”

See above reply. Also, it is true that no other steel framed skyscrapers have collapsed, however, as I pointed out above, two buildings of those you mentioned were considered as a possible collapse, and the steel-framed section of the Madrid building DID collapse. Also, does not your statement ‘the only 3 steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire damage are the 3 that fell on 9-11’ prove that steel-framed buildings DO collapse? NTR: question answered and questions asked.

A: “Give me another steel framed building that has collapsed due to fire damage, just one, go on, please ;) You can’t because 9-11 is the only day in history it has ever happened.”

To repeat, the steel-framed section of the Madrid building DID collapse, and some of the buildings on fire were considered on the verge of collapse. Can you please tell me the number of large, multi-story fires encountered in skyscrapers? Can you tell me how many were the ‘tube’ design of the Towers? Can you tell me how many other steel-framed skyscrapers have been impact by large planes at high speed? Can you tell me how many of the fires were left burning uncontrolled? Can you tell me how many of the buildings were 110 stories high? Can you tell me how many buildings have had had large, multi-floor fires that were left to burn, were impacted by a plane at high speed, were at or near 110 stories high, and were of a ‘tube’ design? NTR: question answered and questions asked.

A: “They didn’t just ‘know’ the building was going to collapse, they reported it as having fallen due to structural damage some 20 minutes prior to it happening. This is not reasonable Paul (also CNN reported it as having fallen whilst it was still standing, WOW both news networks made exactly the same ‘mistake’ within minutes of each other, I mean what are the chances).”

P: To return to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Division 1 (33 years experience): “…we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.” Can you explain why it is ‘not reasonable’ that if they already knew it was probably going to collapse, due to structural damage, at 2pm, then the collapse three hours later was not a surprise? Is it not also unreasonable to assume that the media was also told? NTR: question answered and question asked.

A: “You claim the pools of molten metal were usual, but earlier in this thread you were telling me there weren’t any. I like the way you try to think on your feet and your google skills seem OK but your debating skills leave a lot to be desired. This is what NIST said: ‘Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”
That sounds like bullshit, how the f*ck can steel melt after the buildings have collapsed.

Firstly, no steel was ever ‘found’. Molten metal was seen being dug out from a section of burning debris deep within the pile, and a contractor was told that it was ‘steel’ by the men who saw it, but no tests were made and it seems it was simply a description, not a fact – they saw molten metal and said ‘steel’…on such flimsy evidence are troofer claims made. This is from 9-11 Myths: ‘Conspiracy theorists often call this “molten steel,” although the metal in question was never tested and its composition is unknown. Infrared spectrometer readings taken shortly after the collapses showed temperatures near the surface of the piles of up to 1375 F: hot enough to melt aluminum.’ Now, to answer ‘how the f*ck can steel melt after the buildings have collapsed’: See above, and to repeat: ‘Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile’. Note the word ‘certain circumstances’, Ashley. It doesn’t mean it WILL but that it COULD. Was is it about the above statement you do not understand? NTR: question answered and question asked.

A; “The fires would likely be oxygen starved, the kerosene would have all burnt off. They say under certain circumstances it is conceivable, but they don’t go in to any details of what these circumstances would be (perhaps it is little green men installing a foundry under the debris, f*ck knows what else it could be).”
P: On what evidence do you believe the fires would be ‘oxygen starved’? Those survivors pulled out of the debris commented on the fierce fires raging around them under the pile. Is this not poof that oxygen was available and fires existed? If not, on what evidence do you base this? 9-11 Myths: ‘William Langewiesche, the only journalist who was allowed to go with the engineers in their explorations beneath the debris, writes in “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot: “Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ultimately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and interiors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels.” According to a study by the U.C. Davis DELTA team, the tower collapses, as destructive as they were, expended less than 1% of the potential chemical energy that was stored in building contents, oil spills, and automobiles in the WTC parking garages. “The debris pile sat cooking for weeks, with the materials at the bottom of the pile getting increasingly hot because the fires were confined and lost minimal heat to the atmosphere. As a result the fires could have easily reached temps sufficient to melt steel, not to mention most other metals found in the buildings.”…”It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.”…“Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.”…Even the NIST weighed in on the “Molten steel” question: “NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. When it comes to steel, looks can be deceiving: “A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized. Interpret melted metals, particularly steel, with caution, and interpret the temperatures you infer from these melted metals with extreme caution.”…”It is not possible to tell by visual examination alone whether a piece of steel has melted or merely oxidized.” NTR: question answered and questions asked.
A: “The air defence excersises are not a problem as far as I’m concerned. My problem is why weren’t jets scrambled to the Pentagon flight? This is standard operating procedure for planes that are off course and not responding to ATC (logic would say this would be much more to the forefront of everyones mind considering the 2 earlier planes in NY!).”
Ashley, it’s not what it seems: “In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). “Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ,” FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.” Also, I suggest you also check out 9-11 Myths ’67 Intercepts’ page first, as many troofers may have told you about 67 intercepts from 2000-2001. As usual, what they DON’T tell you is that all but one plane (Payne Stewart) was inland – the rest were intercepts offshore: the system was mostly designed to keep people OUT, not intercepts WITHIN the country. “Terms like Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and temporary flight restriction (TFR) quickly came into widespread use among the general-aviation pilot group. Those terms had been around for years. Military fighters and the ADIZ protected American coasts from intrusions by Russian Bear Bombers throughout the Cold War. TFRs were used for presidential security and other extraordinary events. But they weren’t part of a pilot’s everyday life. You didn’t get intercepted and forced down if you flew through a TFR. Today, things are different. There’s an ADIZ that surrounds Washington, D.C. In the four years after 9/11, it was violated over 1,000 times. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has scrambled fighters for intercepts within U.S. borders over 1,600 times. In the year previous to 9/11, NORAD intercepted airplanes in the ADIZ only 67 times, none of which occurred within the U.S. borders.” October, 2005, “Plane & Pilot” magazine. 9-11 Myths: “intercepts are routine” claim is far from proven, at least in conjunction with intercepts over the continental US. And if there really were so many, then it seems a little odd there’s not more concrete, solid documentation to show it.”
A: “This is standard operating procedure for planes that are off course and not responding to ATC”

According to 9-11 Myths: ‘…some claim intercepts always happened if planes travelled into restricted or prohibited areas, but this isn’t true at all. An FAA rule change from September 28th 2001 makes this clear; ‘WASHINGTON – The FAA today alerted civilian pilots of their responsibility to avoid restricted airspace and the procedures to follow if intercepted, in light of the Department of Defense announcement that pilots near or in restricted or prohibited airspace face a forced landing, or as a last resort, use of deadly force by military aircraft…Earlier, pilots who flew in restricted or prohibited areas received a warning from Air Traffic Control and then faced suspension or revocation of their licenses or a fine. Now a pilot faces interception by military aircraft and then a forced landing at the first available airport. The Department of Defense has stated that deadly force will be used only as a last resort after all other means are exhausted.’ So prior to 9/11 it seems that even flying in restricted or prohibited airspace wouldn’t necessarily result in an interception. This impression appears to be confirmed by a 1998 story of an American Airlines jet flying directly over the White House, which fails to mention NORAD, fighters or intercepts: ‘An American Airlines jetliner flew directly over the White House two months ago, through some of the country’s most sensitive restricted airspace, apparently because of a mix-up at Reagan National Airport’s radar control facility. The July 16 incident presented no danger to President Clinton or anyone else on the ground or in the air, and the aircraft was flying high enough that likely no one even noticed, other than air traffic controllers, the pilots and the Secret Service.
But it was one of a rapidly increasing number of White House airspace violations, which have more than doubled each year since fiscal 1996, despite precautions taken after a small plane struck the White House in 1994. The trend has concerned the Secret Service and the Federal Aviation Administration, leading to new warnings to pilots and a recommendation by a task force to update maps and make other changes at National.

The American Airlines incident alone apparently has prompted the FAA to consider changes in procedures for one National landing pattern.’ Could it be that intercepts of flights within the US weren’t so routine after all? Want some more? ‘The military sent fighter jets to chase suspicious aircraft 462 times between Sept. 11 and June, nearly seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from the same period a year earlier. More frequent scrambles are also faster in the tense new environment because the North American Aerospace Defense Command communicates better with the Federal Aviation Administration. On Sept. 11, flight controllers suspected around 8:25 a.m. ET that American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston’s Logan Airport had been hijacked, but NORAD wasn’t notified until 8:40 a.m. — six minutes before the plane struck the World Trade Center in New York City. Today, NORAD would know instantly of a suspected hijacking, officials said Monday. “NORAD is now linked up telephonically 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so anything that’s an anomaly or a suspected anomaly that’s found in the system, NORAD knows about it as quickly as we do,” said David Canoles, FAA’s manager of air traffic evaluations and investigations.

At a NORAD operations center in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs, Colo., a noncommissioned officer listens to conversations on the FAA network from all over the United States, said Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman. “If he hears anything that indicates difficulty in the skies, we begin the staff work to scramble,” Martin said. Before Sept. 11, the FAA had to telephone NORAD about any possible hijackings…’ Here is another one: ‘Changes to Norad defence strategy as a result of Sept. 11: – For the first time in history, NATO radar planes from the 19-member alliance — countries such as England, Germany and France — are patrolling U.S. skies to assist Norad’s AWACs. Air Force generals have been authorized to shoot down hijacked commercial jets threatening U.S. cities without consulting the president first. Norad now monitors 40,000 daily flights, adding domestic flights to the 7,000 international flights it formerly tracked. New computers in Norad headquarters Command Centre identify every internal North American flight. Federal Aviation Administration officials moved into the Command Centre in Cheyenne Mountain, Colo., to liaise round the clock with Norad. Now 100 fighter jets stand on constant alert as opposed to 14 in North America prior to Sept. 11. No inflight problem is considered routine. Fighter jets now scramble to “babysit” suspect aircraft several times daily as opposed to one or so a week before the attacks. About a dozen Norad mobile radars have been moved across the U.S. to expand the ability to monitor home skies.

And regarding the comment “(logic would say this would be much more to the forefront of everyones mind considering the 2 earlier planes in NY!).” For crying out loud, Ashley, have you read ANYTHING about what happened on 9-11? It was fucking chaos. The forefront on everyone’s mind on that day seemed to be ‘what the fuck is happening?’ To save space in covering this topic, far more detail and FACTS are available at 9-11 Myths…re why they didn’t use fighters from the nearby Andrews Air Force Base to protect Washington, read ‘Andrews AFB’ page; re the fighters scrambled then flew at low speeds, read ‘Fighter Speeds’ page, re other intercept stuff, check out the ‘Intercept Times’ page. It’s all there, Ashley, if you could be bothered. My questions for you are; do YOU have evidence that it was NOT chaos for the ATC on 9-11? Do YOU have evidence the ATC knew the planes were off course but did nothing about it? do YOU have evidence it WAS routine to intercept planes? NTR: question answered and questions asked.

A: “You say that the 3 buildings that collapsed were not ‘typical’ controlled demolitions. Please can you outline the differences as you see them between the WTC7 collapse and a controlled demolition (I’ve asked you this before so I don’t hold much hope of an answer).”

P: It’s not too difficult to see the differences between a professional controlled demolition and WTC7 – there are videos all over the internet. Why not try one of the cd sites and have a look yourself? I will repeat this later, but in short a professional cd has massive, simultaneous explosions easily observable on each floor, a clear and deafening boom, boom, boom, plus masses, plus kilometers of pre-prepared wiring. The towers did have a few plumes of smoke but nothing whatsoever comparable to a cd. If you think this is, Ashley, then I’m afraid you really ARE an idiot. By the way, readers, some troofer sites show a professional cd but remove the sound! NTR: question answered.

A: “You say that Thermite (and I’m guessing you include Thermate in this statement) is never used in controlled demolition. Can you tell me if any patents have been taken out for cutter charges made from Thermate? (I’ll give you a clue, they have).”

P: I believe patents HAVE been taken out for cutter charges made from Thermate/Thermite. Can you tell me how this proves Thermite was used? Also, does it mean that any patient taken out always means it is used? Do you know of any patents or utter charges and if these cutter charges have been used? NTR: question answered and questions asked.

A: “Do the American military use Thermate (I’ll give you another clue, they do).”

P: No idea. Please provide evidence that the American military uses Thermate. Also, what is the American military’s views on Thermate use on 9-11? Is their evidence that the military used Thermate on 9-11? NTR: question answered and questions asked.

A: “I think the question of whether it is Thermite/Thermate is a bit of a red herring. What we are talking about is cutter charges, these do exist and are used in CD. What cocktail of explosives/chemicals were in them is immaterial is it not?”

P: Now Thermite/Thermate is a red herring? If so, then why did you mention it before, and in previous posts? Again, one notes your lack of consistency. To explain to the readers, the Thermite/Thermate question was proposed by troofer Stephen Jones and has been used throughout the troofer argument as ‘proof’ that explosives were used. Are you now saying that this is untrue? What is your concern with the Thermite/Thermate question? As for cutter charges, what proof do you have ‘cutter charges’ were used on 9-11? NTR: bizarre statement answered by asking a question

A: “You say that the controlled demolition of towers 1 & 2 have been thouroughly debunked, not least by the hundreds of experts in the official reports. Now I admit I haven’t read all the reports in their entirity (have you?)”

P: Not all, but quite a few. Then again, reading just one should alert anyone to the massive inaccuracies within the troofer argument. That you ignore or discount this speaks volumes. NTR: question answered.

A: “but I KNOW that the theory of controlled demolition was not entertained in any of the official reports”

P: Yet another inaccurate statement. The NIST made it clear that as no evidence of controlled demolition was evident, it was not considered worthy of investigation. Clearly then, controlled demolition was entertained, but lacked (real) evidence. Are you saying that even if the experts considered there was no evidence, they SHOULD have investigated it? Do you believe investigating a subject the experts thought was not relevant is a worthy use of taxpayers money? While we are at it, do you have any other ideas for an investigation on a subject that did not show any evidence? NTR: question answer and questions asked.

A: “(to quote you – have you even read the NIST report?).”

P: Yes. NTR: question answered.

A: “You say the damage to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a plane, the main problem I have is the round punture hole in the inner wall, this would not be consistent with a soft-metal (by soft metal I mean the aluminium nose cone of a plane) object after going through the newly ‘plane-proofed’ outer

Moderator: my original post did not 'stick'. Is it too long? Too boring? Possible cause of heart-failure for Bill and Ben?

A: “You say the damage to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a plane, the main problem I have is the round punture hole in the inner wall, this would not be consistent with a soft-metal (by soft metal I mean the aluminium nose cone of a plane) object after going through the newly ‘plane-proofed’ outer wall. What to make of it I don’t know but it just doesn’t ’seem’ right.”

P: So, you are questioning whether a plane hit the building at all? Hmm. Well, on one point you are right to have misgivings – the hole is not consistent with ‘a soft-metal’ nose cone of a plane, but I guess even you know that most nose cones are made of plastics, fiberglass etc.. and not metal (it would affect the operation of the radar inside) as the nose cone simply protects the thing from the elements. This is from 911Debunker – ‘the C ring’ section: ‘the official story is that the landing gear caused this hole. Is that unreasonable? This hole is exactly in the plane’s trajectory. You might be wondering how the landing gear managed to punch through three rings of the Pentagon. As a matter of fact, these rings don’t start until the second floor. The first floor of the Pentagon is an open floor plan.’ In other words, if a heavy object did not hit a pylon as it flew through the air, it uncounted nothing until the wall. Also, the hole in the wall that appears in many pictures (especially on troofer sites), the one with a clearly defined and clear hole, was taken AFTER the debris was removed (9-11 Myths), yet another example of misleading troofer ‘evidence’. NTR: observation supported and explained.

Q: “You say explosions would be consistent with the fires, but the description by one NYFD first responder the pop, pop, pop, like a controlled demolition sounds far too regular to be written off as random explosions.”

A: According to ALL fire fighting and fire sites I have visited, explosions ARE consistent with fires – it is one of the ever-present dangers of a building fire. Regarding the pop, pop, pop description, there are a number of comments from responders on this one: Debunking 911 comment from first responder: “When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.” ….and another…‘it was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was – do you ever see professional demolition where they set charges on certain floors and then you hear “pop’ “pop” “pop” “pop’? That’s exactly what – because I thought it was that then I heard that frigging noise. That’s when I saw the building coming down.” ….and another….”The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.” — Captain Karin Deshore (troofers sometimes pick up on this description as explosions. Others see it as the crushing of equipment and/or transformers or transformer vaults) Or is the pop, pop comment the one made in an interview with a first responder, widely shown on troofer sites?

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin’
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin’ out …
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det…
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom…

Note the ‘It was AS IF…” and “AS IF they had…” The men are describing what they saw by using other examples the listeners may know about. Ashley, I once heard a high speed car crash, and the best way to describe it to you was that I first heard a huge ‘bang’, an explosion. It was not an explosion, but that’s what it sounded like. So, it is fairly obvious (in my view) that the man in the interview was describing how the building sounded as it fell. It can be of no surprise that as the floors were crushed one by one during the descent, there could have been a popping sound. Please note the ‘could’; it is by no means guaranteed, but it is not to be unexpected. Also, ‘like a controlled demolition’ is describing what is was LIKE, not what it WAS. If you disagree with this, on what do you base your argument? Also, when one examines footage of controlled demolitions, it becomes fairly clear that the fall of the towers was NOT like a controlled demolition. The buildings ‘generally’ fell within their footprint, but that is it; what was NOT like a controlled demolition far outweighs this single reality. First, cd collapses fall COMPLETELY within their own footprint and that means they do not destroy or severely damage surrounding buildings. Ashley, can you please tell the readers how many other buildings were considered at the point of collapse on 9-11, and how many were eventually pulled down using cables, due to the damage caused by the collapse of the Towers on this not-so-controlled demolition? Also, even you will agree the towers fell top-down, a most unusual cd method. Do you have other examples of large buildings demolished by the top-down process? WTC7 fell bottom-first, and so this collapse has two similar things to cd, but then it nor the towers exhibited the massive, simultaneous explosions easily observable on each floor of a cd, and nor the clear and deafening boom, boom, boom (described, wrongly, by troofers as ‘squibs’) easily observable with a cd. Nor was there the masses of wiring (which some troofers now say was a spray-on explosive). Does this not outweigh the single argument (in the case of the towers) that it fell ‘generally’ within its footprint or the additional WTC7 collapse of bottom-down (and having to ignore the obvious un-cd like damage in both events)? Also, for my own clarification before I go any further, why does it sound ‘far too regular’ to be written off as random explosions’? On what evidence do you base this observation?

Q: “Sorry Paul you are painting yourself in to a corner the more you open your mouth. When at the bottom of a hole, stop digging ;)”

The hole wasn’t for me, you idiot. Now get in.

Paul

It is going to take me a while to comment on all of your cutting and pasting but here’s a couple for you to start with: -

[quote post="3838"]Well, on one point you are right to have misgivings – the hole is not consistent with ‘a soft-metal’ nose cone of a plane, but I guess even you know that most nose cones are made of plastics, fiberglass etc.. and not metal (it would affect the operation of the radar inside) as the nose cone simply protects the thing from the elements. [/quote]

And I’m guessing you ‘know’ that the nose cone on a 757 is made of metal, see: – ht
tp://www.startribune.com/business/24091894.html and the fact they claim metal fatigue may have done this (not if it is plastic or fibreglass as you mentioned). Is this nugget of your troofiness garnered from one of your debunking sites? You might like to drop them a line and tell them they are wrong.

You also say: -

[quote post="3838"]‘the C ring’ section: ‘the official story is that the landing gear caused this hole. Is that unreasonable?[/quote]

No this is not unreasonable Paul, but given that the engines of the plane were much more solid and heavier, where did these go? Did these disintegrate? Where are the holes this larger/harder mass travelling at the same velocity would have caused? How did they get these 6 ton lumps of titanium and steel alloy out of the buildings? Where are the pictures of the removal of these items, where are the pictures of the removal of the landing gear that ’caused’ the hole? Which landing gear was it, the front, the left or the right? What happened to the other 2 pieces of landing gear, did they not make holes? When did you last see landing gear with an almost perfectly circular profile? Lots of questions aren’t there?

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]Also, the hole in the wall that appears in many pictures (especially on troofer sites), the one with a clearly defined and clear hole, was taken AFTER the debris was removed (9-11 Myths), yet another example of misleading troofer ‘evidence’. NTR: observation supported and explained.[/quote]

How do you know this Paul, read it on a debunking site? Can you prove the veracity of this claim? Are you trying to imply that someone rounded the hole on purpose prior to taking the picture? I don’t understand what you are getting at here, did the clearing of debris require a circular hole? At the end of the day pre-removal/post-removal it’s still almost perfectly round.

re: The spherical particles of iron, you say: -

[quote post="3838"]No, I haven’t bothered to look as I presume you have, otherwise why ask the question? So tell me, what is the relevance in mentioning spherical particles of iron? And please, try and have reports/details supporting your belief and not just a repletion of the question….in other words, reports that detail it as an anomaly. NTR: question answered and question asked. [/quote]

Toby first posted and then I posted the link to an independent report commissioned after 9-11 (you obviously didn’t take the time to read it), the link is: – ht
tp://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf and the significance is that it shows that steel/iron was heated to temperatures that would have melted it (that is the only way these spherical particles could be present). How do you explain this? (this is very important as the official reports say that temperatures didn’t get hot enough to melt steel/iron)

re: your Hani Hanjour debunking, see: – ht
tp://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3550

You say a first responder said: -

[quote post="3838"]When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets.[/quote]

Are you trying to tell me that amidst all the sirens, shouting, crying and mayhem that you believe that this firefighter could have heard rivets popping, inside a building and hundreds of feet above him? Well what do you know, Clark Kent really lives in NYC. You really do believe everything you read on debunking sites don’t you?

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]But this is about Ashley and the troofer mindset, and I am not the only one to suggest theirs is more a faith-based belief than one centered on reality. Unsurprisingly, it seems to attract those of a religious faith – check out how many of troofer ‘leaders’ have a background of religious studies. Theirs is a belief that requires one to bend reality to fit, hence the bizarre claims of no-planes or holograms, stand-downs, missiles, space beans and such. Kudos to Ashley for not believing in many of these, but he does believe in controlled demolition, and also questions if there was actually a plane at the Pentagon. In other words, he’s certainly less loony than the rest, but is still avoiding the reality.[/quote]

Are you arguing here that because I believe in God this somehow makes my arguments about 9-11 invalid? Yes there are some Christians who don’t believe the official story (I think you’ll find that in the US at least, the religious right won’t have a bad word said about Bush, so you can’t mean them). I’d be interested to see some scientific proof to back up this claim, or is it just you ‘think’ it? Just for your information there are people from all faiths that don’t believe the official story (and atheists and agnostics). As far as the breakdown in percentages, I don’t believe this particular study has been done (probably because even if your statement was true it would be difficult to prove a causal link anyway – unless you made an unscientific guess a la Paul w).

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]Note the ‘It was AS IF…” and “AS IF they had…” The men are describing what they saw by using other examples the listeners may know about. Ashley, I once heard a high speed car crash, and the best way to describe it to you was that I first heard a huge ‘bang’, an explosion. It was not an explosion, but that’s what it sounded like. So, it is fairly obvious (in my view) that the man in the interview was describing how the building sounded as it fell. It can be of no surprise that as the floors were crushed one by one during the descent, there could have been a popping sound. Please note the ‘could’; it is by no means guaranteed, but it is not to be unexpected. Also, ‘like a controlled demolition’ is describing what is was LIKE, not what it WAS. If you disagree with this, on what do you base your argument?[/quote]

They said ‘like’ and ‘as if’ because no-one on the day believed that it could be a controlled demolition, I doubt it even entered their thoughts (some newsmen on the day did, but they had the luxury of seeing the pictures from a distance). If the floors were, as you say crushed (‘It can be of no surprise that as the floors were crushed one by one during the descent, there could have been a popping sound.’), then this would imply resistance, if there was resistance then this would take time and this time would be added to the freefall speed of collapse. Being as the buildings fell at near freefall speed, I would be interested to know how this could occur.

When you say ‘‘like a controlled demolition’ is describing what is was LIKE, not what it WAS.’ – would I be factually correct to say that a controlled demolition is like a controlled demolition (it is so like that it is identical because it is one). Just because a first responder said it was ‘like’ a controlled demolition, this does not rule out controlled demolition as you are claiming.

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]First, cd collapses fall COMPLETELY within their own footprint and that means they do not destroy or severely damage surrounding buildings.[/quote]

No Paul, this is the stated aim of CD, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. That is why for any controlled demolition there is insurance taken out to protect the surrounding buildings (I’m guessing the premium would be based on the firms prior record). Sometimes they don’t even collapse at all.

You say: -

Nor was there the masses of wiring (which some troofers now say was a spray-on explosive).

Do you think that when the army wires a bridge or a communications mast or whatever, the little army fella runs off with a coil of wire to a safe distance? Do you think that it is possible to set off explosives with a radio trigger? You could even use a mobile phone signal, see: – ht
tp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960109/ai_n9634277

You say that there were differences between the towers collapse and CD and I will agree this (on towers 1 & 2 at least), but if the collapse was to be blamed on the damage from the plane and the ensuing fires wouldn’t this be necessary?

WTC7 is the smoking gun, in all of your cutting and pasting you do not tell us how a uniform collapse that a CD firm would have been proud of, occured from asymetrical damage and chaotic fires.

With regards the law of entropy, see: – ht
tp://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm and ‘find’ entropy, you’ll see some pictures of buildings that have fallen over due to asymetrical damage.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (“law of increasing
entropy”) leads to the conclusion that the likelihood
of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to
fires (the “government” theory) — requiring as it
does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns
– is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of
WTC-7 was observed. – Steven Jones

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. – Wiki

The laws of physics you are debunking (or at the very least having us believe were suspended are as follows): -

Law of conservation of momentum and energy (ht
tp://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf)
Law of increasing entropy (as above)
The path of least resistance (In physics, the path of least resistance is always taken by objects moving through a system.)

I’ll try and find some time later to pop another reply to some of your ‘facts’.

You are painting all ‘troofers’ as nutty conspiraloons but have not answered my questions about the number of people who believe it was an inside job (over 100 million in the US alone). I also listed politicians, pilots, architects, engineers, first responders, ex-intelligence, soldiers, firemen, police and more. You are painting this as an open and shut case Paul and that is misleading.

The sites that I quote are mostly academic or expert sites, ae911truth, pilotsfor911truth, journalof911studies etc. These are valid sites, more valid than some debunking blog. I mean one of the big debunking sites (I can’t remember which one at the mo), links to another debunking site which is authored and run by a voice-over artist who claims to know more than the physicists, architects and engineers (I’ll try and provide a link later).

Before I jump in to that hole you’ve kindly dug, you’re going to have to get yourself out of it (and no amount of cutting and pasting is going to do it sorry ;)

Louise

If you watch this-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yscpNIxjI you’ll see that relatives and first responders are amongst the people asking the questions. Don’t you think they have a right to answers. If I lost a family member on that day I’d be demanding answers. If I was dying from lung cancer due to the dust I’d be demanding answers. If I was having to take 16 different medications to get through the day I’d be demanding answers.

70% of first responders are suffering from respiratory disease (http://wcbstv.com/seenon/local_story_047002528.html)

Why did EPA say the air was OK to breathe, some first responders were asked not to wear masks as it may frighten others! Some of these people are dead or dying!

I understand your point and think that your sentiments are nothing but honourable but if (and I still say IF) the government was involved in this, then 107 years or 1007 years should not stop people from seeking the truth.

If they use this to take the country I live in to 2 illegal wars, I think I have a right to ask questions. My tax goes towards their war ‘efforts’. Technically if my tax funds an illegal war, that would make me a war criminal. Not to mention that we are all being tarred with the same brush as far as people in the ME think, I don’t want anyone to think that I condone in any way shape or form the death of 1 million Iraqis, because I don’t!

The damage and divisions they are causing between the ME and the West are absolutely terrifying. They claim they are spreading democracy (with cluster bombs and hellfire missiles?). It’s no wonder the insurgents in Iraq are telling them to take their democracy home with them.

Democracy, by their definition, is a pliable leadership that will allow them to do what they want. It’s got nothing to do with democracy! Look in to what the UK and US did to Mosaddeq, the democratically elected Iranian president, after he decided to nationalise the oil in Iran.

A new inquiry for 9-11 might help, one where Bush and Cheney aren’t allowed to give their evidence together (and without swearing an oath!). I mean what is that about, the president won’t give evidence unless his vice-president is holding his hand and it won’t be under oath? WHY? (because Dubya is too stupid not to drop himself in it, that’s why!)

It’s just all too much and then there’s people like Paul w who’ll no doubt call these first responders ‘conspiracy theorists’

There are people here who are quite happy to let us know that 400 architects and engineers question 9/11. Also, that millions of 'regular' people queston it.

There seems to be one group of people missing here from the equation. The people whose lives were lost on that day (almost 3,000 by the way). Not to mention the loved ones and friends who lost.

It's been almost seven years. Let these people rest in peace.

It seems some wish to herd all those that question any facts (and certainly also fictions) related to 9/11 as "Truthers" thus painting deeply a flawed picture.

The same holds true for so called "Debunkers".

Neither "Truthers" nor "Debunkers" fall into a single specific group, categrory, demographic, ethnicity , gender, opinion etc. Your all very much a mixed bag with varying opinions, hypothesises and conclusions.

Let's agree to disagree in some areas and work together to help paint a clearer picture.

There are many questions which remain un-answered this is undeniable and I'm sure both T-ers & D-ers would like answers.

The Administration has deliberately misled the public and been complicit to some degree in failing to provide transparency (by design or ineptitude?).

Building 7 is an interesting topic and one which seems to have ignited the "Truth" Movement.

One thing which concerns me is the delay … almost 7 years later. The vast majority of WTC7 debris was removed leaving a few samples. The NIST report is fundamentally based on simulations I've assertained. [Disclaimer - I have not as yet read the WTC7 NIST Report].

Note how Ashely is answering none of my questions but asking his own?

Run Ashley, run!

PW

The nose is carbon fibre and the body is aluminium, the heavy bits are the two 6 tonne (Titanium) engines and the steel & rubber heavy landing gear.

Paul

I find it quite likely that you are one of the dumbest people I have ever had the misfortune to talk to. You say that I am not answering your questions but asking my own, that is patently untrue. You are either stupid or lying (not a very nice choice for you but that's the facts). I said: -

[quote post="3838"]It is going to take me a while to comment on all of your cutting and pasting but here’s a couple for you to start with[/quote]

Is this statement too much for you? Is it too confusing? Is it not clear enough for you? Did the statements following that not address *some* of your issues?

I answered a number of your questions. I'm interested to know why you believe me quoting Steven Jones on the laws of therodynamics is some sort of debunking. He is a physics professor, are you?

I still would like to know what qualifications you hold Paul?

You didn't suggest the nose cone was plastic, you implied that it definitely was and used the radar not functioning to justify this claim. You must have got this from somewhere and being as you get everything else from debunking sites, I suggested it was from there. You beleive *EVERYTHING* that you read on those sites, something you cannot claim I do with the conspiracy sites. I guess that goes to prove that you are a gullible idiot and I am trying to use my own logic in order to decide what I believe to be true.

The questions of yours that I addressed are as follows (being as you are to dull to work this out for yourself): -

The law of thermodynamics

The nose cone of the plane

The spherical particles of iron

What laws of physics I believe you are trying to debunk

Hani Hanjours flying skills

Rivets 'popping'

The hole in the C ring section

Why first responders said 'like' a controlled demolition and 'as if' there were explosives

Your tenuous links between Christianity and troofers (and you think I'm loopy :)

Your claim that 'cd collapses fall COMPLETELY within their own footprint '

The masses of wiring you think it would have required

The differences between the collapse of WTC1&2 and controlled demolition

The similarities between WTC7 and controlled demolition

Your claimed superiority of debunking sites compared to 'conspiracy' sites

I have also provided you with a 'troofer' paper that has been published for peer review

Now unfortunately in answering some of your questions it has raised further questions for you. You complain about this and say 'run Ashley, run'. Is this not exactly what your post was intended to do, answer some questions and pose some others? Why should my reply not ask any questions? Yours did!

Like I said it is going to take a lot of time to reply to all of your post, I have not said (or even implied) that I would not attempt to (although why I should respond to things that I haven't even mentioned just because you say some troofers believe them, I don't know). You seem to think that because I haven't answered every one of your questions in my first reply that I am conceding. When you consider that this has taken you nearly a week to write, don't you think it a little unfair to expect answers to all of your questions within a couple of hours? (or did you not think of this?)

When I do get around to addresing your remaining points it will likely be piecemeal (spread over more than one reply), because I think that a huge monologue like yours is not appealing for people to read. Far be it for me to claim that you have tried with this post to overwhelm the argument, whilst this is a fairly standard ploy, I think that would be crediting you with more intelligence than you deserve.

Speak to you later.

Toodle pip :)

I don't know why people resort to name calling!? It simply detracts from debate.

All things considered I think focus should remain on WTC7.

For me this is the "smoking gun". The removal of virtually all evidence and delay in reporting is tantamount to complicity IMO. Salient facts such as Silverstein and numerous first reponders uttering the words "Pull it" or similar and of course the footage of the collapse screams "Controlled Demolition".

I guess in all fairness I should lay down my cards. I'm firmly in the LIHOP camp. I ponder that maybe WTC7 always had a self destruct mechanism by design and maybe evidence of complicity (of whatever magnitude) was forever erradicated by the buildings destruction.

Just far too many coincidences and questionable facts for this to be written of as a structural collapse due to fire alone especially directly onto it's own footprint at virtual freefall speed. Does not compute!

I haven't commented on "A Cynic’s Guide" as it's biased IMO much in the same way I don't comment on "Alex Jones". Very selective topics/arguments! I don't wish to be forcefed I like open debate.

Anyway, the bigger issue for me in the loss of Civil Liberties and Privacy as a direct result of 9/11 & 7/7 and the warm embrace of the public giving up their freedoms.

ID Cards, databases etc do not/cannot prevent individuals committing terrorist acts.

I apologise for the tangent … "if you've nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" .. my arse!!

Dear readers,

See how Ashley is still asking questions? For a reminder, here are the ones I asked him:

What is the relevance in mentioning spherical particles of iron? And please, try and have reports/details supporting your belief and not just a repletion of the question….in other words, reports that detail it as an anomaly.
Could you please forward me the reports YOU have read that disagree with the inquiry?
Do you believe terrorist organizations have attacked Western countries before, and do you believe they would do 9-11 if they had the opportunity?
The steel-framed section of the building DID collapse. In light of this, are you disagreeing with those troofers who use the Madrid fire as an example that steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire?
Surely construction IS very relevant in a building fire?
Are you saying construction IS relevant, or ONLY buildings of a similar construction are relevant?
Does the concern of firefighters that the buildings might collapse be an indication that, even though no large steel-framed building has collapsed due to fire, that one COULD collapse?
Why is it ‘arrogant’ to post details that support my arguments?
Are you saying that I should I NOT post material from these sites?
I have no idea what the people reading this believe. Do you?
Do you want details or just links?
Do you want me to answer ALL your questions?
Do you believe the FAA testing for a commercial pilots license is NOT proof that Hani could fly the planes?
Can you publish any proof of this or can you explain further this opinion?
The only reference to him (Hani) being a ‘terrible’ was on February. 24, 2000, well over ONE YEAR before 9-11. Did you know this?
If you did, why did you not reveal this?
If you did not, what did you do to find out if it was correct? \
Do you believe the comments (you posted) accurately represents his ability as a pilot on 9-11?
Did you know that Hani continued training (after your quote of him being a terrible pilot)?
“There’s no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” Why did you not include this in your quote?
After reading all the above comments, do you still believe the comment about him being ‘terrible’ is an indication of his flying ability on 9-11, i.e. he was not good enough?
If you do, on what basis do you make this decision?
If the tapes did not show anything of the Pentagon or the plane impact, why do you believe it would be worthwhile?
Is it an opinion or fact that the Pentagon is the most ‘surveilled’ building in the world?
What proof do you have of this?
Does this observation – that the plane was being flown dangerously – support the argument that one of the hijackers, a crappy but adequate pilot, was at the controls?
When have I ‘debunked physics’?
Do you disagree with these comments (about Thermate)?
If you do, with what aspect?
Re the orange molten metal; first you ask a question, and then tell me how I should answer, i.e. not mention aluminum? Is this because all the independent research suggests it was aluminum?
In your opinion, what is the material seen flowing from the towers?
Do you agree or disagree with the above opinions?
If you disagree, why?
Can you publish the details for your belief that aluminum would ‘vapourise’ before it reached that colour?
How many ‘squibs’ did you count in the collapse of the Towers and WTC7?
Did the ‘squibs’ continue all the way to the ground, as in a professional controlled demolition?
Did you hear a clear and deafening boom, boom, boom observable with a controlled demolition on any video or recording?
Will you link or publish these videos or recordings?
“it was very heavily damaged,”… “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’…..”there was a huge gaping hole and it (fire) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it”…. “the damage indicated that it was severe”…”severely damaged”…”the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” Re these comments, what do you believe was the condition of WTC7 before the collapse?
Also, do you believe the observed condition of the building could have contributed to its collapse?
Do you have alternative eyewitness accounts of the building’s condition?
Please explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy) and how it ‘would mean it would have fallen over rather than in to itself.’
Is it not true to say that “premonition’ WAS reasonable considering the above comments?
Does not the observation that “the building’s integrity was in serious doubt” indicate this ‘premonition’ was reasonable.
Do you believe ALL the main media concerns, including reporters and camera operators, were reading from a pre-arranged script?
It was feared the Madrid and Caracas buildings could collapse. Does this not indicate that collapse was possible?
If you disagree, on what do your base this belief?
Can you please tell me the number of large, multi-story fires encountered in skyscrapers?
Can you tell me how many were the ‘tube’ design of the Towers?
Can you tell me how many other steel-framed skyscrapers have been impact by large planes at high speed?
Can you tell me how many of the fires were left burning uncontrolled?
Can you tell me how many of the buildings were 110 stories high?
Can you tell me how many buildings have had had large, multi-floor fires that were left to burn, were impacted by a plane at high speed, were at or near 110 stories high, and were of a ‘tube’ design?
Can you explain why it is ‘not reasonable’ that if they already knew it (WTC7) was probably going to collapse, due to structural damage, at 2pm, then the collapse three hours later was not a surprise?
Is it not also unreasonable to assume that the media was also told?
On what evidence do you believe the fires (in the debris piles) would be ‘oxygen starved’?
Survivors pulled out of the debris commented on the fierce fires raging around them under the pile. Is this not poof that oxygen was available and fires existed?
If not, on what evidence do you base this?
Do you have evidence that it was NOT chaos for the ATC on 9-11?
Do you have evidence the ATC knew the planes were off course but did nothing about it?
Do you have evidence it WAS routine to intercept planes?
I believe patents have been taken out for cutter charges made from Thermate/Thermite. Can you tell me how this proves Thermite was used?
Also, does it mean that any patient taken out always means it is used?
Do you know of any patents or cutter charges and if these cutter charges have been used?
Please provide evidence that the American military uses Thermate.
Also, what is the American military’s views on Thermate use on 9-11?
Is their evidence that the military used Thermate on 9-11?
If Thermite/Thermate is a red herring, why did you mention it before, and in previous posts?
The Thermite/Thermate question was proposed by troofer Stephen Jones and has been used throughout the troofer argument as ‘proof’ that explosives were used. Are you now saying that this is untrue?
What is your concern with the Thermite/Thermate question?
As for cutter charges, what proof do you have ‘cutter charges’ were used on 9-11?
Are you saying that even if the experts considered there was no evidence, they SHOULD have investigated it?
Do you believe investigating a subject the experts thought was not relevant is a worthy use of taxpayers money?
Do you have any other ideas for an investigation on a subject that did not show any evidence?
Can you please tell the readers how many other buildings were considered at the point of collapse on 9-11, and how many were eventually pulled down using cables, due to the damage caused by the collapse of the Towers?
Do you have other examples of large buildings demolished by the top-down process?
Why does it sound ‘far too regular’ to be written off as random explosions’?
On what evidence do you base this observation?

Ashley, you’re an idiot.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/demolition-det…

"The sites that I quote are mostly academic or expert sites, ae911truth, pilotsfor911truth, journalof911studies etc."

Ladies and gentlemen, the stupidity of Ashley in his own words.

Unbelievable.

I will address your points when I get time. I have asked you 8 questions (rather than 108 to try and muddy the waters). Either answer them or admit you can't. This is not difficult to comprehend, try to answer eight direct questions that have been asked of you on a number of occassions.

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]“it was very heavily damaged,”… “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’…..”there was a huge gaping hole and it (fire) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it”…. “the damage indicated that it was severe”…”severely damaged”…”the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

Re these comments, what do you believe was the condition of WTC7 before the collapse?

Also, do you believe the observed condition of the building could have contributed to its collapse?[/quote]

The NIST inquiry in to the collapse of building 7 is currently of the mind that the fires alone are the cause, they say that the external damage would not have contributed to the collapse (this is as it stands at the moment, this may change, you never know). Are you trying to say that because you see damage in pictures, NIST (who you claim to be an authoratitive source) are wrong? You can't have it both ways Paul.

[quote post="3838"]Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Division 1 (33 years experience): “…we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.” [/quote]

Fair play, that is some prediction, considering no steel framed building has totally collapsed due to fire damage before or since. Could Peter Hayden have been going on information from the 'specialist engineer' who was in NYC with seismic measuring apparatus who, according to Mark Loizeaux, said at around midday that the WTC7 would come down around 5pm? Who was this specialist engineer, who did he work for? There's a new theory doing the rounds about this, it might be of interest (pure speculation of course) -> http://www.911blogger.com/node/16565

Anyway, I have already answered a number of your questions, I will also answer some more later. The questions I have addressed so far, I have listed above. You still have them in your list, if they are not sufficiently explained for you, let me know and I'll try and simplify the answers for you.

Did someone ask for the opinion of a Genuine Qualified Engineer & Scientist re 911 & the surrounding issues?

well, for those who did want to hear qualified opinion as opposed paul W's "street logic" here is the reason why the US Bush regime did 911:-

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=6lyaMrS0hzk

So it could introduce its NAZI political adgender.

Its now illegal to put up signs unwanted by the political elite in public at a public event on public property in the USA.

God bless the land of the free and the dumb idiots who can't understand 911 for what it was – a pretext to bring in the fascist state and have profitable never ending wars causing population reduction and enslavement.

Absolute proof Paul W has simply not got a blinking clue

Quote Paul W
"

Posted: Jul 12th, 2008 at 2:44 am

Readers, the above post by 3 Year old kid is something that was explained years ago (expect to nutjobs like him). The troofers, as always, took the man’s comment completely out of context and di not add any further details.

3 Year old kid…go check out 9-11 Myths, Internet Detectives, etc. The truth is out there.

Idiot."

End quote paul W.

Well, well, can anyone see a problem here?

Paul W's research is of usual low standard because This is a WOMAN fire officer not a man!

Paul W, ARE you a CRETIN or what?

And it was her official signed fire report were she clearly states there were multiple EXPLOSIONS.

This is just 1 of 118 signed reports from rescue workers who were actually there on 911, who clearly state either the words "Controlled Demolition" or "Explosions"

So why should one disbelieve the fire service?

Are we supposed to believe Bush and Cheney who would not even swear under oath?

PLEASE!

“When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets.”

Are you trying to tell me that amidst all the sirens, shouting, crying and mayhem that you believe that this firefighter could have heard rivets popping, inside a building and hundreds of feet above him? Well what do you know, Clark Kent really lives in NYC. You really do believe everything you read on debunking sites don’t you?

Ashley

Posted: Jul 10th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Ladies and gentlemen, the above post is proof, if you don’t already know, of Ashley’s idiotic troofer mindset. It is also the reason why I cannot waste any more time debating this moron.

Note the “a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up…”. Yes, it means they ALL heard it. Ashley missed this completely. The guy even says ‘the way I see it’ before he said it, emphasizing his take on the event was his only and OTHERS MAY DISAGREE. Ashley missed it all.

Maybe it was the rivets, who knows? Ashley doesn’t, neither do I, neither do you, and considering the man’s comment, he’s not exactly sure, either, but…he obviously HEARD SOMETHING and, just to make sure we understand it wasn’t just his imagination paying tricks amid the ‘sirens, shouting, crying and mayhem’, he says the noise MADE EVERYONE STOP AND LOOK UP.

Ashley didn’t see that part of the quote, and I think the reason why is the troofer membrane inside his skull. It filters everything and turns it into the troofer mindset. We all have filters like this, and I’m certainly not immune to other types, but in Ashley’s case it means he sees everything about 9-11 through the troofer filter and that means he usually ignores stuff, as in this case, then asks a question based on this which twists things around even further.

If you argue with a troofer like Ashley, the questions they most often ask are the same as this example, one based on an inaccuracy that first requires a clarification of the facts behind the question. You do that, which generally dissolves the legitimacy of the questin, then they complain you don’t answer them!

Another problem dealing with troofer is their inconsistency. Either he or 3 Year old Kid complained about me just putting in links, which is a fair criticism, but then complained when I posted the details. It doesn’t really matter if it was Ashley or both of them, as this inconsistency also mirrors their theories; some believe in planes, other no planes. That no such monumental differences exist within the debunking crowd (and more importantly, those involved in the 9-11 Commission, NIST reports, etc.) does not seem to register with them. Bizarre.

From what I can gather from debating and listening to troofers, their mindset in that anyone outside their club is either a sheepie or IN ON THE THING, which means any information from outside has to be treated with (at least) the utmost caution, but more likely as blatant propaganda.

It’s interesting that many debunkers now express an interest in the mindset of the troofers, rather than the details of the collapse, i.e. arguments about Thermite/Thermate, etc. I must admit that trying to untangle Ashley’s bizarre thought process is interesting, but it is getting boring. I’ve no doubt the long-awaited WTC7 report will start a brief flurry of activity, but then that will eventually dwindle and Ashley and his crew will join the Moon Hoax brigade (for info on that one, check out the Bad Astronomy website).

All in all, the guy’s a fruitcake.

I do not wish to draw arbitrary lines in the sand as I've outlined already …

The catalogue of events leading upto, during and after 9/11 are so far reaching that both extremes have valid points of debate. I object the notion that all those labelled "Truthers" hold extreme views [I paraphrase].

I don't accept conclusively without question that 9/11 was solely a Terrorist Enterprise?

I do accept that the Administration and/or associated bodies either by complicity or [wholesale] ineptitude/failure actually assisted this Terrorist Act?

9/11 was a complete success for both the Administration (complicit or not) and the Terrorists. It served to catalyse both agendas.

As a matter of historic fact both the UK Goverment and US Administration spun a web of blatant lies and half-truths to push forward their agendas. Both have been complicit in Terrorist Activities throughout history.

Trust your own research and judgements, look at our world and continue to question! The Truth is out there ;)

How about if we start the investigation with who was running security both in the WTC and at the airport?

WOT? You mean you did not know it was Marvin BUSH?

Mmmmmmm? I wonder if he was behind pulling the sniffer dogs?

How about we then investigate why the second jet had no windows in it yet it was supposed to be a passenger jet?

WOT? You mean you did not realise the jet had no windows or the correct logo?

Mmmmmmmmmm? I wonder why not having any windows or the correct logo has not been mentioned by the media yet it is clearly obvious for all those who can see?

"911 Crotch Watch" or whatever name these discredited commies are trading under these days, have no honest answers, no reliance, and, from what I have observed, just fabricate lies.

How do these unqualified "911 Crotch Watch" liars compare to the 400+ professionals at Architects and Engineers for 911 truth? well, there simply is no comparison.

Quite Simply, one group does qualified work with Architecture and Engineering and the other group does not have a clue.

I don't think those who do not understand Engineering are worthy of telling those that are, if 911 was an inside job or not.

I think the public will listen to the Engineers not the dirty oil rags.

Regarding my last post, I accept it was rather spicy and I would like to withdraw the comments made in that post and replace them with the following if I may:-

I think the public will listen to the 400+ Qualified Engineers not the 4+ "Cult Watchers" as to 911 Engineering.

[quote post="3838"]Well as I have said before and I will say it again, this particular piece of yellow journalism was produced by cretins – For Cretins, and I believe I have been proved 100% correct yet again.

Has anyone got one single shred of evidence to support the official US Government outrageous “19 Arab wot done it” conspiracy theory apart from a few singed bandanas and a really dodgy passport?[/quote]

1st: You are helping nobody. Certainly not those that seek the truth with your puerile comments. As a so called "Truther" [yes, me] it's comments like yours that simply deride any serious debate. You do have some good points so why spoil serious observation?

2nd: Yes, evidence exists. While debatable the authenticity, veracity and accuracy that does not automatically = YOU ARE RIGHT! Life is not that simple my friend .. get with the program ;)

This is not speakers corner mate. Alway but always give a little ground to gain .. I'm sure you understand :) No disrespect intended.

Ashley,

Mohamed Atta,

This guy was also allegedly a CIA asset flying Drugs into NINA Arkinsall. NO?

Just-Me , In case you forget I say exactly as I please, when I please – get use to it.

Paul

As mentioned before: -

[quote post="3838"]can you please let me know what your qualifications are, I’ve let you know mine. I think to describe someone with a 2:1 Bachelor of Science (with Honours – IEEE acredited) as a moron or an idiot you must either hold a doctorate or be a professor, could you please confirm if this is correct?[/quote]

With regards the questions you have posed, I have answered a number of them but you still list them as unanswered. Your tactic of widening the argument so much so that it becomes almost impossible to answer and keep track of is childish. I have addresed the following: -

[quote post="3838"]The law of thermodynamics

The nose cone of the plane

The spherical particles of iron

What laws of physics I believe you are trying to debunk

Hani Hanjours flying skills

Rivets ‘popping’

The hole in the C ring section

Why first responders said ‘like’ a controlled demolition and ‘as if’ there were explosives

Your tenuous links between Christianity and troofers (and you think I’m loopy :)

Your claim that ‘cd collapses fall COMPLETELY within their own footprint ‘

The masses of wiring you think it would have required

The differences between the collapse of WTC1&2 and controlled demolition

The similarities between WTC7 and controlled demolition

Your claimed superiority of debunking sites compared to ‘conspiracy’ sites[/quote]

This, if my maths is correct, is 14 issues addressed, before I answer any more of your questions I would ask that you answer my 8 direct questions (not evade or ignore them again), I have been gracious enough to attempt to address 14 of your issues, it would only be fair for you to attempt to do the same.

Being as you have declined to answer the 8 direct questions I have asked you, here they are again. Your continued lack of answers to these questions says a lot Paul. Are we to take it that you cannot answer them? Are we to take it that you know they cannot be debunked? Are we to take it you've googled for them along with the word 'debunking' and not found anything? Anyway here you go: –

[quote post="3838"]Name me one other steel framed skyscraper that has totally collapsed due to fire damage. (clue – there aren’t any)

Do you agree that bin Laden writes a note in the responsibility video with his right hand? (clue – yes he does)

Do you agree the FBI website says he is left handed? (clue – yes it does)

Do you agree that bin Laden can be seen wearing a gold ring and gold or gold plated watch in the responsibility video? (clue – he can)

Do you agree that it is almost definite that a devout Muslim like bin Laden wouldn’t wear anything gold as it is forbidden by his faith like silk? (clue – this is correct)

Do you agree that the bin Laden in the reponsibility video looks more like Les Dennis than bin Laden? (clue – Les Dennis is stretching it a bit, but I have never seen a picture of Bin Laden looking quite so chubby around the face, especially considering he was supposed to be very ill at this time. His beard is the wrong colour too)

Please explain how asymetrical damage and chaotic fires could have such a perfectly uniform effect when collapsing WTC7 (by explain I mean tell me how the laws of physics I have quoted are not applicable). (clue – not possible but I can’t wait to see you try)

Please give some indication of how the spherical pieces of iron came in to existance, being as they need steel/iron to melt in order to be generated and the official reports say that the temperatures were not hot enough for this. (clue – if the fires didn’t get hot enough to melt the steel then the spherical particles cannot exist, but they do)[/quote]

As for me being a f*ckwit (which I would like to point out is a breach of the moderation rules that Mick has pointed out to all involved in this thread), I will take that as a compliment coming from you. Someone who finds it difficult to answer 8 direct questions should aspire to such a level ;)

Oh and one other thing, you know those 8 questions………

Paul

Yet more insults what a suprise. Is this not what I am supposed to be doing rather than you. It is after all what ‘troofers’ are accused of.

I take it you are unable to answer the 8 direct questions. Can you confirm if this is the case? If it is the case then there are clearly unanswered questions regarding the events of 9-11, and I would be grateful if (given this) you could explain to all and sundry why another investigation is not required. Alternatively if you can answer them, then just do it.

Are you going to let everyone know what your qualifications are? I’ve let you know mine. I want to know where you get the bare faced cheek to call someone who is quite highly qualified (in a scientific subject) the names you have been using. Do you believe yourself to be my intellectual superior? I think there’s more chance of you proving yourself to be some kind of missing link.

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]As I suspected, the total refusal to answer any of my questions is now complete. Remember what he said before, after my lengthy post? “I will address your points when I get time.” Yup, more bullshit. I answered all of his idiotic points, which is why it took me so long to reply (remember how he whined about when it was coming?) and also why the bloody post was a long one. Now he runs away. Did I expect any better? Not really.[/quote]

You really are one of the thickest people I’ve ever tried to communicate with. I have addressed 14 of your points in a previous post yet you say ‘the total refusal to answer any of my questions is now complete’ (you are lying here Paul, there’s no other way to describe it). I will try to address your points when I get time, but given that you have widened the points we were talking about by tenfold or more then I am going to find it difficult to find the time to answer all of them.

You seem to think that I have to disprove every one of your points in order for me to successfully prove a conspiracy. Is this necessary? I think in the 8 questions I have asked you, I have pretty much proved beyond reasonable doubt that the person in the video claiming responsibility was not bin Laden. Do you disagree with this assertion? If you don’t disgree then you either think that the intelligence services are incompetent (in the extreme), or a number of people deliberately misled the public about the veracity of the evidence (that would be a conspiracy FYI). If you do disagree then can you tell me how?

Some of the stuff that you have put makes no sense to man nor beast, I point to your obvious confusion over the building fire argument we were discussing. You don’t appear to have grasped my points at all, and they weren’t even that taxing. What I said was, I never used the Madrid building fire in any of my posts and wouldn’t have because it was a different kind of construction (steel reinforced concrete, rather than steel framed). I did use several other fires (in particular the Caracas Tower Fire) that were of a similar construction (and hence valid comparisons). This seems to have confused you somewhat as you claim that I don’t think type of construction is of importance (I clearly do, that’s why I didn’t use the Madrid building – DOH).

There’s more instances in your monolithic post where you appear to get confused over the arguments, so before I try and answer anymore I have to try and work out what you are on about. I mean you claim that WTC1&2 were ‘tube’ design, I was under the impression they had a central core. Is this not the case? If they have a central core do they still qualify under your understanding of ‘tube’ design (I’ve never seen a tube with a central strengthening element). Did WTC7 have a ‘tube’ design? Was it a ‘tube’ design with a central core?

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]Note his repetition of the mantra, ‘no steel-framed building, etc” before he replies, thus the issue (people knew beforehand it would collapse) is avoided, then he changes tack and asks questions about another topic, plus a link about ANOTHER topic (and i you dare question THAT you’ll get even MORE questions in reply.)[/quote]

Yes I do repeat the mantra of ‘no steel framed building, etc’ basically because it is true you dimbulb. If it was a lie you could prove me wrong (it is one of the 8 direct questions I have asked you after all – name another modern steel framed skyscraper that has totally collapsed due to fire damage). I do not avoid the issue of people knowing it was going to collapse prior to the event, it is the main thrust of my argument. To have prior knowledge that a steel framed skyscraper was going to collapse due to fire damage is suspicious. Why? Because ‘no steel framed building, etc’

Now, as I see it, you are trying to claim that the damage sustained by the earlier collapses has something to do with WTC7 collapsing. As far as NIST are concerned (on the BBC2 Conspiracy Files on Sunday) that damage has nothing to do with the collapse and it is *purely* due to the damage from the fires. If NIST come to this conclusion then can’t you see that the ‘no steel framed building, etc’ mantra is valid? Are you too stupid to recognise that?

If I am as you claim, a f*ckwit, then I’m sure answering the 8 direct questions will be a piece of cake for a genius like you, SO WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER THEM? I have answered 14 of your questions, answer 8 of mine.

I won’t finish the post with a much warranted diatribe of insults because I will not stoop as low as you. I do not feel the need to insult you Paul, anyone insane enough to read our combined ramblings can come to their own conclusions about you (and me for that matter).

WOW .. Waybackmachine …

[quote post="3838"]However, I do know that everything that the “truth” movement offers has either been debunked or is based on a false premise.

Where are the people who planted the demolitions? Who are they? Why has nobody involved come forward?

Louise – One of the reasons the “truth” movement annoys me so much is because they spend their lives sitting in front of their computer screens playing parlour games with the deaths of 3000 people, all the time talking about how much they “respect” them, before, in the next breath, sneering at them or their loved ones.[/quote]

Neil,

1. That is factually incorrect. The truth movement is not ONE group with a SINGLE common set of beliefs. That's maybe your interpretation but it's singularily incorrect. There are many aspects of this debate that neither the Official nor Un-Official interpretations/accounts can conclude to be an absolute fact. Why? That is the real question!

2. We don't know. Truth or fiction the fact remains investigations were hindered from Day 1. Which Day exactly did the Administration sign off on funds for an investigation? How much funds were allocated compared to events of lesser magnitude?

3. 3,000 Service men/women dead you say. Have you for one moment thought about the estimated 500,000 – 1,000,000 non combatant deaths? That's the thing that worries me about the "Debunkers" sitting at their PC screens crying for a few thousand soldiers .. NO! Patriots dying for THE cause .. what, which or who's cause exactly? WDM's? No, that's been proved catagorically false. [hint: oil]

Some of us just see [glaring] holes in the Official portrayal of events and seek simple answers. If the answers are [backed with evidence] that the Admin were incompetent or otherwise then that's fine. Present the answers succinctly. If they fucked up then they should own up. Bush/Cheney agreed but not under oath nor in media gaze! Why exactly? Nothing to hide nothing to fear after all!

@Ashley: I'm playing Devil's Advocate to a degree *shrugs*

You are all free to do/say as you please as I am to take the moral high ground [RE: Insults]. I'm as guilty as the next *blushes* but I know when that happens I lose ground.

"An eye for an eye" … "a bush for a bush"!

Take a step back. Consider you are only questioning what you feel [and I dare say many others] should be rightly questioned and regardless of what might be termed "debunkers" they also have at least some doubts. The extreme few remain the exception not the rule.

"Feel me" [Omar Little: The Wire (Final Season) - "Read between the lines"]

Does the following hypothesis explain 911 in more detail?

It is about oil but could it be about something much more serious?

I shall now hypothesize:

Suppose I needed to activate the military and all the other agencies without arousing public awareness to the real reason because it would spread absolute public panic.

Suppose that other reason was of very serious issue, would I not create a “ false flag” to activate those defences and have us at a state of ready for the other hidden genuine more serious threat?

Well, here is an hypothesis to chew over based upon two ancient accounts 3600 years apart and also the recent events:

So, ARE the Summarians and Egyptians Correct?

We know we have only 1 Sun, RIGHT? – yet the universe norm are binary star systems? Well, the Sumerians and also the Egyptians report there is a large heavenly body with a 3600 year orbit around our Sun. (ITS A FACT THEY REPORT THIS)

Indeed we already have clear images from the southern hemisphere taken 2007 of a large incoming heavily body, it will be visible in the northern hemisphere around 2009. (look south in the early morning)

What does NASA say: QUOTE

'All I can tell you is we don't know what it is', said Gerry Neugebauer, chief IRAS scientist.

'All Governments know about this, and they're taking bold steps to survive the coming flyby with their powers intact.'

End Quote

For those who want to learn more Go to google video and type in “NIBARU”or “Planet X”.

NB: The description of that Heavenly body is that of a small Brown Dwarf star surrounded by about 7 planets.

So my fellow Genetically modified Earthlings:

Are You about to find out why Humans alone have 23 Chromosome pairs whilst ALL primates have 24?

Have you never wondered why we have not found “the missing link”?

Or why the Summarians knew about all of our planets including Pluto and the fact earth revolved around our sun, yet in later ages it was believed the Earth was FLAT and the Sun revolved around the Earth – why did the Summarians know “Science Fact” and our more recent ancestors less so?

WAKE UP! Smell the Coffee!

Want any more SECURITY anyone – please put in more cameras FAST as you can because there is a load of shoplifting – RIGHT – well, there very well could be if this thing if for real – and I for one have Photos of a very large unknown heavily body from 2007.

I can tell you this, I am stocking food and other survival items and I advise you all to consider doing likewise.

Yours

Physicist

[quote post="3838"]See this for high witness testemony, how can 118 high witnesses all be wrong?

Vote – who says all 118 are wrong?

LINK REMOVED – I am not a spambot :)
[/quote]

David R Griffin it's said "went through enough of this material to PULL OUT pretty dramatic cases".

That's devisive in so much as he selected testimony which agreed with his hypothesis. 118 but what exactly was the gross total?

Witness Testimony is notoriously fallible. There are many peer reviewed papers dedicated to the topic.
Don't get me wrong as it cuts both ways in that maybe many other witnesses simply could not accept the notion that explosions did indeed occur i.e. detonations … you get my point?

It's clearly stated "perceived explosions". That's not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion.

While I neither agree nor disagree with DRG's hypothesis with regard WTC1/2 that's primarily due to a lack of factual (overwhelming) evidence. I do question why the Administration removed almost entirely all evidence leaving only a very small sample for forensic analysis. That's just not reasonable in light of such a catatrophic event.

I wonder if it could bring down the protective Magnetic field?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-65784385…

Go to Google video and type in "the killshot"

The US government spent millions on remote viewing programs.

Find out what they know. or not.

So let me see if I have this correct.

One can do next to absolutely ZERO research and be perfectly correct about a particular matter such as "Just Me" has stated.

So why are all of the other governments, bar none, keeping stum about what America did on 911, even their enemies?

Could the answer be because there is a much larger threat?

[quote post="3838"]So Are 118 fire-fighters ALL wrong?[/quote]

I never said they were wrong! I just questioned the veracity of [eye or not] witness testimony across the board. It cuts both ways [as I said] thus the testimony as a complete whole could point towards WTC1/2 having been pulled or the opposite. 118 isn't enough for me *shrugs* Feel free to link to DRG's research on the subject I couldn't find it :)

PS Your post actually amused me .. must be the green :)

[quote post="3838"]Go to Google video and type in “the killshot”
The US government spent millions on remote viewing programs.
Find out what they know. or not.[/quote]

That is a matter of fact. The US Goverment did indeed spend vast sums on Remote Viewing amongst other paranormal and supernatural phenomena.

While I 'personally' think it not completely unreasonable that humans may possess a 6th sense (form unknown). Scientific evidence suggests to date it's unproven excluding subjective claims.

There has been no double blind scientific repeated trial[s] with results better than "chance" alone.

Maybe someone will take up the $1 Million Challenge.
ht tp://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html

To know what happened on 911 you first have to realise who funded, trained and helped the 1993 wtc bombers.

Quote Just-Me:

There has been no double blind scientific repeated trial[s] with results better than “chance” alone.

End quote

Well, is this entirely correct?

Would you publish "Top Secret Program material and their results"?

Just because it has not been published does not mean it has not been done, does it, as absence of evidence is NOT really evidence of absence is it, it just means you have no evidence in favour?

I for one have seen some circumstantial evidence there may be some truth to what is being said, but to be certain I too would require repeatable double blind experiments and the outcomes have to be conducted in several labs independently before I would be entirely happy. Even then I would want

to see it with my own eyes.

Of course published papers does not mean it is true, but it does help:-

Early Stanford Research Institute experiments

In 1972 Stanford Research Institute (SRI) laser physicist Hal Puthoff tested remote viewer Ingo Swann, and the experiment led to a visit from two employees of the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology. The result was a $50,000 CIA-sponsored project. (Schnabel 1997, Puthoff 1996, Kress 1977/1999, Smith 2005) As research continued, the SRI team published papers in Nature (Targ & Puthoff, 1974), in Proceedings of the IEEE (Puthoff & Targ, 1976), and in the proceedings of a symposium on consciousness for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Puthoff, et al, 1981).

The initial CIA-funded project was later renewed and expanded. A number of CIA officials including John McMahon, then the head of the Office of Technical Service and later the Agency's deputy director, became strong supporters of the program. By the mid 1970s, facing the post-Watergate revelations of its "skeletons," and after internal criticism of the program, the CIA dropped sponsorship of the SRI research effort.

Sponsorship was picked up by the Air Force, led by analyst Dale E. Graff of the Foreign Technology Division. In 1979, the Army's Intelligence and Security Command, which had been providing some taskings to the SRI investigators, was ordered to develop its own program by the Army's chief intelligence officer, Gen. Ed Thompson. CIA operations officers, working from McMahon's office and other offices, also continued to provide taskings to SRI's subjects. (Schnabel 1997, Smith 2005, Atwater 2001)

The program had three parts (Mumford, et al, 1995). First was the evaluation of psi research performed by the U.S.S.R. and China, which appears to have been better-funded and better-supported than the government research in the U.S. (Schnabel 1997)

In the second part of the program, SRI managed its own stable of "natural" psychics both for research purposes and to make them available for tasking by a variety of US intelligence agencies. The most famous results from these years were Pat Price's description of a big crane at a Soviet nuclear research facility (Kress 1977/199, Targ 1996), a description of a new class of Soviet strategic submarine by a team of three viewers including Joseph McMoneagle,(Smith 2005, McMoneagle 2002) and Rosemary Smith's [12] location of a downed Soviet bomber in Africa (which former President Carter later referred to in speeches). By the early 1980s numerous offices throughout the intelligence community were providing taskings to SRI's psychics. (Schnabel 1997, Smith 2005)

The third branch of the program was a research project intended to find out if ESP – now called "remote viewing" – could be made accurate and reliable. The intelligence community offices that tasked the group seemed to believe that the phenomenon was real. But in the view of these taskers, a remote viewer could be "on" one day and "off" the next, a fact that made it hard for the technique to be officially accepted. Through SRI, individuals were studied for years in a search for physical (e.g., brain-wave) correlates that might reveal when they were "on- or off-target".

At SRI, Ingo Swann and Hal Puthoff also developed a remote-viewing training program meant to enable any individual with a suitable background to produce useful data. As part of this project, a number of military officers and civilians were trained and formed a military remote viewing unit, based at Fort Meade, Maryland. (Schnabel 1997, Smith 2005, McMoneagle 2002)

===================================

As an aside, do you think a body can be levitated?

Its imposible right?

Well, I have done it myself in my lab using 30,000 V

According to some who were in the program, they started off putting objects in a box and having the guy remote view what was in the box. After a few days they got sick if doing that because it was too easy and the reader wanted something more challanging.

To get the funding they had to demonstate the technology was worthy of investment and a top brass guy was persuades the system had merit apparently.

The program was shut down eventually but now the viewers work for whoever pays apparently.

Regardless, due to clear results from experimentation I can confirm the levitation of a body using some 30,000 volts is real.

What level of physics are you currently at?

Excellent qualifications, but why do you state the obviouse?

Lets start then:

So, If I were to say to you:

H = 1/2 g t^2

you would know that is a regular equation for Any falling body in a vacuum at sea level yes?

"WTC7 IMO was indeed pulled"

And you are indeed an idiot.

"I remain fixated with WTC7 as it’s both current and the most extreme anomaly."

You're taking the piss. You HAVE to be!!!!

“Incidentally whatever happened about the Pentagon un-accouted for $Billions Cheney discussed a day or so prior to the Pentagon attack. Would I not be correct in stating the accounts dept/files etc were stored in the area of destruction.”

This question of Cheney’s ‘missing billions’ is yet another example of troofers completely screwing the facts. The following is taken from 9-11 Myths. Here is part of the speech Cheney made that prompted the troofer lies;

“The adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems… In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia. Just as we must transform America’s military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on…

”Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business…The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I’ll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I’m asking.

”They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill — a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.

”That’s wrong. It’s wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts. Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today’s world demands.

”Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military….The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

”We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer’s to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us….”

It’s not that the money is “missing”, then, at least according to Rumsfeld, more that incompatible and aging financial systems don’t allow it to be tracked throughout the system. A DoD news document from April 2002 spelled this out even more clearly: “In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These “unsupported” transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.”
And there’s another important point you’re not being told. The language used in these claims, that Rumsfeld “announced” the missing $2.3 trllion on 9/10, along with the claim that he was “burying bad news”, is designed to make you think that this information was only made public knowledge the day before the attacks. And that is utterly false. The report that uncovered the trillions appeared at the end of February 2000, and Rumsfeld and others had spoken about this before, on more than one occasion, and for months before the attacks:
Pentagon’s finances in disarray By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) — The military’s money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon’s inspector general said in a report released Friday. The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant’s attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don’t produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what’s coming in and what’s going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.
January 7, 2001
The Defense Department’s inspector general recently identified $6.9 trillion in accounting entries, but $2.3 trillion was not supported by adequate audit trails or sufficient evidence to determine its validity.

Another $2 trillion worth of entries were not examined because of time constraints, and therefore, the inspector general was able to audit only $2.6 trillion of accounting entries in a $6.9 trillion pot.

January 11, 2001
Senator Byrd: A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, written by a retired vice admiral and a civilian employee in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, accused the Department of Defense of being unable to account for the funds that Congress appropriates to it. The authors wrote, and I quote in part, quote, “The Pentagon’s books are in such utter disarray that no one knows what America’s military actually owns or spends.” …

That audit report found that out of $7.6 trillion in department-level accounting interest, 2.3 trillion in entries either did not contain adequate documentation or were improperly reconciled or were made to force buyer and seller data to agree. This DoD-IG report is very disturbing….

February 12th 2001
The inspector general of the Pentagon said there are 2.3 trillion dollars in items that they can’t quite account for. That’s not billion. That’s trillion dollars. $2.3 trillion — and the General Accounting Office said there are about $27 billion in inventory items that they can’t find.
John Isaacs
PBS Online NewsHour
June 3rd 2001
Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability en route to Turkey
But something must be wrong or broken, if you can have terrific people in the armed forces and the defense establishment who care deeply about our country, are dedicated and patriotic, and are invested in doing it right, and an equally dedicated and patriotic group of people in the Congress who dedicated to doing it right — and for whatever reason, there is a high degree of distrust, which everyone told me when I arrived here in January. There is no other reason why there would be all those reports required, all the amendments, and the size of the bill and the concerns and the letters and the phone calls.

If there weren’t some glitch, something going on where we aren’t working right, why would there be 128 studies saying our acquisition system is broken? Why would the GAO and Senator Byrd announce that we can’t locate $2.6 trillion worth of transactions and documents if things were good?

What we need are incentives at every level of that department to be respectful of the taxpayers dollars. We simply must care. People all across this country have worked their heads off, paid taxes and want to be defended and protected, but they want to be done as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible and big government can’t seem to do that. It’s very difficult. The incentives aren’t there for people and we need to find ways to do put them there.

June 28, 2001 Thursday
DOBBS: Well, let me, if I may, go to a management by objective. We know what you want to do. How many months are you giving yourself to get it done?

RUMSFELD: Oh, it’s years. It’s years. This department didn’t get like this in five minutes, and it’s not going to get out of this in five minutes. It is an enormous task. It’s like turning a battleship. It doesn’t turn on a dime. And we’ll have to work with the Congress and find a way inside this institution to fix our acquisition system, which is broken.

It takes 20 years to produce a weapon system, at a time where technology is turning over every 24 months. Our financial management systems can’t account for $2.6. trillion worth of transactions, simply because the way they’re arranged and organized…

July 11th 2001
Testimony before the House Budget Committee on the FY 2002 Defense Budget

REP. PETER HOEKSTRA (R-MI): … I find it interesting, and we’ve done a lot of work on another committee that I sit on, taking a look at the Department of Education, which, for the last three years hasn’t been able to get a clean audit. Then I understand that the Department of Defense shares many of the same problems that we have with the Department of Education. I think the IG just notes that in one of the audits that you went through of the 1999 financial statements included adjustments of $7.6 trillion — that’s trillion — in account adjustments, of which 2.3 trillion were supported by un — by reliable documents — were unsupported by reliable documentation.

July 16th 2001:
Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Budget Request

Sec. Rumsfeld: …As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It’s the OPM, or Office of Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can’t do. I know Dr. Zakheim’s been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can’t account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that’s believable. And yet we’re told that we can’t hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects…

REP. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Moran.

Mr. Secretary, the first time and the last time that Dov Zackheim and I broke bread together, he told me he would have a handle on that 2.6 trillion by now. (Laughter.) But we’ll discuss that a little —

As there were multiple reports of this issue prior to the attacks, then, it’s hard to see any significance to Rumsfeld mentioning it again on 9/10. The news wasn’t concealed by what happened the next day, in any event: it was already firmly in the public domain.

We still have the supposed motive of “destroying information” and “killing personnel” with the Pentagon attack, though. As we were told above, “the impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area.” CooperativeResearch report on the consequences of this:
The Department of the Army will state that it won’t publish a stand-alone financial statement for 2001 because of “the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.” [Insight, 4/29/2002]

What does the lack of “a stand-alone financial statement for 2001″ mean?
The “Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,” Public Law 101-576, November 15, 1990, as amended by the “Federal Financial Management Act of 1994,” Public Law 103-356, October 13, 1994, requires the annual preparation and audit of financial statements. The Army did not publish stand-alone financial statements for
FY 2001 due to the loss of financial management personnel sustained during the September 11 terrorist attack. Therefore, we did not audit Army financial information for FY 2001 financial statements. However, Army financial statement information was included in the DoD FY 2001 Agency-Wide Financial Statements.

This, then, is the “benefit” of the Pentagon attack: Army financial statements for 2001 were only provided in an overall Department of Defence document, not stand-alone, and therefore they could not be audited. No reported impact on the $2.3 trillion, nothing more at all. We don’t even know for sure if this information was released later, because the document only talks about a loss of personnel, not data: if so, the most effect (on the budget issue) the attacks had was to partially delay the production of one particular document from one part of the Department of Defence.

The conclusion of the above report is interesting, too. It raises the issue of “large, unsupported adjustments to correct discrepancies between status of appropriations data and general ledger data”: that is, corrections they must make because money cannot be accounted for. And then they explain where they believe most of the problems lie:
Since 1991, DFAS IN-SF has made large, unsupported adjustments to correct discrepancies between status of appropriations data and general ledger data. The Inspector General, DoD has addressed issues relating to these unsupported ending balance adjustments in every audit of the Army General Fund financial statements since 1996. We stated that the use of status of appropriations data and expenditure data was an unacceptable interim method for compiling the FYs 1997 through 2000 Army General Fund Financial Statements. We made
recommendations to DFAS IN-SF to identify and eliminate the causes for the ending balance adjustments and develop a plan of action with specific target dates to implement an integrated accounting system based on general ledger accounting. DFAS IN-SF actions have not been effective in correcting the deficiencies in the accounting system.

The ending balance adjustments almost doubled from FY 1999 to FY 2000. By correcting the accumulated error in GLAC 3310 and controlling all equity transactions, including recording appropriations used at the departmental level, we believe that up to 92 percent of the FY 2000 ending balance adjustment of $237 billion could have been eliminated. The need for ending balance adjustments will continue until general ledger accounting is correctly implemented throughout the Army’s accounting system. Unless DFAS IN-SF makes a concerted and sustained effort to identify and correct all the deficiencies in the implementation of general ledger accounting, the Army General Fund financial statements will continue to be unreliable. Ending balance adjustments should be eliminated after FY 2001.

General ledger accounting hasn’t been implemented properly, then, but if it was than “up to 92%” of this example year balance adjustment would be unnecessary (that would leave an adjustment of $19 billion, still a big chunk of cash, but a significant improvement on $237 billion). We’ve no idea how this relates to the overall $2.3 trillion, but it does seem to fit with the overall talk of accounting issues.

And there’s another point that you might consider relevant. While most people act like the talk of an unaccounted-for $2.3 trillion is still accurate, that’s not actually true. A February 2002 story reported that more than two thirds of that expenditure had now been reconciled:
Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile ‘Lost’ Spending

By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 — As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon’s financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called “lost” expenditures.

For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn’t fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.

Most of the 674 systems “don’t talk to one another unless somebody ‘translates,’” he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven’t disappeared, Zakheim said. “Missing” expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department’s “lost” expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.

“We’re getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we’ll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50,” he explained.

“That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for,” he concluded.

Now plainly the US Government saying this doesn’t make it true, and we don’t know what the real or current situation is. But equally, it’s clear that the efforts to tie this in to 9/11 have major shortcomings. There’s no clear reason given why the Bush adminstration would need to go to such efforts to conceal the problem, for instance. They didn’t, either, and it was covered on several occasions before 9/11, so the fact that Rumsfeld mentioned the $2.3 trillion again on 9/10 seems to have no special importance. While the Pentagon attack did have an effect on the production of some DoD financial statements, it’s not clear how significant this was, and another report suggests the DoD is reducing the “missing” amounts by taking steps to improve its accounting procedures. They still don’t look too impressive to us — $700 billion without proper documentation is a lot of money — but it’s hard to see how any of this constitutes a motive for the 9/11 attacks.

NOTE: Kudos to a Screw Loose Change piece, and particularly some well-researched comments by manny, which revealed most of the links referenced here and so persuaded us that this topic deserved a page.

And from me, thanks to 9-11 Myths.

PS. Cue howls of ‘yeah, but what about….(insert numerous questions here)’ from the troofers. 5,4,3,2,1…
PPS Cue howls of ‘what about my 8 questions?’….

Hey hey everyone, the king of cut and paste is back. Welcome back Paul, it's all been rather original here without your copious quantities of cutting and pasting.

With regards the 8 questions that I posed you, I am not going to howl, complain, moan, shout, scream or anything else. I think the very fact that you point blank refuse to answer these questions, that you evade and avoid them, says everything that needs to be said about it. If you could answer them with some of your debunking cut and pasting you would have.

Here are another couple of direct questions I've asked you: -

[quote post="3838"]I take it you are unable to answer the 8 direct questions. Can you confirm if this is the case? If it is the case then there are clearly unanswered questions regarding the events of 9-11, and I would be grateful if (given this) you could explain to all and sundry why another investigation is not required. Alternatively if you can answer them, then just do it.

[/quote]

Here *AGAIN* are the questions for you: -

[quote post="3838"]Name me one other steel framed skyscraper that has totally collapsed due to fire damage. (clue – there aren’t any)

Do you agree that bin Laden writes a note in the responsibility video with his right hand? (clue – yes he does)

Do you agree the FBI website says he is left handed? (clue – yes it does)

Do you agree that bin Laden can be seen wearing a gold ring and gold or gold plated watch in the responsibility video? (clue – he can)

Do you agree that it is almost definite that a devout Muslim like bin Laden wouldn’t wear anything gold as it is forbidden by his faith like silk? (clue – this is correct)

Do you agree that the bin Laden in the reponsibility video looks more like Les Dennis than bin Laden? (clue – Les Dennis is stretching it a bit, but I have never seen a picture of Bin Laden looking quite so chubby around the face, especially considering he was supposed to be very ill at this time. His beard is the wrong colour too)

Please explain how asymetrical damage and chaotic fires could have such a perfectly uniform effect when collapsing WTC7 (by explain I mean tell me how the laws of physics I have quoted are not applicable). (clue – not possible but I can’t wait to see you try)

Please give some indication of how the spherical pieces of iron came in to existance, being as they need steel/iron to melt in order to be generated and the official reports say that the temperatures were not hot enough for this. (clue – if the fires didn’t get hot enough to melt the steel then the spherical particles cannot exist, but they do)[/quote]

I guess the magic Paul W formula of googling 'debunking + [keyword1] + [keyword2] + [keyword3]' has drawn a blank for these huh? And you say I'm a f*ckwit lol.

@Just-Me

How exactly am I a Nail head?

I've asked Paul a number of direct questions. I have been good enough to address some of his questions and would be grateful for an attempt from him to do the same (or an acknowledgement that his doesn't intend to even try).

This is not rocket science, I've even given him some sample answers :)

Just as an aside, I was talking with a friend on the weekend who is an engineer for a company that is involved in demolition (not using explosives but with machines), his main subject knowledge is chemistry but he has a good knowledge of physics and he agreed that WTC7 could not collapse like it did from 'just fires'.

He watched the BBC hit piece on WTC7 and came away with more questions than answers, I pointed him in the direction of ae911truth. You never know, he may just sign up after looking at the evidence.

"Just as an aside, I was talking with a friend on the weekend who is an engineer for a company that is involved in demolition (not using explosives but with machines), his main subject knowledge is chemistry but he has a good knowledge of physics and he agreed that WTC7 could not collapse like it did from ‘just fires’."

Just as an aside, you're friend is an idiot.

[quote post="3838"]@Just-Me
How exactly am I a Nail head?[/quote]

Sorry for the confusion "You hit the NAIL on the HEAD" it's simply a contraction. I apologise it was no insult but the contrary :)

Paul I distorted nothing. I'll accept I may have confused matters and it was a flippant remark. As you did when you replied to a post that was directed to another poster i.e. the one that believes Remote Viewing is Science. I was merely trying to imply and I feel it stands to reason that some un-accounted for $$ may have been diverted to Classified Operations. While I make no assertions the current un-accounted $$ are in any way shape or form related to a program such as Remote Viewing I do question why money was ever spent on such a program. It's insane. I do question which other other quack programs received funds RE: the missing $$.

I'm unsure what you believe TBH. If you feel the un-accounted for $$ are simply related to infrastructure, accounting issues, loss of personnel etc fair enough.

If I were an accountant it stands to reason my office would be pretty close to the necessary documentation. I surmise the loss of personnel = loss of finacial data.

"It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area" < Paul this is your quote!

"2.3 trillion dollars in items that they can’t quite account for" < Paul this is your quote!

Regardless of what has now been accounted for that still leaves a huge sum un-accounted for. While I agree that a certain % lost accounts is standard for any organisation we are discussing vast sums of tax payer money.

This is a tangent caused primarily by my flippant remark but understand I did not draw any conclusions. I was baiting the ESP/Remote Viewer aspect.

I hope I have clarified things now. I am not an all consuming "Truther". I'm objective and reasonable and although we may disagree it's clear IMO you are also objective. Why not drop the insults as it's pointless unless you get some satisfaction from it in which case "fill your boots" *shrugs*

I firmly believe that [at least some of] the Admin (Administration) and Staffers (Government Officials) had foreknowledge of the events of 9/11. I also believe that WTC7 was most probably primed with safeguards for destruction by design. That's my view/opinion.

Do you read what is quoted by Goverment and accept that as indisputable FACT?
Do you feel Military [un] accounts in the TRILLION region is either acceptable or reasonable?
Do feel it's ok to spend vast sums of tax payer $ on an illegal war?
Do you feel it's ok that the $ has been devalued dramatically due to foriegn debts and lest we forget the Fed simply printing money to service such debts thus further devaluing the $?

Rhetorical by the way. I'm just making a point that is outwith the scope of the 9/11 debate but certainly linked.

@Just-me

I get you now :)

np

Apologies for snapping, I'm just getting quite used to people insulting me from talking to paul for so long.

Mmmm this Ice cream is scrumptious.

Rum with little black fruits in.

Does anyone actually want to know how to do levitation with 30,000 Volts or are you only intrested in the 911 Inside Job?

I thought earlier about the 7/7 bombings. Isn't it convenient that the 'terrorists' decided on a date that is the same in American format as it is in UK format.

If the attack had taken place a day later it would have been 8/7 here and 7/8 over the pond (wouldn't have had the same universality for the press would it?). Obviously there's only 12 days in the calendar year where this occurs so that would make it approximately 30-1 to happen by chance.

I mean, before paul w starts barking away, this obviously proves nothing and is more than likley due to pure chance (30-1 chance anyway). It is nonetheless fortuitous for localisation purposes.

And here is more good stuff, so were is paul W's hypothesis the government account is correct now then?

Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

Just-Me, it's nice to see (or should that be read!) someone who seems to have some common sense here!

The problem here (as in, on this huge list of comments!) is that it appears that the main people commenting (Ashley, 3 year old kid [and their many alter egos!] and Paul W) seem to have made their minds up. It's like watching a dog chase it's tail, it's going nowhere.

I must admit, I check this regularly almost as a form of entertainment…."what name will '3 year old kid post under this time and how many times will they post today?"…."when will Ashley next ask about those 8 bloody questions"…."will Paul W use the name 'fu**wit' in his next post?". We could start a betting syndicate on this lol My word, its getting like a soap opera!

And, what is it with people obsessed with qualifications?! Can only those with an academic background in Science talk here? I'd put good money on the fact that those asking these questions about others CV where mainstream educated, but they would then argue that mainstream education is "programming by the government" lol Yes, I'm putting words in peoples mouths here, but you know what I mean!

Following on from that, they then ask us to read David Ray Griffin, the THEOLOGY professor!! Surely following their argument, he shouldn't be trusted as he isn't a physicist!

Yes, I know some here have an answer for everything, but I'm seriously not interested. I just wanted to respond to Just-Me.

See, the thing that gets me is all this focus on a past event. Even if we all find out that Wall-E and Eve flew into the towers as fact(sorry, watched that film the other day…awesome film!), does that stop what is going on right now in OUR world?? Nope. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I'd really like to see these people put ore effort and energy into fighting PRESENT injustices going on right now. Let alone the lack of respect there is about all those who died on 9/11 and subsequent aftermaths.

I don't really know why I'm adding to this insane 'conversation'!

I know! Maybe its because of the date 07/07/2005 – 7/7/2+0+0+5=777…Isn't 777 an Illuminati number?! Argh!

:p

@Just-Me

I do question the events of 7/7. The thing I find to be the biggest anomaly is Peter Power stating that his company was running a terror exercise on the same day, envisioning explosions at the same tube stations, at the same times.

I did some degree level maths as part of my qualification and we did quite a bit on probability. I wouldn't know where to start with something like that, there aren't enough zeroes in the world for the odds against that!

There are also some other strange things, like the train the 'terrorists' were supposed to have caught to get them in to London not running that day, meaning they physically couldn't have made it to the tube trains in time to let the bombs off.

Why on earth would they buy return tickets? That makes about as much sense as Atta packing his martyrdom letter in to his suitcase and then taking it on the plane that he was alledgedly going to turn in to a fireball (although a paper passport managed to jump out of a hijackers pocket/bag, make it through the fireball unscathed and land on the streets of NY so perhaps he knew more than us!)

The talk of people shot dead in Canary Wharf.

The lack of CCTV footage of the 'terrorists', I mean we have the most cameras per capita in the world and we can't even film bad guys in broad daylight using them?!?!

There's also eyewitnesses that say there was a hole in the carriage and that the metal was bent upwards (implying the expolsion came from below).

Blair not authorising a public inquiry in to the events (what is the mantra? 'Nothing to hide nothing to fear').

It's fishy, I'll admit not as fishy as the big smoked haddock that is 9-11, but certainly fishy.

Never mind the gold ring, never mind the gold watch, never mind him writing with his right hand when he is left handed. Do you really think that the guy in the picture on the left is the same person as the one on the right?

http://bp1.blogger.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/SIjOGrgxO1I/A…

Give me a break, my eyes work. Don't yours?

Quick reply to Just-Me:

Thanks for your response. Just to clear what I said up, I meant that some on these comments seem to imply that if you're a not a physicist then they won't talk to you as there is no point (maybe I have this wrong, but it seems be said in arrogance as in "You're beneath me"). But then the same person later says "Read David Ray Griffin", but he isn't a physicist either! So by their own terms, they should discount the work of Griffin and isn't worth listening to.

Does this make more sense?

Again, can I just make sure that others realise that this was in response to Just-Me's reply to my comment.

I think this radio program was pure yellow journalism (by paid criminals) because it not once mentioned any of the tens of coincidences we are supposed to just accept as read.

When did RINF stop publishing quality?

Have MOSAD agents taken over?

@Louise (continued)

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]Warning – my own opinion coming up! Gaining a 2:1 degree doesnt either prove that the person in question isn’t an idiot or not. Ashley – I am NOT implying that you are an idiot. However, I know people who gained 2:1 and Firsts who are idiots, I also know people with no degree who are also idiots…a degree in this instance is irrelevant.[/quote]

To a certain extent I agree with you, but my friend who I spoke to about WTC7 on the weekend has a first in chemistry, an A at A level in Physics and works for a company that is involved in demolitions (using machines rather than explosives). When I said he expressed a view that the WTC7 collapse could not be due to the fires, paul called him an idiot.

I do not have anywhere near as much *subject knowledge* as my friend on this matter, so as far as I am concerned he knows more than me in this case. I may decide to disagree with him, I probably wouldn't be able to argue against his knowledge, but I'm sure I would be being disrespectful to call him an idiot for his views.

I would also say that the fact I hold a Bachelor of Science (albeit in an unrelated discipline), the methods used in scientific subjects try to make you think logically. They try to encourage thought processes that are scientific. What I'm saying is 3 years hard work at Uni (and I did work hard), gives me the right not to be described as some of the terms paul has used against me. He is more than within his rights to disagree with me, but personal attacks are uncalled for (my personal opinion is that it says more about the person making the attacks, than the target).

The reason I am asking paul what his qualifications are, is to see if he has indeed been taught to think scientifically and to see if he has more subject knowledge than my friend in order to be able to insult him as he did (paul hasn't even talked online to him, let alone met him, I'm interested to know why he feels able to do this).

If I argued about WTC7 with my friend and he called me an idiot for a statement I made (he wouldn't, he's not so rude), I might have to accept his greater knowledge on the matter (he has after all studied this subject and works in this area).

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, some people have subject knowledge that possibly makes their opinion more valid. I couldn't argue the pros and cons of modern methods of neurosurgery with a brain surgeon, I don't have the specific knowledge required.

I'm guessing that when you say that you know people with 2:1s and firsts who are idiots, you are talking more of 'lacking in common sense' which even some of the most clever people appear to be prone to. This does not invalidate their arguments on areas that they have studied surely?

I have a friend who has a PHD but for some reason the way his brain is wired he can't remember left from right (perhaps he worked on the bin Laden video ;) Some would argue that not being able to know the difference between his left and right (something my 6yo can do) makes him an idiot but he still has his PHD.

Just-Me

[quote post="3838"]True, but compared to what. I mean if you calculated probablilty on everything after the fact then you might find ONE probabilty or more outwith the realms of probabilty.[/quote]

To calculate the probability of Visor consultants matching exactly the choices of the bombers would be very difficult.

You would have to look at how often terror drills like this are carried out with regards the London underground, then you would have to look at how often terrorists attack the London underground. You would then be able to calculate the chances of a terror drill happening on the same day as an actual attack (you would have to set a time window, x number of years or months. You could base this on the average time between attacks or the average time between drills, whichever is larger).

You would then have to work out the chances of Visor consultants picking the very same 3 stations as the terrorists out of all of the underground stations in London. There are 370 stations that make up the London underground, if you could get 2 seperate people to pick the same 3 stations at random I think you'd have the proof of remote viewing that you were after earlier in this thread!

Then you would have to work out what the probability of the timings of the simulated attacks being identical to the actual attacks.

Any one of these 3 probabilities would be tiny (with the possible exception of the first one depending on the time window you chose), but when you combined all 3 together the chances of it happening by pure chance are so infetismal as to be, to all intents and purposes, impossible.

Maybe it was random but how on earth has PP not been forced to divulge who his client was? How has he not been questioned by police? People get questioned for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, his company was acting out scenarios that were in exactly the right place at exactly the right time, with exactly the envisaged attack, not once but 3 times on the same day!

There are huge discrepancies, it may be a case of LIHOP, it may be a case of MIHOP, it may even be a case of what they say it was.

The thing is though, the train that they allegedly caught didn't run on that day, the train following would not have got them in to London with sufficient time to get where they were supposed to be when the bombs went off.

Chuck in with this the almost complete lack of CCTV footage of the 'bombers' in and around the tube stations, the many eyewitness accounts that don't fit with the official story and then the refusal to have a public inquiry and it gets less believable the more you look at it.

I know for a fact that paul is going to start harping on about me believing in shape shifting lizards or some such, but all I am doing is using my faculties to make a proposition based on logical inspection of the evidence.

It doesn't hang together, I know if I was accused of a crime and my alibi had as many holes in as 7/7 or 9/11 then I would be sure to be investigated further (which is after all what troofers want for 9/11 and 7/7). Anyway I have to go to sleep now, my head hurts ;)

Same trains Ashley, don't forget to account for the exact same trains. And same times too for all train explosions, don't forget to factor in the same time.

Also, don't forget to account for the probability that the number 30 bus would actually be in tavistock square seeing as it is not even on its rout.

What are the chances of that happening by chance on exactly the same day etc.

And don't forget to account for the fact both trains the alleged bombers needed to get on from Luton were both cancelled, what is the probability the alleged bombers got on a train which left the station almost at the same time as they were photographed going into the tube at Luton?

about 1 in infinity?

And guess what – NO CCTV, just like Diana.

Surprise Surprise.

And guess which company was doing the CCTV coverage?

Ah, Ashley and Just Me, the 'Jewish' question. And your views are?

I ask this as your reply will either tone down my replies, or heat 'em up.

For the record – straight answer.

Conclusions re 911.

The government story is proved false by the video Evidence, witness statements and seismic data.

Therefore, we at ae911truth.org (400 + Professional and fully qualified Architects & Engineers ) call for a new, honest and independent FULL investigation into the events of 911 were ALL (not selected) witness testimony are examined.

Now Paul W – what qualifications do you actually have? If you do not tell us, we are entitled to believe you do not even have a single GCSE and are therefore a sudo fraudster.

For the record – straight answer.

Regarding 7/7.

The evidence contradicts the official government story and a formal independent and honest investigation is needed.

1)The photo of the 3 alleged bombers going into LUTON station is a blatant fake, there are serious anomalies.

2)The two trains of which the bombers were claimed to have taken were in fact CANCELLED.

3)The bombers could not have got to London in time to do the Bombings.

4)Witnesses state the bomb blasts came from under the trains (how could rucksacks get under the trains and especially by bombers who were not even on those trains?)

5)The number 30 Bus does not go past Tavistock square hence was placed there by someone with the authority.

6)An exact replica terrorist drill of the exact terrorist scenario was being done at the exact time by Peter Powers company, yet no action has been taken by the authorities implicating them as ringleader.

7)All the underground CCTV has been withheld by the Government and the Israeli company who runs the system – to prevent the public having access to key evidence of 7/7.

The probability of winning the UK national lottery is about 13,500,000 to 1.

7/7 as told by the government is at the very best 16,000 times less likely than winning the lottery.

Here is my original post:

V

Posted: Jul 24th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

I think this radio program was pure yellow journalism (by paid criminals) because it not once mentioned any of the tens of coincidences we are supposed to just accept as read.

When did RINF stop publishing quality?

Have MOSAD agents taken over?

Well, I definitely DO think this particular item was pure yellow journalism, because it is about the flaws in the TROOOFFFF movement and not about the real nut and bolt Evidence of the 911 event. OK, so the criminals were not paid. They were real cheep! This item is the Yellowest of Yellow and everybody who is even remotely impartial knows so.

Question: When did rinf stop publishing quality?

Answer: When it put this item out for public consumption, and hopefully it will be the last totally biased hogwash.

Question: Have MOSAD agents taken over?

Well, HAVE MOSAD, or any other agents taken over?

There is a ruddy advert for the SUN Newspaper. Eik! Eik! Eik!!!

Rinf alternative new support the Satanic Sun?

Its like Gandhi buying shares in Halliburton.

^ Exactly as I thought! Simple really BAN aliases or offensive comments where possible.

While I applaud your stance I'm a little lost by …

[quote post="3838"]Continue to make unfounded accusations against me and my site[/quote]

Is this really your site? If so then I applaud you for allowing open debate.

[quote post="3838"]It is only truthers who have viewed my opinion as a personal attack on them[/quote]

Well if it's your site then it kinda stands to reason. I make a leap here and assume you are in the debunk camp or at the least related to the original MP3 in this thread. It's actually no matter just ban the AKA asses .. please :)

@ Ashley:
[quote post="3838"]To calculate the probability of Visor consultants matching exactly the choices of the bombers would be very difficult.[/quote]

As I said LIHOP ;) It's significant especially as there was no public equiry! Ok it's outrageous!

In defence of Louise I did read the alter ego's comment being directed specifically at "3 year old kid". While your name was mentioned I read it as and I quote "seem to have made their minds up" meaning simply that "seem to have made their minds up". Nothing wrong with that.

@ Louise
[quote post="3838"]Does this make more sense?[/quote]

Perfect sense.

@ Paul W

[quote post="3838"]Ah, Ashley and Just Me, the ‘Jewish’ question. And your views are?[/quote]

Please define the 'Jewish Question'!
Does the USA and UK support the Jewish State? Yes
Does the USA and UK support the idea [Read: Fact] of a sattelite power [Military Base] in the Middle East? Yes

I'm unsure what your point is so … guessed *nightmare huh"

I accept my mistakes maybe you do not! My sole intention was to bait the ESP theorist not primarily to utilise the lost $Trillions as an objective point. Fact remains though regarless of your view money is missing so where was it spent? I make no assertions but I feel it's a question that MUST be answered. You yourself stated "Now plainly the US Government saying this doesn’t make it true, and we don’t know what the real or current situation is."
I agreed.

Your diatribe is no better or worse than "3 year old kid" TBH. I've given you credit where due but if you prefer insults then I prefer to ignore *child*!!

Ring of power – 1 & 2

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ring+of+pow…

"My sole intention was to bait the ESP theorist not primarily to utilise the lost $Trillions as an objective point."

Still talking about 'lost trillions'…

"Fact remains though regarless of your view money is missing so where was it spent?"

Read the above post.

"I make no assertions but I feel it’s a question that MUST be answered."

As usual, no conclusions and no definite stance, but lots of questions that MUST be answered. Just Me; another troofer nutjob.

Is it any wonder this RACIST & Criminal Government will not hold a public inquiry into the 7/7 Inside Job attack: The evidence contradicts the official government lies –

1)The official photo of the 3 alleged bombers going into LUTON station is a fake, there are serious anomalies such as part of the steel rail bar going in front of one of the subjects (proof of PHOTO manipulation)

2)The two trains of which the bombers were claimed to have taken were in fact both CANCELLED. This would prevent the alleged bombers from reaching London in time to detonate said rucksack bombs.

3)The bombers could not have got to London in time to do the Bombings (TWO trains Canceled) and despite requests for access to CCTV of the alleged bombers, not one single frame has ever been released to the public for private investigation despite countless people asking under the freedom of information act. (including myself)

4)Witnesses state the bomb blasts came from under the trains. How could rucksacks get under the trains whilst the trains are moving and especially by bombers who were not even on those trains?

5)The number 30 Bus does not go past Tavistock square hence must have been driven there by someone with the authority – not the alleged Bomber.

6)An exact replica terrorist drill of the exact same terrorist scenario was being done at the exact same time by Peter Power's company, yet no action has been taken by the authorities implicating them as ringleader. Peter Power has point black refused to state who his client was who requested that exact same scenario.

7)The home made explosive allegedly used by the Terrorists of 7/7 will blow your arms and legs off but it will not burn due to it being a detonation wave type explosive as opposed to a hot gas C4 type . Most of the victims suffered serious burns, hence the explosive was not as stated by the government. All the underground CCTV has been withheld by the Government and the company who runs the CCTV system – to prevent the public having access to key evidence of 7/7. WHY? Answer: Because there were no home made explosives and there was not home made terrorists either.

According to video evidence; The NIST report and The seismic data, both twin towers and building 007 came down at almost free fall speed in under 10 seconds on 911.

Physics proof 911 was an Inside Job.

H = &frac12; g t^2

417m = &frac12; (9.81ms^-2) t^2

2(417)/(9.81) = t^2 = 85.01529052

t = 9.22 Seconds (2 dp)

At the time of construction the twin towers were built and designed with a 3 times operating load in mind according to the official publications. Exactly 1 second prior to the tower destruction sequence beginning, the twin towers had at the very minimum 1 times working load resistance of the bottom undamaged 80 plus floors (due to the fact the building was still stood upright).

Yet, exactly between 1 second and 11 seconds later the bottom, heaviest, undamaged and strongest 80 + floors offers almost ZERO resistance to the falling much lighter top section, which fell through the path of most resistance at almost free fall speed.

This violates 3 laws of physics – the law of gravity; conservation of momentum and conservation of Energy.

In other words, this is absolute proof both twin towers were top down controlled demolition and not gravity collapse alone as stated by the UK and US CRIMINAL governments.

Bombs in the WTC from Muslim terrorist could not have dropped the three buildings at near free-fall through the path of most resistance. PERIOD! ! ! !

SADLY we all have been TREASONED!!! – Both 911 and 7/7 could be nothing other than Inside Jobs.

Hi Paul

Thank you for your apology regarding the insults, it’s a shame that you then go on to use some more. Regarding your piss take, I must apologise, I just didn’t see it as funny or clever. It just made no sense, didn’t make me laugh and then left me scratching my head. I’m sure you had someone rolling in the aisles with it, it just wasn’t me and before you ask I do have a sense of humour, maybe it is too overdeveloped or underdeveloped for your particular strain of comedy ;)

We are obviously at polar extremes on 9-11. You fail to see any unanswered questions, I see hundreds. I am realistic enough to think that the truth lies somewhere between us (I think we both are of the mindset that the truth is closer to our respective viewpoints, but then that is only natural). I would say that the gravity of the situation (no pun intended re 3 yo kid), means that even one unanswered question is not acceptable given the raping of the Constitution, the shedding of civil liberties, the 2 illegals wars, the sick first responders and the people who died on the day.

There are anomalies when you look at the collapse of WTC7 Paul, it doesn’t make sense from an engineering perspective, a physics perspective or even a common sense perspective.

Look – Mark Loizeaux told us on the ‘Conspiracy Files’ that there’s no way it could be Thermite as you couldn’t be sure it would be able to cut the columns reliably and in the necessary timeframe to initiate the total collapse that we saw. What we are supposed to believe is that random office fires could though! That makes no sense WHATSOEVER!

I do answer your questions with lots of others and they are (for the most part ) reasonable. I don’t blame 12 foot shape shifting lizards or anything of that kind. I don’t expect you to answer them all, I’m trying to throw some of the things that I see as being at odds with the official story in to the mix so that hopefully you will come closer to the middle ground (that I should probably try to reach too).

At the end of the day Paul we both read rinf, other than our issues regarding 9-11 I doubt there would be much difference in our thoughts on the majority of events in the world today. We both feel the need for alternative news, which to my mind says that we’ve both seen through the mainstream media to a certain extent.

As for the NWO, are you so naive as to think that the rich and powerful don’t steer our futures? (irrespective of political machinations). Bush Snr was going on about a New World Order when he was in power. Do you know that the Bush’s (Republicans) and the Clinton’s (Democrats) are good friends? It’s 2 sides of the same coin. What do you think Bilderberg meetings are about? A knees-up for the rich and powerful? I don’t think so, the fact that they are not minuted and held under Chatham House rules makes me very suspicious.

I agree regarding your post about poverty, but how do you plan on solving it? I can’t, I haven’t got the funds, have you? Or are we all supposed to stand around going ‘oooh look at the poverty’?

There is enough food, money, wealth, resources and land for all the people of this world, if the greedy mega corporations thought about people instead of profit. One of the reasons that America and the UK are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq is the fact that there is no cold war to feed the military industrial complex, so we need a ‘hot’ war instead!

Look at Halliburton and Dick Cheney, look at who funded Bush’s presedential campaign and then look who is getting the fat no-bid contracts to ‘rebuild’ Iraq (only it’s not rebuilt and the money has run out because the leeching mega corps have sucked the funds dry and done nothing). All of the funds to bomb and rebuild Iraq come from taxpayers and go in to the pockets of these hugely influential companies.

9-11 is not the only problem, I completely agree with you. One thing that I see as a problem, that clearly you do not, is that it has been used as a springboard for 2 illegal wars in the Middle East. Iraq posed no threat to the country I live in, it posed no threat to America. Just what kind of threat do you think one of the poorest countries in the world posed (Afghanistan).

If you want to get rid of a dictator, you ask the United Nations, you don’t make up a load of lies, ignore the weapons inspectors and attack. That is illegal, I’m no friend of Saddam but these laws were set up after WWII to try and stop anything like that happening again.

Sorry for going for your throat regarding ‘the Jewish question’ as you put it, but this is another issue that tends to polarise people. You are either pro-Israel or anti-Israel in some peoples eyes. I don’t see it as being that simple, I wonder how many of us would be out throwing stones if we were being denied electricity, food, shelter, safety, human rights, medical care and more. I also wouldn’t want to live under threat of missile attack in Israel (although the response to these attacks with Hellfire missiles and Apache attack helicopters makes you wonder why the Palestinians do it).

Anyway what I’m trying to say is that if Israel were found to be complicit in 9-11, then they should be punished to the full extent of the law, regardless of their religious or racial makeup.

Now I want to address a couple of your points quickly because I think they are a little misleading. You say: -

[quote post="3838"]‘when did you last see landing gear with an almost perfectly circular profile?’ What, is he saying that the hole should have been landing gear shaped? Fuck me, now he wants the same physical world as the Roadrunner and the Coyote! Give me strength…[/quote]

No I don’t want Wil E Coyote shapes Paul, but an almost perfect circle? Give me a break!

You also say: -

[quote post="3838"]And how’s that classic one about removing ‘6 tons of titanium and steel’ from the building? Maybe, just maybe, Ashley, many of the big parts changed to small parts after slamming into the building at high speed? And did the engines disintegrate? Whaddya reckon, 350mph into a concrete-reinforced building….er, yes? [/quote]

Paul, the engines of a plane are huge solid lumps of titanium and steel, they have to survive huge amounts of torque and other forces. If you think that the landing gear could make it through to the ‘c’ ring then you should also expect these huge lumps of very solid metal (wow that sounds like the description of landing gear doesn’t it), to make it as far if not further. So I did agree that it was reasonable to say the landing gear made the hole in the ‘c’ ring, I then pointed out that it was also reasonable to ask where the engines went if that was true. This does not say I don’t agree that the landing gear could have made the hole, it just points out that the theory makes me ask about the engines. Is that not reasonable?

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]So, according to Ashley, not only did the authors of the NIST not do their job properly, they also altered the testing and results to achieve a desired result. Just Me and 3 year old Moron are of the same ilk…mention NIST to disprove one of their idiotic theories and they’ll splutter in reply ‘why would anyone believe THEM?’……except when THEY need it in support of THEIR theories. Hmm, what was that about inconstancy? [/quote]

No Paul I was pointing out your inconsistency, you have been banging on ‘have you read NIST, have you read NIST’ but ignored the fact that the head of NIST said WTC7 was due to fires alone (I don’t believe that theory for one New York minute, that’s not what I was trying to say!). You say we ‘pick and choose’ from NIST (I don’t, I just don’t give their efforts much creedance at all), but then you go on and pick and choose from NIST yourself. Do you not see this?

I don’t give much weight to NIST from the critical analysis I’ve read aqbout it. They DID try and use real world models initially, but they couldn’t get them to behave in a manner consistent with their theory. They didn’t think ‘well maybe we’re wrong if we can’t reproduce this behaviour in the real world’, they moved in to the realm of computer simulation and proved it theoretically. I could code a program to tell you that if you applied a blowtorch to a penguin it would turn in to an elk, would you believe that program Paul? You wouldn’t be able to prove that theory in the real world either!

Regarding the 3 hours notice of WTC7 coming down, I would guess that probably filtered down from this ‘spooky’ seismic engineer. I am not so stupid to think that if someone gave 5 hours notice then 3 hours notice isn’t within this time frame. I just don’t understand how a building could be making ‘seismic’ movements from fires and just what knowledege the engineer used to predict the collapse, given that I have never heard of a seismic engineer taking measurements of building fires (I have however heard of seismic engineers being used during controlled demolitions so as to prove the demolition was within certain tolerances so other buildings faults could not be blamed on the demolitions company).

The way 9/11 and to a lesser extent 7/7 have been used to push anything and everything through that the US and UK governments deem necessary in their ‘War on (of?) Terror’ means that these events *HAVE* to be what they say they are, if there is any doubt it needs to be investigated. If we are going to be living in a land of Stasi ID papers, electronic surveillance (warantless?), email/internet/phone call databases, stop and search, 42 day detention and whatever they think will help next, I want to be damn sure it’s for the reasons they say it is!

Regarding the paranoia Paul, just because they say you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you (I’m sure someone is putting something in my food to make me paranoid ;)

Excellent post Ashley.

Paul may attempt to taint my message declaring it 'Truther Nut' backslapping or some such. It's just objective, open, honest and questioning .. an individual mind!

Totally off-topic:

I'm in/from the UK (for those that didn't realise already but be aware my partner is a US citizen in the military and a resident of NYC until recently) and was called tonight by NatCen (National Centre for Social Research). This is a completely random selection of UK residents as are the questions posed. I did not request the interview nor was I oblidged to participate.

Long story short my interviewer was Iranian. I asked as he had an accent. He immediatley stated how terrible the Iranian Government are .. I took this as a defensive mechanism (more related to his ethnicity/religion than any question about government) as where I stay if you are not white you are shite. I replied with "and we have Bush & Blair now Brown". Iranians have just as much right to do whatever they fuckin' please [no harm no foul] as we the "holier than thou" Christians. Imagine an Iranian Muslim working primarily for the NHS (post Glasgow Airport and I live 3 mins from GLA and the RAH where those Doctors practised) knocking on your door for NatCen! That's why I love the UK! We have not lost ALL common sense .. thank fuck!!

Also why I love the internet. I can debate and discuss issues that I do not have the opportunity to discuss with the "shallow fuckwits" I deal with each day! That's just the job I'm in right now not a sweeping judgement of the Scottish people.

We discussed religion, God, abortion, homosexuality etc after I had completed the required criteria. Just an interaction of minds. We didn't agree on all points but we accepted each others beliefs by debate but without argument.

Quote:

Mick Meaney

Posted: Jul 29th, 2008 at 12:38 am

All the information is out there if you’re willing to look. I’m not wasting any more of my time with 9/11 conspiracy theories – it’s only serving as a distraction from real issues.

End Quote.

I don't do Conspiracy theories, only science FACT and or Hypothesis.

FACT

The only new evidence which claims the WTC was a gravity collapse was published recently by Dr Kieth Steffen of Cambridge University.

In his work he concluded the twin towers were a gravity collapse caused by fires & jet crash damage which symmetrically weakened the structure and he then demonstrated mathematically a collapse due to gravity.

One small problem.

To obtain a collapse within 12 seconds he had to remove ALL cross bracing, and he had to assume the destruction of each and every column was perfect and simultaneous on each floor.

Now, along comes a team of 2 Physicists and a Radio Engineer from Physical Systems Lancaster England, and guess what?

These guys point out there are countless images of a toppling top section.

The jet crash and fire damage were NOT symmetrical in either 1 & 2 wtc .

The probability of asymmetrical fire damage causing a symmetrical collapse was over 1.0^20 to 1.

But this happened twice.

So after pointing out the asymmetrical fire and jet damage, and pointing out the lack of pancaked floors, and the fact the Dr Kieth Seffen paper defied the laws of Gravity; Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of energy – that paper was politely debunked in full.

Now, the reason why M M does not wish to direct anyone to the so called evidence is because it has all been proved to be total and absolute Hogwash and unscientific.

But that is just my personal opinion.

"V" you mention about aspartame in soft drinks – but it's not used in ALL soft drinks, but most commonly in diet drinks.

As far as fluoride in water goes, there are many countries that do not put fluoride in their water. Also, 90% of UK water does not have fluoride added.

Additionally, as you are so keen on the 'science' I'm sure you are aware that there has not been enough research to actually prove that fluoride effects the liver.

Re Fluoride in water:

The USA is about 75% Fluoridated water. The UK about 10% but the UK government is on a program to increase it ASAP.

Most of Europe has banned it, but, "Working" in Cumbria has Fluoridated water.

Re proof of Fluoride liver and kidney & Brain damage, contact PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES: Dr. Vyvyan Howard who has spent 30 years looking at how Fluoride in water is a toxin unfit for human consumption.

Kidneys and Liver are top of the Fluoride hit list followed by the Brain.

If you have any questions about Fluoride I am sure the Prof will be delighted to assist.

Is Fluoride Safe – Yes it's perfectly safe for you to drink.

"I am realistic enough to think that the truth lies somewhere between us" Ashley

No mate, it's not. That's the problem. And, no matter how many 'anomalies' you find, no matter how many questions you lot ask, no matter how suspicious somethings appear, there is a phalanx of experts who can explain why these 'anomalies' are either not anomalies, or are, but are harmless (i.e. nothing to do with controlled demolition, etc). And by experts, I mean the Real Deal, not nutjobs like

Gage, Stephen Jones, etc.

And another thing. Get off your backside. Don't just expect other people to answer your question, go answer them yourself. Make the effort, and do the work. You asked me where the jet engines were in the Pentagon crash. Fuck me, I don't know, so YOU go and find out. Read the reports, write to the people involved, get active.

Just Me:

The same old 'we're all the same' bullshit as ever. You know, 'let's just talk about this like reasonable adults' crap…

You're not a reasonable adult, Just Me, when you're being a troofer. As a parent, friend or workmate, I'm sure you're as reasonable as everyone else, but Reason does not exist in the troofer part of your brain, and that's the bit you have on show here, and the bit to which I reply.

And (Ashley, your attention, please), adults can take a personal insult like water off a duck's back. They give like back, or simply ignore the insults and continue on, pressing forward with facts and reality. You two can do neither. All you have is mistrust, and mistrust breeds questions of 'but what if…'.

And the name-calling….geez, you're like a couple of kids, always whining to the moderator, 'he's calling us names, he's calling us names…" He's not your dad, you spineless wonders, deal with it. And, while we're on about name-calling, you two hypocrites go visit the people you condemn as liars or sloppy in their work and say what you think; the pilots, air traffic controllers, firefighters, those in NORAD, the engineers and all those who took part in the NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

Go, on, get off your backsides and visit them, tell them what you really think….but we all know they 'aint gonna happen, any more than you will allow Reason to enter the troofer part of your brains. And another thing, I'll bet their relies will be a damn sight more abusive and angry than mine.

You lot sure do make good slaves

Your latest alias suits you – a 'tit'!

Anyway, 2 quick questions…how do I contact Dr. Vyvyan Howard and whereabouts is Working in Cumbria…Google maps can't find it and nor can the Cumbrian Tourist Board!

Paul

You say that every single anomaly has been answered by someone who is 'the real deal'. I dispute this, I think that a lot of the debunking is attempted by people who are out of their depth (your good self being a point in question). You say: -

[quote post="3838"]And guess what – he wants ME to go searching through the records to answer them! Me! Not him, it’s gotta be me! And this is a guy answers my questions with a yes….but no…and what about?[/quote]

How can you say that you know that every single anomaly about 9/11 has been answered by someone who is 'the real deal', but in the next breath say that you would have to 'go searching through the records'. I don't think any one person in the world could have all of the knowledge regarding the events of 9/11 and even if that person did exist, your name would not be at the top of my list!

To prove your point regarding the debunking of any and all questions, please provide answers (with sources) to the 8 direct questions I've asked you on many occasions. If you know that any and all questions have been answered, then I defer to your obvious knowledge and merely ask you to prove it.

You claim to have read the NIST report and you say: -

[quote post="3838"]But now, dear reader, how pleased I am that Ashley used the NIST report re the fire damage to WTC7. Okay, I accept their standing on it, but here’s a question I’d really, really like Ashley to reply: why doesn’t he support their other claims, i.e. how about their claim for no evidence of controlled demolition, or even of the collapse itself, etc?[/quote]

NIST actually said that they 'did not consider a controlled demolition hypothesis' for a number of reasons. Looking at their reasons for not doing this is intriguing. They say: -

[quote]NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors. [/quote]

Basicaly this says it wasn't controlled demolition because the top fell first after a period of time! Ummmm OK, but what if the charges were detonated from the top first to make it look like it was 'natural'?

This also doesn't account for them not looking at controlled demolition hypotheses for WTC7 as that collapsed from the bottom (but of course we must believe that random chaotic office fires collapsed that building totally and completely at near free fall speed).

Paul I despair of you, I really do. I find it so sad that someone can be so lacking in logical faculties to even spot one thing wrong with the events of 9/11.

Hey Ashley,

Quote:

Paul I despair of you, I really do. I find it so sad that someone can be so lacking in logical faculties to even spot one thing wrong with the events of 9/11.

End quote.

He can't help it. Don't be so hard on him, we all know 911 & 7/7 were just as our loyal and faithful governments have spoken.

RINF & the governemtn are perfectly correct, the governemt is always correct, and I support the governmnet 100% and so does paul W.

We are like clones, we think like clones and dare I say it we even have the same Elvis outfits.

What, me have aliasis (')(')?

Quote

(,)(’),you still haven’t told me how to contact Dr. Vyvyan Howard as you advised.

End quote

try

http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1052

Now an international expert on the link between environmental hazards and cancer, Vyvyan Howard strongly urges caution (the Precautionary Principle) in matters such as GM food crop trials and water fluoridation.

He runs the Scientific Advisory Group of the Cancer Education Prevention Society and is President-Elect of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE). He had the ear of Margot Wallstrom, Vice-President of the European Commission during the formulation of REACH – a much tighter policy for the licensing of new and existing chemicals – 30,000 of which are now going to have to be re-registered because they were permitted after less rigorous testing many years ago.

How about this video t oget the message across how great our faithful and beloved government is and how right RINF is for supporting tehm in their rightful 911 conspiricy theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDx5C_6Rf24&fe…

Now I am not saying I am correct as I don't have two GCSEs to rub together and I am a total complete and utter FRAUD.

The Governemnt is always correct and I want t ostress taht point.

Aspartame is kicking in again!

What Alians? I don't believe um (says one 23 Chromosone pair Genetically modified earthing to the other)

Try

http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1052

But please don't think I know what I am talking about because I don't have two GCSEs to rub together and I am a complete fraud.

My real job is in Mc Donalds and they let me clean the loos, but only part time and even then I have to have a supervisor watching.

What time is it?

Its "let it Rock time" folks – so turn up your vollume and Enjoy this total nonsence and utter piffle.

Remember "Fluride is Good for you and your children" OBAY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDx5C_6Rf24&eu…

Mr H – He was a good Fluride NAZI, and he had wonderful teath.

I always brush at least 5 times a day and yes, I do swallow – and so should you too – swall every thing this governemtn says because they are our great leaders and they know best.

Paul

Last one in your direction until you've had a chance to reply. As I mentioned above, you appear to claim that any and all questions re:9/11 have been answered by people who you claim are 'the real deal'. I'm just wondering how that fits in with the following quote from one of your posts: -

[quote post="3838"]You asked me where the jet engines were in the Pentagon crash. Fuck me, I don’t know, so YOU go and find out. Read the reports, write to the people involved, get active. [/quote]

Now I assume it is reasonable for me to ask where two six ton lumps of metal disappeared to. You say you don't know. How can you *know* that any and all questions about 9/11 have been answered, but not know what happened to these engines. Perhaps someone out their in the debunking community has an explaination for their disappearance, but if you admit you don't know where the engines are, then you admit that you don't *know* if that question has even been answered (let alone by someone who is 'the real deal'). Therefore your statement that 'all questions about 9/11 have been answered' is based on an assumption rather than cold hard facts. That's not very scientific paul is it?

Forget the 8 direct questions, I just want an answer to one question from you (I've given up trying to get 8), think you can manage it? Here it is: -

Given that in the video where Osama bin Laden supposedly claims responsibility for the attacks the following are true: -

Osama is seen to be wearing a gold ring and a gold/gold plated watch, very strange given that Muslim men are forbidden by their faith to wear gold.

Osama writes a note with his right hand when the FBI website says he is left handed.

Osama looks very unlike any recent picture of him, his nose is the wrong shape, his face is too 'chubby' and his beard is the wrong colour.

Do you think that it is Osama bin Laden in the video?

That's it, that's the one question I'd like you to answer. I'm not asking you to prove any laws of physics. There are no complex mathematical calculations. Just a simple 'is he or isn't he'. I could have been mean and given you an impossible question to answer (like name one steel framed modern skyscraper that has totally collapsed due to fire damage) but all I am asking is for your opinion on the identity of the man in the tape.

?*?

Ashley come in Ashley are you still a Conspiricy NUT?

You are just not a Patriot if you ask too many questions.

Remember to OBAY and do as the government says because they have our best intrests at heart – and always have.

You should look at the latest research, then you would not question the offical Cobblers/// I Mean, Question our great leaders.

OOOOO it looks like Im in the dog house again.

I keep changing.

Try this Louise, it is a webpage given out on 29th.

Start Quote

( ' ) ( ' ) ?

Posted: Jul 29th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Aspartame is kicking in again!

What Alians? I don’t believe um (says one 23 Chromosone pair Genetically modified earthing to the other)

Try

http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1052

But please don’t think I know what I am talking about because I don’t have two GCSEs to rub together and I am a complete fraud.

My real job is in Mc Donalds and they let me clean the loos, but only part time and even then I have to have a supervisor watching.

What time is it?

Its “let it Rock time” folks – so turn up your vollume and Enjoy this total nonsence and utter piffle.

Remember “Fluride is Good for you and your children” OBAY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDx5C_6Rf24&eu…

Mr H – He was a good Fluride NAZI, and he had wonderful teath.

I always brush at least 5 times a day and yes, I do swallow – and so should you too – swall every thing this governemtn says because they are our great leaders and they know best.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

End Quote.

Now remember, I only work at Mc Donalds and sometimes they let me wash up so ignore what I said earlier its all lies. And remember to keep telling me off for swapping pasona because its wrong to do it and it would be wrong to have any artistic freedome.

Louise try this post for the info ( ' ) ( ' ) ?
Posted: Jul 29th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

wait a minute and Il get it for you – here it is. enjoy.

( ' ) ( ' ) ?
Posted: Jul 29th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Aspartame is kicking in again!

What Alians? I don’t believe um (says one 23 Chromosone pair Genetically modified earthing to the other)

Try
http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1052

But please don’t think I know what I am talking about because I don’t have two GCSEs to rub together and I am a complete fraud.

My real job is in Mc Donalds and they let me clean the loos, but only part time and even then I have to have a supervisor watching.

What time is it?

Its “let it Rock time” folks – so turn up your vollume and Enjoy this total nonsence and utter piffle.

Remember “Fluride is Good for you and your children” OBAY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDx5C_6Rf24&eu…

Mr H – He was a good Fluride NAZI, and he had wonderful teath.

I always brush at least 5 times a day and yes, I do swallow – and so should you too – swall every thing this governemtn says because they are our great leaders and they know best.
Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

[quote post="3838"]I’m not wasting any more of my time with 9/11 conspiracy theories – it’s only serving as a distraction from real issues.[/quote]

Excellent point.

Dennis Kucinich 7-25-2008 Informal Impeachment Hearing.

"Meanwhile, staffers of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee have reportedly told witnesses that Kucinich's informal impeachment hearing this Friday may be under threat of dismissal before it is even underway."

No REALLY! Can we ask why *rollseyes*

YouTube linky (sorry no time to find any media coverage) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koljbhYvuVY

[quote post="3838"]You know, ‘let’s just talk about this like reasonable adults’ crap…[/quote]

That would be ideal but obviously you lack those skills. I will not resort to insults .. (woops) .. gimme a shout when you have some pubes child.

Hi Louise,

I noticed you could not find the link that you requested 2 times.

Here it is because I noticed it posted at least 2 times

Try
http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1052

Good luck with your research.

And How is the school helper job going, are you going to get some GCSEs and then A levels and then a degree and eventually become a graduate?

What subject do you study? and do you think you could do with brushing up on your research skills because John Blacker is well known for fighting the Nazis for the past 20 years and if you go and take the time to look in the Rochdale Observer archive you will see his efforts going back over 20 years.

Hi Again Louise,

I also found these links which seem to show how John Blacker has made some progress in exposing NAZIs through RINF.COM.

Apparently he is a contributer to RINF on a regualr basis and sends in items which confirm his good credentials.

Here is some of the Proof:

http://rinf.com/alt-news/sicence-technology/new-p…

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/st911-scientis…

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/911-truth-we%E…

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/what-is-in…

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/cambridge-univ…

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/expert-blows-t…

also he can be contacted directly at

johnandrewblacker@hotmail.co.uk

and as far as I know he is more than willing to discus Evidence relating to 911 from whatever hypothesis.

The Dr Kieth Seffen paper totally debunked. LOL

The constant loading at the start of the deformation has been neglected on the basis that it is a small contribution to the deformation, yet it was the longest timescale involved.

Is it any wonder the paper is totally ludicrous?

To quote a trivial example of such a deformation, a plastic shopping bag becomes taut for most loads, but when the load gets too large, it does not snap immediately. It creeps for a while under that constant load, before giving way to a large deformation (After the creeping has happened the load required to cause this large deformation is smaller than that required to cause the creeping itself), and eventually snapping. In this case, Seffen's P* corresponds to the AVERAGE load required to cause the large deformation AFTER creeping has happened.

In other words, if you try loading the plastic bag with P* while it is UNdamaged (i.e. before creeping), then you will NOT get the large deformation! This sort of argument applies to objects in tension, compression, and buckling. It is true for EACH floor of the WTC.

Can we really make the false assumption that P* is the same for every floor?

Absolutely NOT! Period! It is much larger for the lower floors than for the upper ones. I also bet that he has fiddled the value of P*, because basically his fall acceleration is proportional to (mg-P*)

The Seffen analysis is based on the columns being a hollow box construction. What about cross bracing?

The Seffen paper claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire.

Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature?

The analysis relies very heavily on an assumption of no mass-loss from the WTC during the fall. Yet, the videos and images clearly show that heavy girders were laterally ejected (Not to mention the loss of 300,000 tonnes of concrete and other stuff)? When an impacted floor begins to fall, it does not go from zero to free-fall speed instantaneously! There is a delay while it accelerates up to that speed. This transition region WILL make a significant difference and that point alone shows the paper is fundamentally flawed.

Last, but not least, Dr Seffen admits toward the end that the analysis is simplified, yet he makes the claim that free-fall speed is possible, without making any attempt whatsoever to say how these neglected assumptions are likely to affect the result.

In other words, he has absolutely no right to make his ludicrous claims.

Now Sir, what are you going to do to correct this ludicrous paper and protect the reputation of British Universities in particular Cambridge University – and when?

Kind Regards

J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England)

The End

Pehapse the term, "By Cretins For Cretins" is a little harsh.

Pehapse it should be "By the ill informed for the Uneducated & rather dim"?

I liked the post:

Dr Kieth Seffen Debunked

Posted: Jul 30th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

It surely does debunk the official govenment nonsence.

And I too agree with the first post – this is a Cretin's guide to 911, By Cretins – For Cretins.

And I would add, all those who agree with the criminal goverment are liars – and that includes the idiot paul W.

Paul

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]I post here to denounce your beliefs[/quote]

and

[quote post="3838"]to give others reading this a pointer in the right direction. [/quote]

and

[quote post="3838"]you’re wrong.[/quote]

and

[quote post="3838"]9-11 was an inside job, is nonsense.[/quote]

and

[quote post="3838"]This is not a debatable point[/quote]

and

[quote post="3838"]End of story.[/quote]

Now all of these positions of not listening to others points of view, condeming others beliefs, 'denouncing' beliefs (this particular one has religious overtones doesn't it?) refusing to enter debate etc, is this not symptomatic of the cult like behaviour we as troofers should be exhibiting?

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]3,000 people died in a horrific terrorist act, and you’re more concerned that I call you a fuckwit…go figure.[/quote]

I am interested how you manage to come to this conclusion. I have spent thousands more words in this thread on the events of 9/11 as compared to the inconsequential insults from you. I am just trying to get across to you that most accepted debating techniques do not involve personal insults. If you want to carry on doing it then please yourself, it just makes you look a bit silly.

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]Yes, there are anomalies, and yes, not all have been answered, but the

main concention, that 9-11 was an inside job, is nonsense. [/quote]

I am amazed at the lack of scientific thought displayed in this statement. What you say is that you don't know all of the answers, in fact you go as far as saying that not all anomalies have even been answered. You then go on to tell us that even though all of the questions have not been answered, a conspiracy is out of the question. How can you possibly reach a conclusion without all of the facts? Wouldn't that at the very least discredit your conclusion somewhat?

Your stance doesn't make sense, it's like me refusing to open my eyes in the morning and claiming I know exactly what the weather is like before I looked (I might even be right but it's not very scentific, it is more akin to guessing). If all of the questions haven't been answered then how can you come to any conclusions? How can you tell us a new inquiry is not necessary if the previous one left unanswered questions?

Please could you answer the one direct question I asked you about whether you believe it was bin Laden in the video where he alledgedly claimed responsibility. Just so you know the consequences of answering this question either positively or negatively I will outline them below.

If you agree it was bin Laden then you are refusing to critically examine the available evidence. If you disagree that it was bin Laden then you agree that there was at least one conspiracy regarding 9/11. I think you already know the consequences of answering this question and that is why you have avoided it yet again!

You say:-

[quote post="3838"]“Where do you get off calling professional people like Richard Gage and Steven Jones nutjobs?”

Ashley

I rest my case.[/quote]

Not content with insulting people on this thread, you take a swipe at 2 professional people who've been brave enough to stand up for what they believe (might I also add that other than the controversies, from some quarters, surrounding their thoughts on 9/11 these people are respected in their fields). Whether you agree with them or not paul, they have the courage of their convictions and deserve better than random insults off random people!

“Now all of these positions of not listening to others points of view, condeming others beliefs, ‘denouncing’ beliefs (this particular one has religious overtones doesn’t it?) refusing to enter debate etc, is this not symptomatic of the cult like behaviour we as troofers should be exhibiting?”

Jebus, Ashley….it is simply astonishing how your troofer mindset can twist and distort things, make the most idiotic observations from it, and then finish off with dip shit questions.

You troofers do it with EVERYTHING. Firefighrters hear bangs an pops during a fire, and during the collapse of a 110 story building, and you says its explosions due to controlled demolition. Some guy described the plane that slammed into the Pentagoon ‘like a missile’, so you say there was no plane, it WAS a missile, and melted metal seen at Ground Zero you call melted steel. And from all these insane twists and turns of reality, you questions.

Ashley, for the contemplation of your simple troofer mindset, here is the reality: I HAVE listened to the other points…but I found them wanting and disagree with them, I DO condemn other beliefs…if I do not believe them, and I do not refuse to enter debate, the proof of which is me here answering yet another of your idiotic posts. And by the way, I answered more of your dip shit questions than you deserve.

Listen mate, I’ve wasted enough time with you. Your posts display far more stupidity that I could ever create with an insult. You’re not worth the effort, so stick with your beliefs, I don’t care anymore, it’s your loss. I have better things to do.

As for Bin Laden, the answer to ‘will the real Bin Ladin stand up’ was answered by a number of the debunking sites. Cannot remember exactly, but I’d suggest starting with sscrewloosechange.blogspot and 911myths. If they don’t have it, one of the links will.

But we both know that’s not gonna happen, eh?

To finish, here’s some of those questions I once sent and which you fobbed off as ‘muddying the waters’…

What is the relevance in mentioning spherical particles of iron? And please, try and have reports/details supporting your belief and not just a repletion of the question….in other words, reports that detail it as an anomaly.
Could you please forward me the reports YOU have read that disagree with the inquiry?
Do you believe terrorist organizations have attacked Western countries before, and do you believe they would do 9-11 if they had the opportunity?
The steel-framed section of the Madrid building DID collapse. In light of this, are you disagreeing with those troofers who use the Madrid fire as an example that steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire?
Surely construction IS very relevant in a building fire?
Does the concern of firefighters that the buildings might collapse be an indication that, even though no large steel-framed building has collapsed due to fire, that one COULD collapse?
Why is it ‘arrogant’ to post details that support my arguments?
Are you saying that I should I NOT post material from these sites?
Do you want details or just links?
Do you believe the FAA testing for a commercial pilots license is NOT proof that Hani could fly the planes?
Can you publish any proof of this or can you explain further this opinion?
The only reference to him (Hani) being a ‘terrible’ was on February. 24, 2000, well over ONE YEAR before 9-11. Did you know this?
If you did, why did you not reveal this?
If you did not, what did you do to find out if it was correct? \
Do you believe the comments (you posted) accurately represents his ability as a pilot on 9-11?
Did you know that Hani continued training (after your quote of him being a terrible pilot)?
“There’s no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” Why did you not include this in your quote?
After reading all the above comments, do you still believe the comment about him being ‘terrible’ is an indication of his flying ability on 9-11, i.e. he was not good enough?
If you do, on what basis do you make this decision?
If the tapes did not show anything of the Pentagon or the plane impact, why do you believe it would be worthwhile?
Is it an opinion or fact that the Pentagon is the most ‘surveilled’ building in the world?
What proof do you have of this?
Does this observation – that the plane was being flown dangerously – support the argument that one of the hijackers, a crappy but adequate pilot, was at the controls?
When have I ‘debunked physics’?
Re the orange molten metal; first you ask a question, and then tell me how I should answer, i.e. not mention aluminum? Is this because all the independent research suggests it was aluminum?
In your opinion, what is the material seen flowing from the towers?
Can you publish the details for your belief that aluminum would ‘vapourise’ before it reached that colour?
How many ‘squibs’ did you count in the collapse of the Towers and WTC7?
Did the ‘squibs’ continue all the way to the ground, as in a professional controlled demolition?
Did you hear a clear and deafening boom, boom, boom observable with a controlled demolition on any video or recording?
Will you link or publish these videos or recordings?
“it was very heavily damaged,”… “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’…..”there was a huge gaping hole and it (fire) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it”…. “the damage indicated that it was severe”…”severely damaged”…”the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” Re these comments, what do you believe was the condition of WTC7 before the collapse?
Also, do you believe the observed condition of the building could have contributed to its collapse?
Do you have alternative eyewitness accounts of the building’s condition?
Please explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy) and how it ‘would mean it would have fallen over rather than in to itself.’
Is it not true to say that “premonition’ WAS reasonable considering the above comments?
Does not the observation that “the building’s integrity was in serious doubt” indicate this ‘premonition’ was reasonable.
Do you believe ALL the main media concerns, including reporters and camera operators, were reading from a pre-arranged script?
It was feared the Madrid and Caracas buildings could collapse. Does this not indicate that collapse of the steel-framed buildings was possible?
If you disagree, on what do your base this belief?
Can you please tell me the number of large, multi-story fires encountered in skyscrapers?
Can you tell me how many were the ‘tube’ design of the Towers?
Can you tell me how many other steel-framed skyscrapers have been impact by large planes at high speed?
Can you tell me how many of the fires were left burning uncontrolled?
Can you tell me how many of the buildings were 110 stories high?
Can you tell me how many buildings have had had large, multi-floor fires that were left to burn, were impacted by a plane at high speed, were at or near 110 stories high, and were of a ‘tube’ design?
Can you explain why it is ‘not reasonable’ that if they already knew it (WTC7) was probably going to collapse, due to structural damage, at 2pm, then the collapse three hours later was not a surprise?
Is it not also unreasonable to assume that the media was also told?
On what evidence do you believe the fires (in the debris piles) would be ‘oxygen starved’?
Survivors pulled out of the debris commented on the fierce fires raging around them under the pile. Is this not poof that oxygen was available and fires existed?
If not, on what evidence do you base this?
Do you have evidence that it was NOT chaos for the ATC on 9-11?
Do you have evidence the ATC knew the planes were off course but did nothing about it?
Do you have evidence it WAS routine to intercept planes?
I believe patents have been taken out for cutter charges made from Thermate/Thermite. Can you tell me how this proves Thermite was used?
Also, does it mean that any patient taken out always means it is used?
Do you know of any patents or cutter charges and if these cutter charges have been used?
Please provide evidence that the American military uses Thermate.
Also, what is the American military’s views on Thermate use on 9-11?
Is their evidence that the military used Thermate on 9-11?
If Thermite/Thermate is a red herring, why did you mention it before, and in previous posts?
The Thermite/Thermate question was proposed by troofer Stephen Jones and has been used throughout the troofer argument as ‘proof’ that explosives were used. Are you now saying that this is untrue?
What is your concern with the Thermite/Thermate question?
As for cutter charges, what proof do you have ‘cutter charges’ were used on 9-11?
Are you saying that even if the experts considered there was no evidence, they SHOULD have investigated it?
Do you believe investigating a subject the experts thought was not relevant is a worthy use of taxpayers money?
Do you have any other ideas for an investigation on a subject that did not show any evidence?
Can you please tell the readers how many other buildings were considered at the point of collapse on 9-11, and how many were eventually pulled down using cables, due to the damage caused by the collapse of the Towers?
Do you have other examples of large buildings demolished by the top-down process?
Why does it sound ‘far too regular’ to be written off as random explosions’?
On what evidence do you base this observation?

Paul,

Its very good to know you are reading "An Excellent Story".

The problem is the official version of the science of 911 simply does not add up.

I really do wish it did add up, but remember the Pentagon paying journalists to write propaganda? NO? Well, if anyone tells you there were 500 miles of girders at the bottom of the pile just after 911, then they are pulling your leg.

Take a look at the images paul, were was the two lots of 300,000 tonnes of concrete? (600,000 tones inn total) Were was the 200,000 tonnes of steel? (End to end 500 miles in length)

We were told the material was in the basements, but there are other images showning the basements to be partially empty. Even if the basements were full up we should have seen two mounds 10 stories high.

Were did all of the material go paul if it was a gravity collapse.

Paul, you can not put your brakes on a car and expect to go faster by doing so?

NO.

Breaked on the car will slow down and eventually stop.

If the destruction was making dust it was not using that energy to accelerate.

Yet both towers came down close to freefall speed.

Air resistance alone would cost between 2 and 5 seconds, the towers fell in under 10 seconds.

As the towers came down the air has to go somewhere, there would have been a bellows effect hence slowing the decent.

In addition the lower material would have created even greater resistence slowing the building decent by 10s of seconds.

Yet both came to ground in under 10 seconds.

How is this even possible with gravity collapse?

IT IS NOT!

Controlled Demolition is the only way paul.

And Demolition means one thing – Inside JOB!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-44418509…

Video Dr. Vyvyan Howard Speaks:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Hope this helps explain how toxic fluride in water is.

Hello, dear readers. Yup, another cut and paste job from me, you lucky, lucky things. This one’s from 911myths, so thanks to them. It has a few images, so really needs you to go to it but I’ve kept the bulk of the text and notified where the images are.

Ashley has been banging away about Bin Laden for quite some time now, and I honestly couldn’t be bothered answering his useless questions anymore. Anyway, I glanced at the 911myths site and found the following.

It took me about a minute…take it away, 911myths:

BACKGROUND:
In December 2001 the US released a video claimed to be of bin Laden, talking about the 9/11 attacks. CNN would later report that “bin Laden brags in Arabic that he knew about them beforehand and says the destruction went beyond his hopes. He says the attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly.’”. The same article said “[t]he Bush administration hopes the tape will convince skeptics, particularly in the Muslim and Arab worlds, of bin Laden’s complicity in the attacks”, and offered some evidence of its initial success:
Raghida Dergham of the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat said the tape is “a strong piece of evidence.” “It’s not going to convince everyone. You will always have some skeptics out there. But it will strengthen the view of those who have thought all along that bin Laden and al Qaeda had been involved,” Dergham said. “I think that the level of denial will decrease.”

You can view a low resolution version of the tape below, as the first option in the Videos section.

It didn’t take long for people to start saying this tape was a fake, though, and not just a few individuals on conspiracy message boards, either. Journalist Robert Fisk: “Who is this guy on the right pictured in the CIA released video pretending to be Bin Laden? Any fool with eyes can see they are not the same person.”

Others soon followed suit, often using the same image from the US tape as a comparison, and generally taking the line that it’s utterly impossible that the video could be of bin Laden. 911Research said “Osama bin Laden would need morphing super-powers to be the man in the confession video”, for instance; Prison Planet stated “the man in the video looks nothing like Bin Laden”, and message board and blog comments were harsher still: “You literally have to be blind not to see that the man in the video is not Bin Laden.”.

Further arguments appeared. The man in the video wore a gold ring, for example, while the real bin Laden did not. He writes with his right hand, but the FBI say bin Laden is left-handed. It’s an obvious fake, we’re told. But is that really true?

FURTHER IMAGES:
The image used by Fisk regularly appears elsewhere to discredit the tape, however it’s worth bearing in mind that this comes from a very low resolution, 4 frames-per-second RealMedia file. It’s extremely poor quality, and there are other stills available.

(Reader, here follows a series of images I cannot repoduce here. In them, in only one image does BL appear ‘fat’. In the others, he appears his usual size/weight.)

Does this bin Laden really look so “fat”? We’d say not, and further clues appeared with the release of a high-resolution video clip in an exhibit to the Moussaoui trial (see it in full in the Videos section below).

This image, for instance, looks like the one used to create the “fatty bin Laden” picture used by Fisk and others. (readers; picture of BL) Yet this one is from the very same clip: (reader: another picture)

Crop the face from that clip, then place it top left with three accepted bin Laden images (we’ve resized and mirrored a couple of these but otherwise left them untouched) and you get something like this: (reader: another picture)

The photos are taken from slightly different angles, the resolution and lighting is worst in the video shot, but this is no longer a “fat” bin Laden: if anything, the video image looks thinner than the others. But otherwise it bears a much stronger resemblance to the other shots, and requires far more effort to dismiss.

Another clue appears in the full video, when bin Laden arrives. Reports on his height vary – anything from “just over 6 feet” to “6 feet six inches” – but it’s generally accepted that he’s tall. And sure enough, we can see the confession video man duck before passing through a doorway:
(reader: another picture)

And these aren’t the only reasons to consider that this video may be genuine.

GUESTS:
The “confession” video contains other figures of interest, beyond bin Laden. This frame seems to show al Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Ghaith, for instance: (reader: another image)

Here he is in an al Qaeda video and another image, for comparison:(reader: another image)

Then there’s al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, in the tape and an al Qaeda video:(reader: another image)

And Khaled al-Harbi, a Saudi national and associate of bin Laden (tape image from the left, news shot to the right). He surrendered to the Saudi authorities in 2004 as part of a month-long offer of “leniency to terrorist suspects”.(reader: another image)

Are these also “imposters”? We’ve seen no reason to believe that. But if they’re not, then why appear in a video with a fake bin Laden? One possible explanation is proposed by Cooperative Research, who suggest this might be one of the doubles known to have been used by bin Laden. But perhaps a simpler explanation is that the video is genuine, and everyone in it is exactly as they seem.

OTHER ARGUMENTS:
The “fake bin Laden” accusations were originally supported with other arguments about a ring he was seen to be wearing, and the fact that the video shows bin Laden writing with his right hand, while the FBI say he’s left-handed. These claims aren’t convincing and so have largely disappeared, but for completeness we’ll mention them here.

At one time What Really Happened made the following argument, for instance:(reader: another image)

Osama ‘E’ wears a ring on his right hand which does not appear on other confirmed photos of Osama (e.g. Osama ‘B’). Another man is seen wearing a large gold ring in the video. Since the wearing of gold rings is forbidden by Islam it shows neither he nor Osama ‘E’ has any devotion to this faith.

It sounds convincing, but only if you assume the author actually checked other “confirmed photos” to look for such a ring. We found one very quickly:(reader: another image)

This looks like another part of the same video, although the story associated with it was published much later.(reader: another image)

(And these images are interesting in themselves. Doesn’t the first look to have a longer, thinner face then the second? Are we to believe one of these is also a fake?)

This video was taken only weeks after the “confession” video. bin Ladin wears a ring in both videos, and to our knowledge no-one is saying these images aren’t of bin Ladin. The confession video ring may therefore act as a minor confirmation that it’s the same guy, by matching this additional characteristic.

As for the “gold ring” business, we’d make a couple of points.

First, how does anyone know that the ring was made of gold? The video is in no way high enough quality to determine that.

And second, what is this supposed to prove, anyway? We’re also told that suicide and the killing on innocent people is forbidden by Islam, yet bin Ladin and his supporters appear not to share the same views. If they do see no problem with killing thousands of people on 9/11, then is it really inconceivable that they’ll also have their own opinions on jewelery?

The left/right-handed issue is no more convincing. It’s certainly true that photos indicate he uses a gun in a left-handed way, but that need not apply to everything else. In the Arab world, in particular, the left hand is seen as dirty:

Part of the reason for the distaste of the left hand has to do with the sanitary habits of early man and of the Arab world. As the right hand is biologically our dominant hand, the left hand was used to clean ourselves after defecation. As such, food is not handled with the left hand, it is an offence to offer to shake someone’s hand with your left hand. In the Arab world when text (representing God) was holy, it could not be touched with the left hand…

It’s entirely possible that bin Laden may have learned to write with his right hand, then, while using his left for other things. And this is supported by other footage showing him writing right-handed.(reader: another image)

Even if that wasn’t the case, there’s still another possibility, that some injury made Bin Laden prefer to write right-handed. There’s no sign of that in the confession tape, but other reports from the time do talk of him favouring his right, and speculating that there may be some medical cause:”Osama bin Ladin’ health appears to deteriorate with each new videotape broadcast. The December videotape clearly shows bin Ladin with a whiter beard and a gaunt face. Significantly, bin Ladin, who is left-handed, does not move his left hand or his left side in the 34-minute video.”

Videotapes showing the left-handed Osama bin Ladin gesturing with his right hand led some viewers to believe that his left arm was injure

Specialists have tried to explain why bin Ladin stopped videotaping himself. “He seemed possibly injured on his left side in the last videotape,” Matthew Levitt, a former F.B.I. anti-terrorism specialist, told me. Others have noted that, although bin Ladin is left-handed, in his last video he perched his Kalashnikov rifle next to his right side. He also failed to gesticulate as much as he usually did when he spoke. In the past, when bin Laden was ill he avoided being photographed, evidently careful never to project a weakened image.

This doesn’t prove anything, obviously. But given that we have both a video clip apparently of bin Ladin writing with his right hand, and a possible reason why he may not be able to use his left, the right-handedness of the confession video bin Ladin doesn’t seem of any great significance. If anything, it supports its authenticity by matching up with previous footage.

PAL-NTSC CONVERSION:
These arguments aren’t enough for everyone. How can that initial image look so different, they wonder? One theory comes from a surprising direction, Ed Haas of Muckraker Report, who had previously believed the confession video was a fake.

Haas suggests that the initial video was shot in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and so used the PAL video standard, with a resolution of 720 x 576. This would later need to be converted into NTSC, with a resolution of 720 x 480. He points out that this could be done using a “linear interpolation PAL to NTSC conversion method”, essentially eliminating every fifth line from the PAL video, but this would of course change the aspect ratio of the image and give everyone slightly fatter faces.

Could this be correct? It’s an interesting idea. We’re not 100% convinced, as al Zawahiri, Suleiman Abu Ghaith and others don’t appear particularly different to usual, but then they do get much less coverage in the video so it’s hard to say for sure. The possibility of some aspect ratio issue can’t be ruled out, though, perhaps when the video was resized to add subtitles. It’s something else to consider.

BRUCE LAWRENCE:
In 2007 the following story appeared on many 9/11-related sites: Top U.S. Bin Laden Expert: Confession Video “Bogus”
Was Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11?

The Bush Administration says yes, citing a grainy, badly-edited videotape that surfaced in December, 2001. In that tape, a fat guy who vaguely resembles Bin Laden chortles about the success of the 9/11 attacks. (In earlier interviews, Bin Laden had denied responsibility for 9/11, once even deploring the loss of civilian life in the attacks and calling them un-Islamic.)

Is the famous “confession video” genuine? Despite Bush’s insistence that the tape is authentic, America’s top academic Bin Laden expert has finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts. “It’s bogus,” says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program.

Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration’s lie in an interview with Kevin Barrett (“Dynamic Duo,” gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007, first hour). The interview marked Lawrence’s first major public statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.

Why has the Bush Administration been lying for more than five years by telling us that this preposterously bad hoax is a genuine “confession video”? Lawrence, citing informants in the US intelligence apparatus’s Bin Laden units, said they all know the tape is fake, adding that the hoax has been kept alive because it is politically useful to those who wish to deflect attention from “conspiracy theories” about 9/11.”

Professor Lawrence didn’t respond to an email asking for more details, however there are a few points about this story that you might like to keep in mind.

We’re not entirely sure why Lawrence is referred to here as “Top U.S. Bin Laden Expert”, other than to try and make the story more convincing. We’ve not seen anyone else make that claim about him. And while he edited a book of bin Laden’s speeches, the cover, author biography and introduction make no mention of any special expertise on the man.

The introduction to Lawrence’s “Messages to the World” does contain other useful comments, though:
…Three years later, al Qaeda activists hijacked four planes in the United States and in suicide missions destroyed the World Trade Center, and severely damaged the Pentagon, killing 3,000 people, most of them Americans. It was not until 2004 that bin Laden publicly acknowledged his role in planning and organizing the attacks of 9/11 (Statement 23), but from the start few doubted that he was the author of this epochal act of terrorism. The Bush Administration’s response was not long in coming…

When he wrote this book Professor Lawrence seemed in no doubt that al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, then. And his book actually includes the October 2004 bin Laden statement that Lawrence says claims “direct responsibility for 9/11″, with lines like “as I looked at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the oppressor in kind by destroying towers in America, so that it would have a taste of its own medicine. and would be prevented from killing our women and children.”

If Lawrence believes that al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks, then, and that a legitimate 2004 bin Laden statement claimed responsibility for this, then his comments on the 2001 video don’t seem nearly as significant as the original story made out.

FINAL THOUGHTS:
Beyond the analyses, we think the idea of the tape being faked raises other questions, for which there are a distinct lack of answers.

Many of the same sites who tell us this tape is a fake, for instance, also point out that bin Ladin denied being involved with 9/11 soon after the attacks. If this is true then it suggests bin Ladin is a real, live person, out there somewhere, not doing the bidding of the US Government. In which case why has he, or some other al Qaeda spokesman, not pointed out that this tape is a fake?

But even if it could be established beyond doubt that the man in the video were not bin Laden, that’s still a very long way from showing that “9/11 was an inside job”. What if he were one of bin Laden’s doubles, for instance, but otherwise expressing the views of bin Laden and al Qaeda?

Certainly, despite the widespread assumption, there’s not a jot of evidence to say that America were behind the tape, and some indications that they weren’t. One of these is commonly referred to on 9/11 sites as an inaccurate translation of the tapes: “The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it. ”

Very interesting, but hardly support for faking, at least not by the US Government. Because if they organised the filming, why wouldn’t they have the participants saying exactly what they wanted? Why the need to play around with translations later?

The reality is that there are plenty of people who say the video is genuine, and not just in the Bush administration. Here’s a conversation between Al Jazeera London bureau chief Yosri Fouda and TBS Publisher and Senior Editor S. Abdallah Schleifer:

SAS: …there was the much earlier amateurishly filmed video tape that the American government says they found in Afghanistan… in which a militant Saudi sheikh, visiting with Bin Ladin leads Bin Ladin into an acknowledgement that it was Al-Qa’ida operatives known only to him and a few others, who staged the operation and Bin Ladin re-enacts his great joy when the operation succeeded well beyond his expectations. My intuition as a journalist told me when I watched the tape on CNN that it was authentic and that it was Bin Ladin but my intuition also told me that the Sheikh was an intelligence agent, probably for the Americans and the their taped conversation a sting operation. A few days later a respectable British newspaper confirmed it was a sting but they said it was set up by Saudi intelligence. And certainly the former head of Saudi intelligence has made it clear in no uncertain terms that 9/11 was an Al-Qa’ida operation. Now despite all of this and other documentation, so many Arabs were in a state of denial and many are still in a state of denial, insisting that Al-Qa’ida or any Arabs for that matter could not have had anything to do with this operation, that this was a Mossad or CIA operation.

YF: …Until I got to meet Ramzi and Khalid there was a lot of doubt as to the possibility that that tape might have been fabricated. But I got it on videotape from one of the other people from Al-Qa’ida who were there at the apartment that the tape was legitimate. I asked him whether that tape was genuine and he said it was. And in the end when I went back I put that Saudi Sheikh’s video tape with Bin Ladin on and listened to it for four or five times, and certain bits and pieces that Bin Ladin said on that tape fit in very nicely with what Ramzi and Khalid had said to me. You know like the first time that they knew of the zero hour.
SAS: I understand what you are saying and I’ve been convinced of that tape’s authenticity since the beginning. And your experience just confirms it.”

It’s also worth remembering that this is just one of the tapes in which bin Laden or al Qaeda either explicitly or implicitly accept responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. And as we’ve seen, even some of those saying the “confession tape” is bogus seem to believe other claims of responsibility are legitimate, therefore without more concrete evidence it’s hard to see how this issue will ever prove anything at all.

Paul, have you any idea how many nuts confess to things they have not done?

Could anyone bring the twin towers down in under 10 seconds?

NO, its not physically possible; using Jets, bombs and gravity.

Only timed controlled demolition can drop buildings at neer freefall through the path of most resistance.

Paul, the tower can not fall through itself no matter how many Muslim terrorists were involved.

The official version of the Pentagon attack was blown out of the water in 2006 – check this out:-

THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS
Seven Hours in September: The Clocks that Broke the Lie
by Barbara Honegger, M.S.
Sept. 6, 2006
http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=158

No Paul W, as the physics clearly shows, Ashley is not paranoid or a conspiricy nut – he is bang on the money.

It is you who is the TRAITOR to your country paul W.

Are you being paid to be a traitor? Or do you do it for FREE?

Welcome to the tormented, paranoid world of a truther named Ashley. It’s not a place you want to be. I have tried. I’m not perfect, but I did make an effort to allay his fears about the New World Order and such, but he’s a lost cause. He was more interested in me calling him a fuckwit than reality. Thankfully, his truther ‘cause’ is also lost, and good riddance.

Lately, the man has banged on about the ‘fake’ Bin Laden and his ‘gold’ ring, yet when I finally bothered to answer his idiotic questions he had nothing to fall back on but denial and, quite frankly, his usual illogical mindset.

The poor bastard has it bad, and the effect is immediate. He starts of his reply thus: “As I expected, you are unable to come to your own conclusion about the tape, and quote 911myths (again). I feel like I’m talking to the 911myths website rather than another human being.”

Apparently, Ashley has issues if I use information from other sources, such as 911myths. He believes my using information from this site is me ‘unable to come to my own conclusion’. You really have to wonder what he’s on. So, okay pea-brain, let me make this absolutely clear: my conclusion of your Bin Laden imposter/gold ring/left or right hand ‘anomaly’ is that it’s complete garbage, and the proof can be found at 911myths, which I provided for you and others to read. Is that clear enough?

What does it say about his thought process (and that of truthers) when he criticizes me for using a source of information to back up my beliefs? And, if you remember, this is the same guy who demanded ‘proof’ of my claims when we first began to correspond….

Maybe he wants me to be like him and other deadhead truthers, those who simply talk off the top of my head without any real proof, but tons of what ifs and maybes, exactly like the other idiot truthers who blog here? Actually, this is a return to the ‘links or information’ whine he so often complained about. I asked him a few times which he wanted, just the links or the info, but he never replied.

Maybe he wants me to not just use 911myths? Okay then, I’ll use screwloosechange.blogspot, Internet Detectives, Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, 11 Settembre (Italian blog by Henry62), 911 Debunker, Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse…there’s quite a few, actually.
So what do you want, Ashley? Links or info? One site or other sites?

This is the one question never answered by Ashley, and I never expected one. Like many truthers, you never get a definite answer from Ashley as this is the slippery slope to THEM actually having to debate a specific point and THEM having to do their own research, both the horror or horrors for a truther. All they want is lots of questions, lots of what ifs and maybes.

Anyway, back to his reply. After that opening he continues to ignore the issue (surprise, surprise) an instead bellows a heap of questions (surprise, surprise) about the site: “You quote 911myths as some kind of authority but there are no details of who runs the site, what their qualifications are, whether they are experts in anything, in fact the website says itself that they are not an authority (but you use them as if they are).”

Phew…did ya get all that? Does the word ‘paranoid’ spring to mind? And while we’re at it, how about denial and evading the issue? He does get there by the way, eventually, and sort of, but before I get to that, think about this – he asked all those questions about the site, yet 911myths has a separate page describing who has done it, why he did it, and even an email address to contact him!

But then again, that’s the way to find out the reality, and maybe that’s not the main issue with a truther. From Ashley’s replies, and other truthers on this blog, I would appear the main issue seems not to be facts but the what ifs, the maybes and the questions.

And check out the paranoid rave that follows that above questions about the site: “they could even be disinformation, you’ll claim this as the paranoid ramblings of a conspiracy nut, but don’t be so naive as to think that the intelligence communities don’t do this.”
Reader, all I have mentioned so far was in the FIRST paragraph! Think about that. First the bizarre concerns about using the 911myths site as proof to answer his questions, then the concerns about the site itself, then concerns about disinformation and the intelligence communities. All in the FIRST paragraph. It speaks volumes to his mindset. As I said, it’s not a good place to be.
Ashley, you may not have know it, but you also answered your own question – yes, you ARE a conspiracy nut, and yes, it IS paranoid ramblings. But, I think you already know that, don’t you?

And get this – he then reckons I’m naïve because 911myths could be a set-up by the spooks. Yes, Ashley, it could be all that, and more…let’s think about this for a moment: if 911 was an inside job, and the site is part of the conspiracy, then they could have easily got all your internet details the moment you opened their page. They could even now be looking at all your emails, even…even…looking at YOU if you have a web cam. It’s true, your webcam CAN be turned on and off without you knowing! I suggest putting some tape over it, and just to make sure, wear a tin foil hat to stop the mind-reading waves from the CIA/Illuminati/NWO satellites roaming above.

You might scoff at that, Ashley, but don’t be so naive as to think that the intelligence communities don’t do this….

Finally, he eventually addresses the issue of the fake/real bin laden and makes some concession to reality, but note how quickly he then jumps off: “I concede the problems with the gold ring and watch but I’m not buying the rest of their arguments. They show some other images from the tape saying that they look more like bin Laden and give some crappy excuse about lighting making him look chubby.”

Unbelievable. To answer this illogical nonsense, they don’t just SAY it, you dimwit, they SHOW it. You can see with your own fucking eyes. What 911myths is pointing out, and which you seem to have totally missed/ignored/evaded is that those truthers who originally brought this ‘anomaly’ to light used ONE still from a poor quality video, the one in which bin laden looks different, and used it without any explanation about the others, in which he does look like himself. In other words, typical of the lying, misquoting, unscrupulous con-artists who litter the truther movement, they unashamedly took it completely out of context, as per usual. This method is, in fact, standard truther ‘research’, and why, when one takes a closer look at their ‘facts’ and ‘anomaly’s’, one quickly finds the lies and distortions.

And get a load of this comment: “the crux of their argument is that they have found some images in the video that look a bit more like bin Laden than the famous one. As far as I’m concerned if you take a picture of someone it will at least have a passing resemblance to the person in question, something the ‘famous’ picture does not!”

Note the use of words, and the logic involved. Like most (all?) truthers, he’s not good on the detail. Yes mate, a good, quality PICTURE will generally have a passing resemblance, but certainly not ONE STILL from a LOW RESOLUTION VIDEO. Ashley, we’re not talking of a large format, high-quality image, you dingbat, we are talking of one still from a low quality video. Jesus wept, what is it about that you don’t understand? And sorry, but you’re also wrong about the rest: sometimes photos have no resemblance to the person in question, i.e. a crap photo. I hate to shatter another illusion you may have, but you know those hot-looking babes you see on the posters? Well, I know from personal experience that they are often very, very different in real life. Try and get these facts into your understanding: one still from a low quality video. Any surprise that it may not exactly look like him?

The bizarreness continues with yet another Ashley truther classic: “They then go on to suggest that bin Laden uses his right hand because it is what Muslims should do. So the bin Laden who is happy to wear gold (contrary to Islamic law) conforms on the usage of the right hand. I have to say I’m a bit confused here, is bin Laden conforming to Islamic law and Muslim tradition or not? Or is he conforming when you want him to and not conforming when it suits you?”

It’s like debating a child: did you note the confusion? Basically Ashley, they were suggesting that maybe bin laden is not the squeaky clean Muslim many truthers think he is. That’s why he might not give a flying shit about the ‘gold’ ring, and why he might not give a flying shit about the mass slaughter of innocents on 9-11. Maybe, just maybe, this indicates he’s not exactly a devout Muslim? Maybe, Ashley, he’s like those Christians who are happy to go to church but cheer when the ‘anti-Christ’ Muslims are bombed? And by the way, Ashley, as 911myths points out and which you conveniently did not answer, how the living fuck do you know the ring is gold? Where is YOUR proof on that?

Ashley goes on and on, but honestly, I’m far too bored debating, but get how the dingbat finishes: “It is not bin Laden in that video paul and no amount of flowery language is going to change that.”

There you go. Ashley and the truthers in a nutshell. This ‘fake bin laden’ has been ignored by most truthers for ages, as it was debunked so long ago, and 911myths and others have pointed out the unscrupulous manner on which the thing was based, but good old Ashley ‘aint gonna stop believing. What else can one say but what a jerk. And in typical truther fashion, he finishes with yet another paranoid rave: “Just out of interest have you seen the claims of Seymour Hersch that Dick Cheney recently suggested making some boats that look Iranian, putting Navy Seals on them and then using them to attack American ships in the Strait of Hormuz? Of course they wouldn’t contemplate a false flag operation to further their own agenda, that’s just outrageous conspiracy theories……”

This is another truther feature; finish a reply with a question about trust. Hmm, trust. This is a big one for truthers. Check out the replies from the other truthers on this page and see how many end this way, with a throw-away question about trust. They all do it, and I think it’s the basis of the tuther mindset.

To answer this, if I can, is he saying that because I disagree 9-11 was an inside job, that I therefore believe Dick Cheney and others within the US government would never do anything underhand….er….words fail me, to be honest. However, I will happily ask Ashley why he used Seymour Hersch? Haven’t you opinions of your own, mate?

When the Farmer's wife Farts, does she fly off at 100 mph through the roof and land in the field?

When the car crashes at 100 mph into a stationary car, does it not get damaged?

When you set fire to steel does it ever melt or weaken using jet fuel and office furniture? No, its absolutely absurd!

Does a steel fraimed building come down in its footprint at almost freefall speed. NO, its absolutely not possible!

If you chopped a tree would you ever expect the top bit to crush through the lower trunk at almost freefall speed turning the lower trunk to sawdust on the way down? NO its absolutely ridiculouse!

WELL – the official 911 STory is as likely as the Farmer's wife FARTING and flying off through the roof at 100 mph!

IT STINKS!!!!!

Paul I did look through the site but unfortunately didn’t stumble on the information about who writes it. I have read quite a few articles on there and it is so biased it makes inforwars look balanced lol.

Have a look at this page: – http://www.911myths.com/html/7_7_exercise_probabilities.html where he tries to tell us that the Visor consultants coincidence with the 7/7 bombings is reasonable. It is absolutely hilarious, he jumps to so many conclusions without the slightest shred of evidence he makes himself look like a fool (and you are buying all of this).

For instance he says: -

In terms of date, the calculation mentions that the stations are open 364 days a year, and assumes each day is equally likely to be hit. Wrong again. At a minimum, they would hit working days only (that’s 260 in a year). If Thursdays are a particular favourite (as with Madrid) then that’s reduced to 1 in 52.

I can agree with his thoughts on them only attacking on a working day, but Thursdays being a particular favourite? Do what? Because 7/7 was a Thursday and Madrid happened on a Thursday, all terrorists have a preference for bombing people on Thursdays? He then goes on to use 1 in 52 rather than 1 in 260 in his calculations, as if this terrorist/Thursday link is now proven!

He also says: -

In terms of location, they mention that there are 274 Underground stations, and assume that each are likely to be hit. There’s no reason to believe this is true. Many of these stations are far outside Central London, and bombs there wouldn’t cause nearly as much disruption. It makes far more sense to hit Central London stations only, and for multiple terrorists working together from a single starting point, this greatly reduces the figure. We’d say 30 to 50 stations is far more realistic.

My personal opinion is that this is a very conservative figure, note also that in his calculations he uses 30 rather than 50. I’s love to know who the ‘we’ is he mentions above (as in ‘We’d say 30 to 50 stations is far more realistic.’). Does he have helpers with his theories, or is this a royal ‘we’ (delusions of grandeur?)

He also says: -

In terms of time, the calculation mentions that each station is open for 19 hours, therefore the chance of an attack within a particular 1 hour block is 1/19. This is also implausible. Terrorists want to cause the maximum disruption and casualties, which means striking in the morning rush hour between 8 and 9am. They did this in Madrid, it’s the obvious thing to do in London.

Last time I was in London there wasn’t really a rush ‘hour’, the tube was packed from about 7am through to 10am and the evening rush ‘hour’ was a similar period of time. He goes on to use a 1 in 1 figure for his calculations. Now terrorists don’t just only attack on Thursdays but between the hours of 8am and 9am on Thursdays.

He then finishes up with: -

Of course some will argue with our assumptions. Maybe it’s not 30 stations, they might say — you should say 40, 50, 60 or more. But that’s not the point. What we’re trying to say is the original 1 in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 probability figure is a gross distortion. The reality is very different, and the chances of these two events coinciding certainly aren’t so high as to prove conspiracy.

All the way through the piece he says that he is taking a conservative stance, using conservative figures (when he mentions a range he invariably takes the lower figure), but in the final paragraph he says ‘The reality is very different, and the chances of these two events coinciding certainly aren’t so high as to prove conspiracy’. I agree that the stupidly big figure is a gross distortion but I would say that his calculations do EXACTLY the same thing but towards the other pole.

I would be interested to know what ‘Mike’ thinks a probability figure threshold for ‘proof of conspiracy’ would be. I think that the coincidences are hugely unlikely (to say the very least) but even the original 1 in billions of billions were realistic that still wouldn’t constitute proof to me. What it would do is suggest that at the very least Peter Power should have been quizzed about the coincidences, should have been made to release the name of the company he was working for, rather than completely ignore it! This is something that is not even mentioned, the fact that Peter Power hasn’t been questioned and the company is still not in the public light. This is the real argument, not how many freakin 000′s should be on the end of the probability calculation.

Paul you are looking at these sites for confirmation of your own theories (something that I can see that I do, but at least I realise it). If you look at your sites through the lens that you are currently using you will only come to one conclusion. I am open minded enough to concede that many of the anomolies of 9/11 may very well be innocuous. You are so close minded about the events that you have gone so far as to claim in this thread that the official reports answered any and all questions and no further investigation is required.

WTC7 is the smoking gun, if you really think that chaotic random fires could have a perfectly uniform effect, there really is no point talking to you any further. It insults my intelligence when people try and feed me that, I am not for one minute saying you are a shill or disinfo agent, I just think that either a lack of intelligence or a pre-conceived belief stops you from seeing what is right in front of your eyes. Please don’t give me your pity Paul, I think you would do better to direct it towards yourself mate.

Quote Ashley:

WTC7 is the smoking gun, if you really think that chaotic random fires could have a perfectly uniform effect, there really is no point talking to you any further. It insults my intelligence when people try and feed me that, I am not for one minute saying you are a shill or disinfo agent, I just think that either a lack of intelligence or a pre-conceived belief stops you from seeing what is right in front of your eyes. Please don’t give me your pity Paul, I think you would do better to direct it towards yourself mate.

End Quote

Well, that is exactly what this Paul W is doing, he is insulting everybodie's Inteligence.

On 3 occasions on the same day, 3 separate buildings with Asymetrical damage "collapesed" Symetrically through the path of most resistance at almost freefall speed.

This defies ALL laws of Physics and is clearly TREASON!!!!

Yes Paul, NIST have discovered a new phenomenon and they have called it 'fire'. Their computer models look more like computer animations to a trained eye. They have stayed in the world of theory and computer models to avoid further embarrasment. I could write a computer program that could 'prove' that WTC7 collapsed due to someone leaving their computer on overnight, would you believe that too? Popular mechanics is a good place to put this report as they have been shown to be clueless as well.

NIST say that 'thermal expansion' caused a 'progressive collapse', only a clueless idiot would believe that the collpase of WTC7 could be attributed to a 'progressive collapse'. WTC7 did not progressively collapse, it collapsed completely and totally at all points at the same time, there's nothing progressive about that!

Here's a good quote: -

The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings

Hahahaaaa it is acknowledged by NIST in the report on the other 2 towers that ordinary building furnishings would only provide fuel for about 20 minutes in each area. Given that there was no 'huge impact' of a plane to remove the fireproofing from the steel, what we are supposed to believe is that normal office fires with a relatively low burning temperature adversely affected the steel frame to an extent where it just completely collapsed at next to free fall speed.

I would dearly love to know how thermite/thermate could not have been used to bring down WTC7 as it could not be relied to cut the columns within the required timeframe according to Mark Loizeaux, but normal office fires can do it.

Given that steel is a *very* good conductor of heat, that the temperatures were not very high (as compared to the heat resistance of steel), that they had no accellerant other than office furniture, that the fires could have burnt for no more than 20 minutes in any particular location and the fireproofing was intact, how exactly did this 'thermal expansion' (a completely new phenomenon according to NIST) lead to the 'progressive collapse' (read total immediate collapse like the rug being pulled from under it).

I find it absolutely hilarious you have the bare faced cheek to come back here and post this absolute cobblers. FFS paul WAKE UP!

I challenge anyone on Earth to have an ANY self supporting object have its top 1/4 crash through its bottom 3/4 (path of most resistance).

You can use Marsh mellow, Ice cream, Concrete, Steel, Bubblegum or even a steel framed Concrete reinforced building.

ITS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Of course you could do it mathematically like Dr Keith Seffen of Cambridge University did by ignoring most of the known physical parameters such as the cross bracing, but any clever idiot could do that.

Indeed, I could model the twin towers floating off into space, but if it defies all of the laws of physics it is clearly total BALDERDASH!

Dr Keith Seffen claims the top part fell through the bottom part and remained undamaged until it had finished its job as a pile driver. He also removed all the cross bracing and ignored the fact steel always bends with plastic deformation.

Then NIST came along and effectively claimed there was no conduction, convection or radiation of heat from the office fires, we are supposed to believe that uneven temperature distribution combined with inefficient conduction along massive steel columns and support girders caused the steel to give instantly in all three buildings – yet even the most stupid knows steel when heated has slow plastic deformation.

Both NIST and Cambridge University are Criminals.

Yes, I know, this has gone waaaaaaaaaaay too far…but first, I’ll reply to Ashley and then make some general observations.

To Ashley: you may not believe this, but I’m genuinely saddened by your comments about the WTC7 report. I was probably expecting too much, but I hoped that maybe, just maybe, reason might finally cause you to reconsider, but you’re far too gone. You seem a decent enough bloke, so I’ll just say you have what I consider an unhealthy dose of paranoia, and should maybe consider asking friends and such for advice.

To the Readers: Somewhere inside Ashley (and this goes for most Truthers) lurks a rational, normal human being. One occasionally gets glimpses of him, but that’s all, a glimpse, and it all comes quickly unstuck. The Truther mindset is a shocking take on reality, one based on the belief that a group of malignant elites are trying to overwhelm us all, but only our hero Truthers can see the truth. The rest of us, apparently, are being hoodwinked on a massive scale, both globally and historically: most of them seem to believe that 9-11 was just one example of many inside-jobs.

That’s why if you scratch the surface of most Truthers you often find yourself on a slippery slope down into JFK, UFO’s, Reptilians, Planet X and so on: conspiracies are everywhere. It’s mostly harmless stuff, apart from a disturbing Anti-Semite factor in 9-11, but so far, that’s only been hinted at here and even that seems to be mostly the question of whether Mossad was involved. Although one has to also point out this is often the opening line of the most fervent Anti-Semites, I think with Ashley it’s just another question.

A fantastic peek into the Truther way of thinking comes from Ashley in a recent post. It’s an absolute rip-snorter; “….your tin-foil hat wouldn’t help you with the new weapons that the US have where they can fire voices in to your head using microwaves, one of the stock psychiatry questions for testing for mental illness is now of debatable worth but lets not let this get in the way of more scourn pouring…”

Phew, did ya get all that? It’s pretty typical. First we have the US firing voices into our heads, then it’s straight into a comment about using psychiatry questions and then it’s another tangent about ‘scourn pouring.’

It’s a hell of a ride, but Truthers are like that. One rarely gets a single, logical line of thought, but a rapid fire of observations and questions from various tangents. These often only have a tenuous link with the main issue, but as far as Truthers are concerned, it seems the important thing is the CONNECTION, and it’s this mad tangle of connections that forms their paranoid, conspiracy-based, connect-the-dots worldview. It’s unbelievably fucking complicated.

As for debating the ‘facts’, it simply doesn’t happen with a Truther as it’s not a debate as we know it, but an image of one, a superficial template that forms a resemblance of debate only. Truthers simply aren’t interested in anything that contradicts their view, so their answers are usually one of changing tack by asking more questions about another topic/s, i.e. firing questions…psychiatry questions…scourn pouring.

For example, in the post from Ashley I quoted above, he first complained that a video of bin Laden wasn’t actually him. I answered the questions he raised, so then he replies by completely ignoring my answer but banging on about the legitimacy of the photos. In his view, because the photos of bin Laden were not ‘high resolution’, they were therefore taken from another source, and so he wanted to know from what source the photos were taken.

So, we have another tangent; the debate is now about the source of the photos. The reality, of course, is unbelievably simple: none of the pictures are ‘high resolution’ but simply the better ones of the poor quality video. In any video, and especially a crap one, you will find some stills are better/clearer than others for a variety of reasons, be it lighting, movement (camera and/or subject) and so on. It’s even how the Truthers started the ‘fake’ bin Laden video, by choosing a shit quality frame in which bin Laden looked fatter.

That one clip from a poor quality video can make anyone look different is a painfully simple concept that most people understand. Maybe even the Truthers do, but simply ignore it? Whatever, Ashley seem to think that because this clip is clearer than the others, then it MUST be from somewhere else.

See how the paranoid/avoiding mindset works? Also, get this: the photos come from the same video, and it’s plainly stated as so in the article. Ashley’s answer is there in black and white, in the original article, yet he completely ignores this. This issue now, in his mind, is the clarity of the photos. So, is this a case of deliberately ignoring the issue, or a genuine inability to understand? I think the former, in that his paranoid mindset has such a strong grip that he has no choice. It reminds me of my father’s first stroke – for some bizarre reason, he was unable to acknowledge anything to his left, so if you told him a door was to his left, he’d automatically turn to the right and not see it, and once turned completely around to finally, and with a shock, face the door.

Even more to the point, most (all?) of their questions are based on inaccuracy. For example, Ashley calls a clearer picture from the video ‘high resolution’. Now, let’s hope he didn’t mean true HD, but is simply using the wrong word, but it’s a wonderful example of how Truthers operate. They simply throw words about without proper recognition of their true meaning, and it doesn’t concern them: to a Truther, it doesn’t matter that he meant a clearer picture but used ‘high definition’ to describe it.

The problem, of course, is that using the wrong words, especially in a technical situation (even one as simple as describing a video still) corrupts any chance of a reasonable debate, as one has to first explain the real meaning of the word, and how it is inappropriate in the context used, and THEN explain the reality of the thing being discussed. Yes, it gets complicated, but Truthers are complicated people.

They do it constantly, asking a series of questions based on the incorrect use of words/or a misnomer. It means a container bursting in a fire is an ‘explosion’; a jet that ‘looked like a missile’ in the way it slammed into the Pentagon is now a missile; a collapse that looked like a controlled demolition is now a controlled demolition…in other words, the bullshit starts right at the beginning, and because their questions are based on an inaccuracy, it also means the question are irrelevant (and they still demand an answer).

Also, the masses of questions they ask. It’s a great way to involve newbies as the list is impressive at first. It’s only when one has a closer look, and a not too deep one at that, in which the major flaws and inconsistencies rampant in their work is revealed. In other words, it all looks and sounds good on the surface, and I think that’s where the Truthers operate, skimming over the facts and reality underneath, like a water skimmer flitting about the surface of a pool. If the newbies are similar they’ve bagged another Truther to the cause.

And get this comment he makes about the man behind the 911myths site: “I would be interested to know what ‘Mike’ thinks a probability figure threshold for ‘proof of conspiracy’ would be.” It’s yet another classic Truther line. There is a simple and easy answer to this is, of course, and that’s for Ashley to email ‘Mike’ and ask himself. But, we all know that ‘aint gonna happen. Ashley knows this too. Why spoil a perfectly good fantasy?
Anyway, for anyone out there still reading this, check out this report on two Truthers, it’ll give you some idea into their paranoia and mindset. If the link does not work, it’s from OCweekly and the article is called ‘Do You Believe a Passenger Jet Hit the Pentagon on 9/11? These Men Say You’ve Been ‘PentaConned!’

http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/1

OK Paul I'll bite one last time. You have created in your latest post an absolute load of cobblers. Indulge me for 10 minutes and I'll prove you the charlatan that you really are (either that or daft as a brush, neither is a nice option I guess ;)

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]To Ashley: you may not believe this, but I’m genuinely saddened by your comments about the WTC7 report. I was probably expecting too much, but I hoped that maybe, just maybe, reason might finally cause you to reconsider, but you’re far too gone. You seem a decent enough bloke, so I’ll just say you have what I consider an unhealthy dose of paranoia, and should maybe consider asking friends and such for advice. [/quote]

There are lots of highly educated people who question this reports findings. You are proposing that I am out of order for not believing the report. You make not one logical point to counter my criticisms of it, you just try and take the moral high ground and affect a false air of superiority.

Save your pity for yourself, you need it far more than me believe me. The WTC7 report is complete rubbish, it's been taken to bits already by various academics, engineers and architects. You will just brand all of these people as 'troofer nuts', thus saving yourself the energy or time to look at their arguments!

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]To the Readers: Somewhere inside Ashley (and this goes for most Truthers) lurks a rational, normal human being. One occasionally gets glimpses of him, but that’s all, a glimpse, and it all comes quickly unstuck. The Truther mindset is a shocking take on reality, one based on the belief that a group of malignant elites are trying to overwhelm us all, but only our hero Truthers can see the truth. The rest of us, apparently, are being hoodwinked on a massive scale, both globally and historically: most of them seem to believe that 9-11 was just one example of many inside-jobs.[/quote]

This is more of you trying to take the high ground from an intelligence POV, I have stated for the record my academic qualifications on this thread, a question you have avoided on many occassions (not that a lack of academic qualifications would bar you from having a point of view, even an idiot is entitled to an opinion ;)

Continued

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]A fantastic peek into the Truther way of thinking comes from Ashley in a recent post. It’s an absolute rip-snorter; “….your tin-foil hat wouldn’t help you with the new weapons that the US have where they can fire voices in to your head using microwaves, one of the stock psychiatry questions for testing for mental illness is now of debatable worth but lets not let this get in the way of more scourn pouring…”

Phew, did ya get all that? It’s pretty typical. First we have the US firing voices into our heads, then it’s straight into a comment about using psychiatry questions and then it’s another tangent about ‘scourn pouring.’[/quote]

I say: -

You are being disingenuous here paul, the comments regarding tinfoil hats were in direct response to your earlier post quote: -

[quote post="3838"]if 911 was an inside job, and the site is part of the conspiracy, then they could have easily got all your internet details the moment you opened their page. They could even now be looking at all your emails, even…even…looking at YOU if you have a web cam. It’s true, your webcam CAN be turned on and off without you knowing! I suggest putting some tape over it, and just to make sure, wear a tin foil hat to stop the mind-reading waves from the CIA/Illuminati/NWO satellites roaming above. [/quote]

In one paragraph you've gone from internet browsing history, to ip address logging, to email snooping, to remote control of webcams, to tinfoil hats, to mind-reading waves, to CIA, to Illuminati, to NWO. I go off on a tangent? Yeah OK paul.

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]It’s a hell of a ride, but Truthers are like that. One rarely gets a single, logical line of thought, but a rapid fire of observations and questions from various tangents. These often only have a tenuous link with the main issue, but as far as Truthers are concerned, it seems the important thing is the CONNECTION, and it’s this mad tangle of connections that forms their paranoid, conspiracy-based, connect-the-dots worldview. It’s unbelievably fucking complicated. [/quote]

More discrediting the messenger, quite funny after your ping-ponging all over the place you say that *I* don't provide a logical line of thought (ever thought that might have something to do with the fact I'm trying to counter an idiot ;)

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]As for debating the ‘facts’, it simply doesn’t happen with a Truther as it’s not a debate as we know it, but an image of one, a superficial template that forms a resemblance of debate only. Truthers simply aren’t interested in anything that contradicts their view, so their answers are usually one of changing tack by asking more questions about another topic/s, i.e. firing questions…psychiatry questions…scourn pouring. [/quote]

More discrediting the messenger, it's getting so pervasive it smacks of desperation. You say we don't really debate, but so far in your latest post, all you've done is insult people and stamp your feet. This is not in the debating manual that I use, it's more like the schoolyard paul (and I mean primary schoolyard before you get ideas above your station).

With regards the 'psychiatry questions', I didn't ask a question, I merely pointed out that the question 'are you hearing voices in your head' is of debatable worth now that voices can be shot in to your head using microwaves. This was a passing comment that was related to your waffle about tinfoil hats. You seem to think that I am using that to prove a 9-11 conspiracy, whereas I thought it an interesting piece of information related to a topic you brought up!

I do have a few more comments for you about your post but it won't let me put them up at the moment. One specific problem I have is you claiming I used the phrase 'high definition'. I'll try and post them tomorrow, I think the system has taken pity on you for the time being ;)

I can not believe both Paul, so who do I believe?

A – THE PHYSICS or B – THE REGIME?

Do I keep my confidence in the laws of Physics, or do I ditch them and believe Mr Bush and his band of Criminals?

Continued

You say: -
[quote post="3838"]Even more to the point, most (all?) of their questions are based on inaccuracy. For example, Ashley calls a clearer picture from the video ‘high resolution’. Now, let’s hope he didn’t mean true HD, but is simply using the wrong word, but it’s a wonderful example of how Truthers operate. They simply throw words about without proper recognition of their true meaning, and it doesn’t concern them: to a Truther, it doesn’t matter that he meant a clearer picture but used ‘high definition’ to describe it.[/quote]
and: -
[quote post="3838"]The problem, of course, is that using the wrong words, especially in a technical situation (even one as simple as describing a video still) corrupts any chance of a reasonable debate, as one has to first explain the real meaning of the word, and how it is inappropriate in the context used, and THEN explain the reality of the thing being discussed. Yes, it gets complicated, but Truthers are complicated people. [/quote]

I called it high resolution in comparison to the obviously lower resolution video. No I didn’t mean HD paul, don’t try and put words in my mouth. As someone who has been a keen devotee of home cinema for over 8 years and involved in video editing for just as long I know what HD means. Do you? Which do you think would provide a better still 1080i HD or PAL (if you’re thinking 1080i HD think again mate). You say we ‘simply throw words around without proper recognition of their true meaning’ and then go on to claim I used the term ‘high definition’ (we’ll call this a mistake because I’m reluctant to call you a liar). You then go on to elaborate on the mistake about me using the term ‘high definition’, being as I never mentioned the term you look a bit of a muppet.

You say: -
[quote post="3838"]They do it constantly, asking a series of questions based on the incorrect use of words/or a misnomer. It means a container bursting in a fire is an ‘explosion’; a jet that ‘looked like a missile’ in the way it slammed into the Pentagon is now a missile; a collapse that looked like a controlled demolition is now a controlled demolition…in other words, the bullshit starts right at the beginning, and because their questions are based on an inaccuracy, it also means the question are irrelevant (and they still demand an answer).[/quote]

Not once have I claimed it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Why are you bringing this up other than to try and discredit me? Why try and associate a fallacious claim with me? If my theories are so wacky about 9-11 you shouldn’t have to bring up theories I don’t believe in and haven’t mentioned. Or are you bringing it up because it is easier to disprove than the complete symmetrical collapse of a steel framed skyscraper from random, asymmetrical, normal office fires? (a la WTC7 and the new and improved NIST report)

You say: -
[quote post="3838"]Also, the masses of questions they ask. It’s a great way to involve newbies as the list is impressive at first. It’s only when one has a closer look, and a not too deep one at that, in which the major flaws and inconsistencies rampant in their work is revealed. In other words, it all looks and sounds good on the surface, and I think that’s where the Truthers operate, skimming over the facts and reality underneath, like a water skimmer flitting about the surface of a pool. If the newbies are similar they’ve bagged another Truther to the cause.[/quote]

paul I think you’ll find that what you are trying to do is bury the fact that WTC7 is the smoking gun of 9-11 by bringing up reptiles, NWO, anti-Semitism, Pentagon missile theories, no plane theory (otherwise known as ‘no brain’ theory), tinfoil hats, official sounding reports (that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on) and various other strawman arguments deliberately to muddy the waters.

I’m not saying you’re a shill or a disinfo agent (sorry but I don’t have you pegged as being bright enough, your methods are too transparent). I think you have some kind of self defence mechanism which is stopping you from questioning authority (have a look at the Milgram and Asch experiments).

You end with: -
[quote post="3838"]And get this comment he makes about the man behind the 911myths site: “I would be interested to know what ‘Mike’ thinks a probability figure threshold for ‘proof of conspiracy’ would be.” It’s yet another classic Truther line. There is a simple and easy answer to this is, of course, and that’s for Ashley to email ‘Mike’ and ask himself. But, we all know that ‘aint gonna happen. Ashley knows this too. Why spoil a perfectly good fantasy?[/quote]

I think you might not have understood me, on 911myths they are trying to prove that the probability is lower than the threshold they have for it ‘proving’ conspiracy. I said even if it was billions of billions to one against that still wouldn’t prove conspiracy to me. What it would do is suggest that the police should have investigated Peter Power and Visor Consultants. Mike is saying that he has a figure in his head that would sway him to the conspiracy camp (I’m guessing it would always be slightly higher than his calculations). I am saying that no matter what the odds I wouldn’t see that as conclusive proof. So in this particular case 911myths is more ‘troofy’ than me.