25th October 2014                                                                                                                                                        
Home / 9/11 Truth / A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

The Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute has just broadcast a  seventeen minute documentary which examines the British Truth Movement. The show includes Paul Stott of 9/11 CultWatch and John White of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The show highlights some of the uglier sides to the British Truth movement – which must not be ignored, including abundant racism, a cult like mentality and the refusal to objectively look at hard facts.

Update: Be sure to bookmark the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute web site as they plan to investigate other myths and theories, which can be heard via their site.

Direct download

  • 3 year old Kid

    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.

  • 3 year old Kid

    Its like this, over 400 Architects and Engineers, myself included – prove the 911 destruction was controlled demolition.

    Here is all the absolute proof

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

  • Sul

    Conspiraloon Alert!

  • Longman

    No really. How many architects, engineers, physics etc have said there's a problem with the "official" story? Not bleedin many. And most of those who have are doing so to further their own agenda. Wise up.

  • paul w

    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.

  • paul w

    "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?"

    It wasn't their job. A report on WTC7 is currently underway and is expected to be released soon (and before you say 'why has it taken so long?' you must remember that, unlike 9-11 truther rubbish, these reports have to be accurate, scientific and professional.)

    "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?"

    That's because the buildings didn't 'disintegrate into dust' and I wouldn't call the remnants of the two Towers 'little piles of rubbish'.

    You do, but then, you're a truther. What has reality got to do with anything?

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

    Have you actually READ the NIST report? Please do.

    "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"

    Er, have you READ the NIST report? Please do.

    (the towers were 'cylinders' that used the inner core columns and outer skin for strength, the floors within suspended between the two, hence the open-plan design of the floors.)

    "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."

    Er, have you READ the NIST report? Please do.

    "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."

    ???????? (no, really, have you READ the NIST report?)

    "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.."

    No, the FLOORS were NOT designed to carry the 60 flo0rs above (read the comments above about the tower design and read the NIST report).

    "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."

    And what, precisely, are there three laws of physics? (the Nobel prize for anyone who can answer this correctly)

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

    Er, gravity without a capital 'g'?

    "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.

    A 'Physics fact' Really?

    "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."

    Phew, glad you cleared that up!

  • Dave D

    911 conspiracies = DEBUNKED

  • Sail

    Great show! How about a part 2?

    Now we have more people speaking AGAINST the truth movement than actually belong to the movement.

  • john

    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

  • http://www.radiophonic.org.uk Neil

    I was responsible for this documentary, so it's nice to see it's provoking a reaction.

    3 Year Old Kid – Nick Pole didn't mention anything about building 7 because we didn't speak to him (whoever he might be). Nick Pope probably didn't mention it because, to be honest, we only had about 15 minutes to speak to him (we spent most of the time we had with him talking about UFOs, his area of expertise.) Neither he nor I are experts when it comes to that sort of thing. His was a good contribution because he talked about looking at Truth Movement evidence alongside evidence put forward that explains the generally accepted narrative. His experience of getting hate mail from Truthers was very interesting, I found.

    I'd be very interested in seeing the evidence you have for precision timed demolition on every third or second floor. Witnesses to these demolitions being set, maybe one of the people who set the demolitions and has since been racked with guilt at the consequences of his actions. If you – or anyone else for that matter – has anything like this, please get in touch and we'll dedicate a whole three hour show to it.

    "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?"

    We didn't mention it because the documentary was only 17 minutes – it's hard to cover a subject as big as 9/11 conspiracy theories in such a short time. Also, we were working on the assumption that the vast majority of listeners weren't really aware of the conspiracy theories, so we had to do it from a standing start, so to speak. Given more time, I'm sure we would have covered things in more detail.

    Also, if you think only three buildings were destroyed at the World Trade Center site that day, you need to do more research.

    Paul W – What was it one of the people in the debate talked about? "Confirmation bias"? He's depressingly right when it comes to the truthers, I've found.

    Sail – we're going to do Cynic's Guides to more things (UFOs, as I mentioned, will be one) but I hope to maybe return to the Truth Movement, or perhaps one on conspiracy theories in general.

  • http://www.radiophonic.org.uk Matthew Revell

    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.

  • http://youtube.com/user/c0intelpr0 c0intelpr0

    WTC 7 – The Truth Exposed

    Debunking the lies and misrepresentations of the so-called 9/11 'Truth' movement regarding World Trade Center Building 7.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=GdpEtOcEmtU

  • Reptor

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    I stand by what I say, it was the Cretins guide to 911.

    A guide By cretins – For Cretins.

    Forget who was flying the jets and lost their passports and bandannas, etc, that is totally irrelevant re the destruction sequence.

    It is not physically possible to have a falling body fall through the path of most resistance. EVER NEVER!!!!!

    And to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed is even more impossible than impossible.

    Just, a minute I am falling over with laughter, hold on.

    Sorry about that, I could not type and laugh at the same time.

    Why are qualified people unwilling to come forward?

    The Physics of 911 is so simple that most people who values their career will NOT touch it – because it is SO Obviously a Controlled Demolition.

    I now need to go and watch cartoons.

    However, for those who want the professional opinion of 400 Architects and Engineers regarding the Controlled Demolitions on 911 go Here:-

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

  • Ashley

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

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

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

    That is – in the absence of controlled demolition.

    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

  • Reptor

    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.

  • Ashley

    Reptor what are you on about? Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked? Where's this? In Wonderland? A lot of the debunking has since been debunked but you fail to mention that in any way, shape or form.

    There are so many unanswered questions it is positively farcical, I guess that's why there are so many people calling for a 'proper' investigation (inside and outside America).

    Do you dispute the idea that western governments have proposed and even carried out false flag operations to further their own agendas? Have a look in to Operation Gladio in Europe and Operation Northwoods in the US.

    It is absolutely amazing that a former Prime Minister of Italy can comment along the lines of 'all the intelligence community knows CIA and Mossad carried out 9-11' and it is all but ignored.

    If you have a look at the video where Osama claims responsibility for the 9-11 attacks watch to see which hand this 'Osama' uses to write with, then visit http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen…. and notice that it says 'Bin Laden is left-handed'. Strange but true, I guess your retort would be that Osama did it on purpose to test our super special agents or some such cobblers.

    If you really think a bloke in a cave with a load of his mates armed with boxcutters can carry out these attacks then I think you need to re-evaluate the evidence.

    I noticed recently that there are proposals to install equipment in planes to allow the use of mobile phones, surely this tech is useless as this was already possible on United 93 nearly 7 years ago. so what gives?

    Like I said the amount of inconsistencies, half-truths and obvious untruths are there for anyone with a willingness to look and a mind open enough to think that governments don't always tell the truth to their citizens.

    For me the one which clinches it is seeing 3 steel framed buildings collapsing in to their own footprints. I am no expert but I do know that even demolitions teams can't guarantee this to happen when they place charges and do it on purpose.

    2 of the 3 buildings were hit by planes, if they had weakened the structure sufficently it would have been on one side of the building along with the fires being concentrated on that side also thus I would expect them to fall over rather than in to themselves (imagine a Jenga tower, flick out a block on one side, start a fire in that space and what would you expect to happen? I bet the last thing you're thinking is a nice neat pile, it would go over to one side).

    Then there's WTC7 (although looking at the Commission's report you'd do well to notice it). The explainaition of this collapse is that it caught on fire from one of the other buildings that collapsed, some diesel tanks caught on fire and alakazzam another nice neat pile. Now as far as I'm concerned steel hardened to withstand 2750F fires for 2 hours collapsing due to avaiation fule fires with a max of 1500F in an hour and a bit is one thing (the majority of the fuel burned off in the fireball when the plane hit the building anyway and there are also pictures of people standing looking out of where the plane hit surely they would have quite literally melted if we are to believe the steel in the towers did), but to believe that diesel which is significantly less combustible could do the same is akin to something from a fairy tale.

    You can believe what you want at the end of the day, everyone has the right to make up their own mind. If you want to swallow what I see as BS then that's up to you and I have no concern for trying to convince you otherwise but please stop trying to fit your blinkers on to everyone else, if the conspiracy theories are so far fetched then people will work it out for themselves without your particular brand of troofiness.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Reptor

    I don't have to prove squat. You're the ones making ridiculous claims, it's up to you to prove yourselves. You tried. You failed. Move on.

    If 911 was an inside job why haven't the media reported on it? Why haven't insurance companies refused to pay up? Why hasn't any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward?

    Please troofers, try to think logically.

  • Ashley

    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?)

  • 3 year old kid

    Thank you for that failure to Debunk the 911 Controlled Demolition Physics Reptor.

    No one is forcing you to do anything old chap.

    We are not your enemy or a hostile or some sort of weird cult, we are 400 + Architects and Engineers including many people who actually design and build steel framed skyscrapers.

    But, if you claim some 400 professional Architects and Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org/ are incorrect, and you can not even give one example of a falling body taking the path of most resistance then you really do not represent any credibility if you can not back up what you are claiming.

    All those questions you mention about why haven’t the media reported on it? Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? Are nothing to do with Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.

    To answer any of those questions would be pure speculation and engaging in conjecture and conspiracy theories.

    We at AE911truth.org only deal with Science and Engineering facts.

    And the important indisputable 911 facts are these:-

    It is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance.

    It is even more physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at almost freefall speed.

    Forget about if bandannas and passports were unburned whilst flying out of a suitcase that itself was totally incinerated. Forget that jet fighters failed to defend the pentagon despite being on guard 24/7. All that sort of stuff is bum fluff.

    Now I will ask you again to either back up what you claim or stop trying to impress about stuff you clearly know very little about.

    As I have said before and I will say again, this particular media diatribe was A 911 guide By cretins – For Cretins.

    And the fact you cannot back up your ridiculous claims does somewhat prove my point.

  • Strug

    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.

  • Fawk Off

    Look at this site http://www.debunking911.com

  • paul w

    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

    When just Dr Steven Jones was speaking out it was "just one expert – that means nothing".

    Then when there were 20 experts speaking out it was "just 20 experts – that means nothing".

    Now there are over 400 experts speaking out and it's "just 400 experts – that means nothing"…

    What's your threshhold for reality denial? How long until you wake up?

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • Booger

    When has your 'professional scientific opinion' undergone peer review?

    Nuff said.

    Btw describing those who do not share your views as 'cretins' is cult logic in action.

  • Ashley

    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 ;)

  • 3 year old kid

    Thank you for that Booger,

    I am quite happy for people to have differing views, and even be wrong , right or indifferent.

    Indeed the whole of science is built on modifying hypotheses and testing them against the available evidence in an iterative process.

    But to claim a group of 400 professional Architects and Engineers are plain wrong, and then not offer any proof to back up the ludicrous claim "IT WAS GRAVITY WOT DONE IT GOVE" – is just not on.

    I ask, IS that the actions of CRETINS or of serious investigation, learning & discovery?

    Is there anything to learn from such pig headed stupidity? Apart from the fact some people are born CRETINS.

    Speaking of which – here is a quote from one chap paul W

    Quote:-

    “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)”

    End quote.

    This individual proves the point perfectly, not even a GCSE Architecture, Physics or Engineering qualification to his name, has never contacted any of the tens of thousands of qualified individuals he claims so speak for – but guess what – he is right and the outspoken 400 + Architects and Engineering professionals at http://www.ae911truth.org/

    ARE WRONG?

    Now I ask – does anybody see a problem with this chap’s logic?

    So here we have yet another opportunity, another volunteer to show us the Physics and the maths which proves it is even physically possible for a body to take the path of most resistance and indeed at near freefall speed too – so Go on Mr paul W – let us have it sir. We can take your TRUTH.

    Show us the Physics and Maths, which proves your hypothesis sir.

    Show us this Physics and Maths supported by your alleged: tens of thousands professionals.

    And if you are unable to do that for whatever reason – just tell us all about one experiment we can do which proves it is physically possible for a body to pass through the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. EVER!

  • Peer Review Please

    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.

  • Ashley

    PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW blah blah blah.

    Which academic journal is going to print it for your required peer review?

    Lecturers are losing their jobs for daring to question the official story, which particular journal do you suggest they look to?

  • OMG!!

    You dismiss a peer review? OMG.

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

  • Ashley

    No I am not dismissing a peer review, what I am asking is what journal is likely to agree to print something that questions the official story when academics are losing their positions for daring to even question it.

    I'm sure a lot of people would love the opportunity to have their thesis reviewed by their peers, unfortunately they have to find someone to print it (or do you think that they write their thesis and post a copy to all their peers for a 'peer review'?)

    At the moment it's like the 'Emporers New Clothes', there are a few brave souls pointing out the naked facts but they are few and far between.

    I think a lot of academics question the official story but after seeing what has happened to their peers when they stood up to be counted they have preferred to voice their concerns off the record.

    I mean I am no scientist and I can see the hallmarks of controlled demolition all over the 3 collapses on 9-11, demolition experts could not have collapsed those buildings in to neater piles if they had tried. I am supposed to believe that 2 towers with asymetrical damage and one that just had a fire in it collapsed in to their own footprints which is something even demolition teams would have struggled to do. Sorry but I'm not buying it, you can if you like but I'm not.

    I also think that on a wider level the problem with most people who look at the evidence and refuse to entertain the idea that the administration either made it happen or let it happen is the 'what if it's true' factor. If the US administration is complicit in any part of this then that would pretty much blow the notion of democracy in America out of the water. I think some people don't want to see what the evidence points to because it is so horrible and the implications are so wide ranging that peoples psyches are protecting them from recognising it.

    Don't think for a minute that Dubya would have any compunction about putting civilians in harms way, he has no scruples and sent an army to war based on false pretexts against someone who was an ally up until he invaded Kuwait (and tried to kill his daddy – oh the humanity). If you have a scout round the web you might even find a picture of Rummy Rumsfeld out in Iraq shaking the hand of the leader of Iraq (and at the time he was using chemical warfare against the Kurds, it's funny how we can point this out as a justification for war now, when it wasn't even enough to stop Rummy cow-towing to him at the time it happened! Oh and the US supplied the raw materials that Saddam used to make his chemical weapons and gas the Kurds! Funny how a lot of this extraneous information gets filtered out isn't it?).

    The world is a very strange and dangerous place and it doesn't really work like they taught you in school. The idea that America and the UK can spread democracy with bullets and cluster bombs and try and force our culture on to other countries which for the most part have a different belief system is dangerous in the extreme. I mean the Disney style fun park planned for the green area in Bahgdad, I feel like I've followed Alice down the rabbit hole.

    Anyway, I digress, I think that the there should be a new inquiry in to 9-11. I mean the 9-11 Commission report started with a belief in the official story and anything that didn't fit with that wasn't disproved, it was simply ignored. I think the US owes it to the 3,000 odd people who died that day and also to the dead soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the countless Afghani and Iraqi civilians killed by a force in its 'War on Terror' that if you believe the official story was as a direct response to the acts of that day (despite the fact that the neo-cons have had their eye on Iraq since before dubya rose to infamy).

    My personal opinion is that it is an affront to the memory of the dead that the US can spend 80 times more money investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal than it did on the 9-11 Commission Report!

    But hey that's just my opinion, you don't have to believe me just have a look at the facts for yourself and make your own mind up (like I did).

  • RINFer

    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
    [email protected]

    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.

  • Rom

    I used to be like you. I used to believe 911 was an inside job. Then I looked at the counter evidence and discovered it wasn't.

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • Ashley

    RINFer

    As mentioned previously NIST started their investigations using real world models, they could not get these models to collapse and had to resort to computer simulations in order to prove their theory.

    Now I KNOW that I could get a team of demolition experts to effect a collapse like that on a real world model, I wouldn't have to resort to theory to prove that the buildings could collapse in an identical manner.

    Now what I am being asked to believe is that chaotic asymetrical damage to the buildings had a uniform effect in dropping these buildings in a fashion that demolition teams would be proud of. Demolition teams to this day cannot guarantee to drop buildings neatly, some of them don't even fall when the charges are blown and cost a fortune to bring down.

    It would probably be flippant of me to suggest that we could do away with all of these specialised demolitions companies and just start fires in the buildings we want to demolish as 3 out of 3 had uniform collapses on 9-11.

    I maintain that a lot of academics in the conspiracy camp would like to get their thesis reviewed by peers but are unable to get them published. Why should this be? I'm sure that if their theories are so easy to shoot down, if the gaping inconsistencies can easily be explained away then journals would jump at the chance to be the one to disprove the conspiracy theorists.

    I could go off to a site that holds the conspiracy POV as you have for the non-conspiracy POV and copy and paste a page of their site to debunk your debunking but what would that serve, you'd just find one to debunk my debunking of your debunking ad infinitum. The only way to bring clarity to this situation is for a full and exhaustive new inquiry that has both the funds and powers required to get to the truth. If there is nothing that has been hidden then this shouldn't be a problem (please don't quote cost as a deciding factor as it certainly isn't in other facets of the so called 'War on Terror')

    At the end of the day I admit that I haven't gone in to much of the detail, but what I have done is use my own eyes, my own thought processes and drawn my own conclusions based on what I can see and my experiences in the real world (rather than one of abstraction).

    I am using my own critical faculties, I mean if I saw a car crash and someone came out of the windscreen I would guess that they weren't wearing their seatbelt and their momentum carried them through the glass. You could provide me with a peer reviewed document that suggested a James Bond style ejector seat could have caused it or that they could have jumped but that wouldn't necessarily make it so, I'm a simple soul and would call it as I saw it.

    When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to 'pull' WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I 'leap' to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions.

  • paul w

    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.

  • paul w

    "When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions."

    Ashley

    Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am

    When I see raving like this, I know Ashley is an idiot.

    Am example: "when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire)"

    That's a WOOD fire, you idiot, a WOOD fire!

    These people are hilarious!

  • paul w

    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

    “When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition,

    No, not 'exact' but similar, the way I play football 'similar' to David Beckham. Go read the NIST report.

    "when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition"

    And what of the demolition experts who disagree? ONE person, is that it? Come on, Ashley. Is that all you have?

    "when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull)"

    Yes, do have a look at what demolition experts mean by pull – it means pull a building down using cables (as was done to the damaged buildings around the towers). "Pull" is never used to indicate a demoliton. Never.

    "when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage"

    Explained by the NIST report (and to be explained by the upcoming WC7 report)

    "when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel"

    The photo taken of the poor woman was well after the impact and the fires had moved on – the fires moved all over the place. Read the NIST report.

    As for 'melting steel', no-one other than troofers talk of melting steel. Read the NIST report. It wasn't hot enough for steel to melt. As for aluminum…

    Ah, that's enough. Look, Ashley, go and study the 9-11 myths and Internet Detectives sites. You sound like a newbie to 9-11, it will help you understand what occurred on 9-11. Check out screwloosechangeblogspot as well. The top section has excellent reports about 9-11.

  • Ashley

    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 :)

  • MaxPane

    Can we please talk about a major problem of the troofer movement, antisemitism.

    The programme raised this in a tacful and respectful way but it's something the troofers don't like to talk about.

    The troofer movement gives antisemites room to spread their ridiculous theories. They must be stopped.

    Lets have it.

  • 3 year old kid

    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!!!!

  • Ashley

    MaxPane

    Could you define antisemitism for us before we talk about it, as sometimes anything remotely critical of Israel is called antisemitism. What do you mean by it?

    As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter that Israel is a Jewish state, it is a sovereign state first and foremost and is responsible for its actions, the racial or religious make up of its population is neither here nor there. If it was, then surely we are being hateful when we talk disparagingly about Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan.

    For instance is the idea that the CIA and Mossad could be in some way related to the 9-11 attacks in order to promote the idea of war with Iraq antisemitic?

    I like what Robert Fisk says he feels like when he talks about Israel, 'it's like trying to ride two bikes at the same time'.

  • Toby

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    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 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 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?

  • 3 year old kid

    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

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

    WOAH!!! Ok, who mentioned the 'relevance' of the Holocaust anyway?? And I think you'll find there is a fairly sizeable group who still do care what happened 60+ years ago. Just ask any Holocaust survivor or families that were affected by it. You're claim there is not only offensive but shocking!

    Anyway, I came here to comment not about that, but felt that needed addressing!

    The interesting thing is that this original article is about a radio programme that aired which discuss the movement….I think we have some more 'evidence' about this group here! (If evidence is the right word here?!)

    Firstly, I thought the radio programme was a fair balance and was very interesting to listen to. Of course 'truthers' are not going to agree with the sentiments of the progamme, after all there is a clue in the name of the documentary!

    Why is it that when people do not agree with this movement, they seem to immediately label people (e.g. 'cretins' on this comment thread) and shoot people down? Why not just discuss it rather than getting all ranty. Reminds me of the more extreme Christian preachers shouting fire and brimstone from the pulpits!

    Also, would be interesting to know if '3 year old kid' and 'Ashley' have read the Commission Report FULLY? Along with any other truthers out there.

    I've heard truthers argue that physicists and other professionals have declared their work on what they felt happened on 9/11, but the thing is,if you are not a physicist, how can verify their findings? Surely this would have to be on a 'trust' foundation. Interesting that a leading figure in the truth movement is Prof. David Ray Giffin – a Theology professor. But he then doesn't seem to talk in regards to his field of expertise.

    Anyway, going back to the original point of all these discussions…..

    Comments made in the radio programme about the conduct of truthers seem to be accurate based on comments made here by a few! Interesting to note that although their comments may be long, they are fewer in numbers.

    I think more of an issue is this issue of conduct of truthers.

  • Ashley

    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

    How do you know the Commission report is a work of fiction if you've never read it? See this is the point of a lot of people are making on this article.

    You jump to conclusions without seeing the whole picture. What makes you think the Commission report is a work of fiction in the first place?

    Surely it's just repeating what somebody else said, which is what most of the truth movement does. It repeats what it heard from second hand or third hand sources to form an uneducated opinion.

    There's a fringe group of scientists who claim it was an inside job but in any industry you have fringe groups who make absurd claims that the majority reject. This is no different.

    The actual science cannot even pass peer review.

  • Ashley

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Thanks for the good points people.

    There was not a Holocaust in World War 2 – Holocaust is not a strong enough word for the total barbaric insidious way fellow human beings were mistreated by hideously criminal NAZI tyrants.

    How can a word which when translated means "Burnt Offerings” accurately depict the sheer evil brutal nature of the NAZI actions?

    Now I know I am getting a little technical. But there – I’m a Holocaust denier because I think the term totally sucks and is utterly inappropriate.

    Its like calling the first world war – THE GREAT WAR – what was so great about it?

    Or,

    There has been a bit of an accident I’m afraid – your family have just been crushed to death by a 10 tonne truck. How would that be a bit of an accident?

    Let us say it how it is – It was a failed attempted DECIMATION of Israelis!

    Is it relevant now?

    Well for many people yes. But remember the Communists murdered 10 million people after the attempted Israeli Decimation.

    So why do we never mention the 10 million murdered by Stalin? Because he was our war buddy and the Nazis were not?

    Its like war crimes, we the allies committed as many if not more war crimes than the Germans did – but you never here of this. Indeed the Allies committed the worst war crimes if you sit down and really think about it.

    What do you suppose deliberately dropping the Atomic bombs on Civilian cities was?

    The Commission report or “Omission report” is unworthy of any of my time. EVER.

    Although I did spend 1 hour flicking through parts of it online.

    Are there any other comic books you want me to read?

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

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Tina

    Hi Ashley and 3 year old kid, thank you for your responses.

    I’d just like to respond to some of the things that you have both said.

    I said “Why is it that when people do not agree with this movement, they seem to immediately label people (e.g. ‘cretins’ on this comment thread) and shoot people down?”….Ashley, you then mentioned that you were called an idiot and a moron but I didn’t address that…let me address this now then…

    What I was meaning was that the first comment on here by 3 yr old kid labelled the article the ‘cretins’ guide. This was the first comment here, hence “they seem to immediately label people (e.g. ‘cretins’ on this comment thread) and shoot people down?” (note the word immediately). I didn’t mean to imply that ALL truthers are like this, but the first comment from a truther showed what some peoples mentality is like. Ashley, you have not called others names when they have called you names, and I’m not saying that this is acceptable. I guess it was just unfortunate that the first person to reply used the word “cretin” several times in their first comment and subsequent ones.

    The Commission Report – Thanks to both Ashley and 3 yr old kid for saying they haven’t read it. However, Ashely you make 2 references to the Report. How can you refer to something you haven’t read or haven’t read in it’s entirety? Sorry if I’m assuming to something incorrectly here, but if you are refering to the report without reading it, aren’t you picking and choosing potentially parts that fit with your beliefs and choosing to ignore other parts?

    Furthermore, The Commisson Report is the governments response into 9/11. If you are opposing the views of the government, isn’t is wise to at least read in full what they are saying…whether or not you agree with it? Surely you have to take on board ALL evidence before you agree or disagree with it? Along with other reports from NIST and FEMA. Again, I want to make it clear that I’m not saying “read it and believe it”, I’m saying read it and be informed! If you disagree with the reports, fine! But how can you disagree with something you haven’t even read?! As 3 year old kid seems to like analogies, heres one of mine! It’s like a person who says “I don’t like cabbage” but they have never eaten it! If they eat it, they will then know if they do or don’t like it.

    Talking about analogies….3 year old kid, you talk about the shopping arriving in less than 10 seconds being physically impossible and then compare this to the WTC buildings coming down. Your analogy of the shopping is PURELY impossible…physically and logically…it could simply NEVER happen with any technology that we have today. Therefore, if you are comparing this to the WTC, what are you saying? That the towers NEVER came down? That there must have been something supernatural or the like that brought them down? I can’t see how the argument of controlled demolition or the like would fit with your anaolgy as we know that controlled demolition exists and IS possible, but your anaolgy is simply impossible in every way. Maybe not the best anaolgy??

    Now going on to the science part….two words…peer review. Yes scientists can argue a lot of things. How many scientists do you think are out there? How many scientists have debunked the theories about 9/11? How can we trust a scientists judgement if some us simply do not understand physics to that scale? Peer review! To be quite honest, I’m not going to discredit the work of some of these physicists (I can’t, I don’t understand it myself!) and I’m sure that these physicists believe 100% in their conclusions. But, for their theories to be shown as there is something in it, where are the peer reviews? 9/11 happened almost 7 years ago now, where are the papers that appeared in most reputable journals? Surely, with something as big as 9/11, if science can or has proved these theories, they would be headline news! We’d all know about it by now!?

    Oh, I’m sure that there are some very scientific people reading this, but saying “a simple equation H=1/2gt^2″ is no help to me, I’m not a scientist and all I see in the equation is some letters, numbers and symbols! Sorry!

    I have my doubts about 9/11. I’m still not sure what happened on that day, but I do like to look at both sides of the argument. If I looked at only one angle, would that be a biased point of view?

    There will always be people who think one thing and someone else who thinks another. That’s fine. But I still think that the conduct of many truthers is something worth noting…I’m not saying ALL truthers here.

    One last question…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 questoning, without any real answers (as in “what did happen on 9/11?”) and for what? What outcome do you want to see?

    Ok, I asked more than one question there!!

    Anyway, I’ve gone on for more than I wanted to. Again, thanks to Ashley and 3 year old kid for responding previously :)

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • Ashley

    Tina,

    You did imply that all truthers are like this on 2 occassions, firstly when you used 'they' in your sentence “they seem to immediately label people (e.g. ‘cretins’ on this comment thread) and shoot people down?” and secondly your sentence 'I think we have some more ‘evidence’ about this group here!' tars all truthers with the same brush.

    I admitted truthfully that I haven't read the Commission report but I am not wholly unfamiliar with it. I have read parts of it but for me to claim that I had read it in its entirity would have been a lie. I know enough about the report to know that it doesn't answer the questions I have posed in this thread, I also know that controlled demolition was definitely not investigated.

    When you say that the Commission Report is the governments response in to 9-11 I think you have hit the nail on the head there. It is supposed to be an independent inquiry is it not?

    As for what outcome truthers would like to see, I think many of us would like to be proven wrong because if the government is complicit in 9-11 then the question 'what now?' has some very serious implications not just for 'democracy' in the US but worldwide.

    Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all war criminals as far as I'm concerned, they have attacked a sovereign state based on fallacious evidence and thus made a war of aggression contrary to the Geneva convention (before you ask I haven't read all of that either!).

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Is it any wonder Osmar Binladen is not wanted by the CIA for 911?

    Now you know why.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Ashley

    3yo kid

    Very interesting article, did you complete the survey question at the bottom? ('Do you believe the official story of the 9/11 attacks'), after I completed it I checked out the results, it appears that of the people who have taken the survey (which is in no way scientific), 1.5% haven't thought about it, 4% voted yes and the remaining 94.5% voted no. It seems readers of the Japan Times could be more cynical than the readers of infowars.com lol.

  • Tina

    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 :)

  • Ashley

    Tina

    Ta 4 the comments and agree re Blair.

    To quickly address one point in your post, will try and answer some more later. Regarding controlled demolition, (please bear in mind that I'm no expert on this) you are correct that there would be explosives at the bottom of the building but there would likely be explosive charges on every 2nd or 3rd floor, there would also probably be cutter charges on the columns. What they definitely wouldn't do (which you appear to be suggesting, apologies if you aren't) is just blow the bottom of the building and expect it to collapse just through gravity. HTH

  • Tina

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

  • paul w

    Ashely and 3 Year old Kid

    Wrong on all counts. You two idiots know nothing, aren't interested in finding out so I'm not interested in either of you imbeciles any more.

    Antisemitism? It's alive and kicking in the 'truth' movement.

    Along with total and utter ignorance.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Look Mr paul W and all the other naysayers – it is as simple and as clear minded as this:-

    It is not even physically possible to have any falling body fall through the path of most resistance. NEVER EVER!!!!!

    And to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed is even more impossible than impossible.

    As a clear experiment you can do at home – get a jug of water and try and pour the water through and down the path of most resistance using only gravity.

    Go and do it now – then tell us all how you got on.

    Now, on 911 the argument the “Gravity WOT done it” guys use is the system became fluid like.

    But they ignore the 300,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete to do this. Also – they ignore how the towers were actually constructed.

    Well, if I were to ignore enough physical characteristics and twist the maths enough I could model the WTC building floating off into outer space. – but that would have nothing to do with REALITY would it?

    Not a single one of these so-called Experts has been able to physically model what they are claiming including NIST – And cannot because it defies almost every known law of physics.

    And if the Seffen and other papers were actually correct – would we not see a stack of floors some 10 stories high for each tower at the trade centre prior to cleanup – the fact this was not so proves their thesis is incorrect and requires correction.

    To see the WTC construction go here:-

    http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+

    http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+

    Does anyone still FINK Jet fuel burning in air can ever weaken steel?

    Did heat not conduct up and down the columns on 911?

  • 3 year old kid

    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

    Dear paul W, this is here for you to read and understand too you know, so come on then PW, give peer review this:-

    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 –

    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 = (1/2)*g*(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.

    Peer Review

    Peer Review

    Peer Review

    Come on were is the Peer Revewers?/?/

  • Tina

    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.

  • Ashley

    Tina,

    Thanks for the link, it makes interesting reading, I do have a few points to make if that is OK.

    The article gives the impression that all implosions are carried out in the same way (blow the support away at the bottom-middle, then the bottom-outside and then one floor towards the top). I think this is very misleading. In the article itself the consultant from the demolitions company says the following: –

    'virtually every building in the world is unique. And for any given building, there are any number of ways a blasting crew might bring it down'. – I take it that this means that there is not a 'be all and end all' procedure like it says earlier in the article (I would also hazard a guess that 110 storey buildings are probably a little more unique than most of the buildings they are used to bringing down).

    It also says: –

    'The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily' – This was not done to the buildings that collapsed on 9-11 to the best of anyones knowledge. If it was not feasible to weaken the supporting structure then more explosives and/or cutter charges would likely be used. I would guess that they don't usually put charges on every couple of floors due to the cost of the explosives, why would you use explosives if you can get in there and weaken the structure manually, thus allowing you to just blow the bottom and a couple of floors at the top?

    Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc says on their website that when they collapsed the 32 story Mendes Caldeira Building that they put 777 charges on 11 floors (this is just over one in every 3 floors if evenly spaced, it may have been the bottom floor and every other floor towards the top, it doesn't say). The reason he puts forward for doing this is 'We put 777 charges on 11 floors, many more floors than is usual, to ensure that the building would come down safely'. – Now I would hazard a guess that with money being no object and the safety of the surrounding buildings being of high importance that this strategy would likely have been used on the towers if they were indeed demolished on purpose.

    If you look at the details of the implosion of Orlando City Hall on their website (footage of which was used in Lethal Weapon 3) you will see that they state that this 8 storey building took just less than six seconds to come down. I would dearly love to know how when a purposeful demolition of an 8 stroey building took almost 6 seconds, how a 47 storey building can completely collapse due to fire damage in less than one second more. Did the first 8 storeys of WTC7 collapse in almost 6 seconds and the remaining 39 take less than a second?

    Mark Loizeaux 2 days after 9-11 – 'Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one wouldlike [sic] fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping.'

    He later retracted this with a piece in the New Scientist where he claimed that this is exactly as was expected.

    CDI were a key company in the ground zero clean up operation. It would be disingenous of me to say that the multi million dollar contracts could have had some bearing on this about face, so I won't.

    An explosives expert Van Romero was quoted on the day of the attack saying 'the collapses were "too methodical" to be the result of the aircraft collisions and ensuing fires. – He too retracted this statement.

    One of the authors of the FEMA report, a 'Ronald Hamburger' is purported to have said "It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building," said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, "I was very surprised," said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings "certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped."

    HTH

  • Tina

    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?

  • Ashley

    Paul W

    Welcome back and thank you for your comments. I would like to retort to your arguments but since it largely claims that myself and 3yo kid know nothing, I am afraid that I will not lower myself to resort to a playground squabble. If we were doing this in person I'm sure you'd have threatened to knock my head off by now ;)

    In this post you have called me an idiot and an imbecile, who knows nothing, is totally and utterly ignorant and tried to use the widely misused term of antisemite in my direction.

    I must congratulate you on cramming so much vitriol in to such a short post.

    As I said earlier to Max Pane can we define our terms prior to engaging in a conversation about antisemitism?

    What is antisemitism?

    The way I see it is if a Jewish person or organisation does something that is wrong, it is not more OR less wrong because they are Jewish. That they are Jewish has nothing to do with it (in either a positive or negative way). Now if I am antisemitic for thinking this then I would like you to explain how.

  • Ashley

    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

    Thanks Ashley for your response. At least we both seem to agree that there are a lot of questions to be asked!

    Concerning the building in Jeddah that you refer to, are you aware that half of the 17 storey building had already collapsed PRIOR to CD?

    CDInc came in to carry out an emergency CD as the building posed a safety issue.

    Therefore, CDInc carried out a CD on a half destroyed 17 storey building.

  • Ashley

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Greetings Fellow Earthlings,

    The wiring is not wiring now its RF devices, the CDs are done by computer & remote control.

    So for all we know, if it was mostly plastic high explosives it could have been there for a very long time. (Up to 30 –40 years) (Perhaps that is why some went off at the wrong time and we see Squibs 20 floors below the detonation wave?)

    Was there not some lift repair work done weeks prior to 911 and sniffer dogs were removed from the building just after that?

    However, I as a professional am not concerned with aspects of the explosives got there, that is for the new investigation, these facts are all we need to know they were there:-

    0.78 seconds worth of resistance for ¼ mile of steel framed and reinforced concrete building.

    To fall through the 1 square acre footprint at near freefall speed means one thing – near Zero residual resistance from the bottom 80+ floors.

    Near Zero Residual resistance means only one thing – Timed Controlled Demolition.

    The two twin towers were top down demolitions and building 007 was conventional bottom up demolition.

    And Osmar Binladen is not wanted by the US law enforcement for 911 at all.

    And I thank Tina for giving me the quality questions.

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • 3 year old kid
  • 3 year old kid

    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

  • Mick Meaney

    John can you knock off the spamming please mate, one link is enough cheers.

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • Tina

    Thanks again for responses.

    3 year old kid – you thank me for quality questions (thanks!) but you still haven't addressed previous questions – you seem to be doing a lot of repeating and spamming of the same video link.

    Re the video link, I've seen it before? Do you know anything about the group of Jews who were talking? It's like pointing someone towards Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church for support!

    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?

    Again, I'd be grateful if you could respond to some previous points I've made. I'll post them again if you can't find them. After all, I think I'm pretty accurate when I say that I respond to the points you make.

    As you have previously mentioned, I will pass on your theory on CD to Professors in the relevant fields.

    Ashley – Thanks again for your response (at least you acknowledge and respond to my questions and thoughts!) I do know exactly what you are saying and both us admit that we are no experts in this area. We are both speculating and questioning things.

    I'm sure that the fact that the building was half collapsed did not help the CD specialists out and would cause a more hazardous environment to work in. But I stll feel that comparing a half demolished 17 storey building is not a fair comparison of TWO 110 storey buildings fully formed.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Ashley

    Tina

    I am not comparing a half demolished 17 storey building with 2 fully formed 110 storey buildings. I merely showed that a demolitions firm was able to survey a damaged building, come up with a strategy for demolishing it, wire it up and implode it within 96 hours of the first contact.

    This says to me that with enough manpower, if the strategy had been worked out, the charges ready to put in place, radio used instead of wires that it might be possible to get the buildings ready for CD.

    They might have been wiring the building up for a year, smugglers find ways of concealing drugs from sniffer dogs, do you think it would be impossible to do the same with an explosive given enough time and resources.

    Here's a scenario for you completely off the top of my head (forgive me if it goes off on a tangent but I'm making it up as I go along ;). A group of people decide to bring down the 3 buildings on 9-11 for the insurance money and to get the American people in such a frenzy they'll allow their constitution to be shredded and allow their government to start an illegal agressors war against 2 Middle Eastern countries.

    Said group create radio triggered bombs where the explosive material is hermetically sealed, these bombs have an ID (like the MAC address of a network card) and are placed in known positions. As the explosive is hermetically sealed sniffer dogs cannot smell it either when it is brought in to the building or when it is in place.

    These pre-assembled bombs are placed according to the pre-designated points over the course of a period of time (a week, a month, a year, your choice as this is just a hypotheses) by people posing as lift engineers, network cabling engineers, cleaners (whatever).

    When all of the bombs are in place an 'arm' code is sent to them and when the time comes they are triggered in the correct sequence.

    Admittedly you won't find a company on the internet that specialises in hermetically enclosing explosives, all of the legal uses of explosives that I can think of would never need it. That doesn't mean it can't be done though does it?

    Now this is all pure conjecture, but none of it involves technology that doesn't exist, none of it relies on shape shifting lizards or little green men from Mars.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Tina

    Thanks Ashley, I want to read what you have posted again later as I'm fairly tired at the moment and can't take it all in! I'll read again later and respond :)

    I did come back here with something for 3 year old kid to get their teeth into…

    "d = 1/2at^2

    so

    t = (2d/a)^1/2

    a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia),

    d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)

    so

    t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s

    OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,

    v = at

    v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s

    So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell! And we haven't even made it to ELEVEN seconds yet; my goodness, it could have fallen MORE THAN TWICE ITS HEIGHT in that additional four seconds! Well, what do you know. So sure, you betcha, the time for it to fall three and a half times its own height is REALLY, REALLY CLOSE to the free-fall time, right? My goodness, it's so close I can barely see the difference! Only THREE AND A HALF TIMES ITS HEIGHT, what do you know.

    KE = 1/2mv^2

    Now, the mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be

    208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft

    50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg

    additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be

    450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor

    so the total mass would be

    4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor

    Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was

    90.4m/s

    so our

    KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J

    So, divide by 2 and we get

    10,362,544,260J

    OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:

    t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s

    v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s

    KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J

    Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's

    110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)

    = 1,139,879,868,600J

    OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?

    1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

    Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less! Hey, that's over a QUARTER KILOTON! We're talking about as much energy as a SMALL NUCLEAR WEAPON- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building! We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris- and guess what, that's ANOTHER small nuclear weapon-equivalent right there) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing! My goodness. Now what do you suppose made that pyroclastic flow?

    Taken from PhysOrg Forum.

  • Tina

    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).

  • joe ebeyer

    The reason the truth has not been reported is the same reason the U.S.S. Liberty incident was not reported! All news agency's in the U.S. are controled by the same people who benifited from 9/11 and the Liberty incident, the same folks run our government anyone who has not read "One Nation Under Israel" needs to, why so many dual citizenships running our country and embassay's worldwide wake up and smell the scams, scams like the N.I.S.T "report" on 9/11 does anyone deny their were Army Psyops Agents working for CNN on 9/11? Why were they there, thats a fact now debunk that, popular mechanics? was bought out and reorganised before 9/11 check out http://www.pilotsfor911truth.com Thank God for Arizona's Senator coming forward, we will win this in the end and it will prove our media is 100% bunk, even RINF has changed hands recently……..DAAA

  • Mick Meaney

    joe ebeyer said "even RINF has changed hands recently".

    Uh no it hasn't, it's always been owned and controlled by me. There's nobody else involved, apart from a couple of forum moderators who do a fantastic job and can basically run the forum as they see fit – but anti-semitism, TV fakery, DEW etc will be binned.

    The newswire is solely my responsibility and I aim to post the most credible information possible. There's no censorship on article comments (apart from racist and abusive comments) so people are free to say whatever they like, whether I agree with it or not.

  • Tina

    Joe Ebeyer said "does anyone deny their were Army Psyops Agents working for CNN on 9/11?"

    Do you have any evidence to support this? All I can find is that they had worked for CNN PRE 9/11.

  • Ashley

    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

  • Tina

    Hi Ashley,

    I just wrote a response to you then lost it! So excuse me for being a little brief here!

    I obviously didn't make myself clear, sorry. I know that you have addressed the points I've made, the questions were posted in response to 3 year old kid – but thanks for responding!

    I am aware of the definition and history behind the term anti-semitism. I'm afraid that you looked up 'semite' which in this instance is slightly different.

    I also know the background to the video showing the Jewish people talking about Zionism.

    For both questions here, I'm wanting to know if 3 year old kid understands the background and context.

    Concerning free fall – have a look at this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOp40E6UZg

    Thanks again for your response Ashley. I hope that 3 year old kid also adds their comments to my questions :)

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • 3 year old kid

    How about if I call the "Cretins" – Factually challenged"?

  • 3 year old kid

    Or how about "Logically challenged" or

    "brainwashed delusional"

  • 3 year old kid

    Or instead of "Cretins", what about "Science Credential Poor"?

  • Tina

    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'.

  • Ashley

    Tina

    Apologies for the misunderstanding. I just thought the repeating of the questions you had previously asked along with throwing it open by saying anyone was welcome to comment, gave the impression that no-one had tried to furnish you with an answer.

    Anti-semite is a compound word made of two seperate and distinct words. Anti is defined as – a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc. Semite is defined as above but basically – “Jew, Arab, Assyrian, Aramæan,”. Anti-semite in recent times has been used to describe someone opposed to Jews whereas the true meaning of the word semite gives a broader meaning if it is used in its historical sense. Surely the use of the term to describe only anti-Jewish feelings goes some way to distort the true meaning of the word semite, by removing the Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans from the equation.

    Given the historical meaning of semite, do you think that this site is anti-semitic? -> http://masada2000.org/ it is certainly hateful to Palestinian Arabs as far as I'm concerned (Caterpillar – "Crushing One Terrorist or Terrorist-Supporter at a Time." – nice, Palestine doesn't exist, there's no such thing as a Palestinian.).

    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). I notice you haven't commented on the idea of hermetically sealed explosives.

    You didn't appear to have any any thoughts about 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. I find this intruiging to say the very least.

  • Tina

    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

    Tina

    When you said:-

    'I have my doubts about 9/11. I’m still not sure what happened on that day, but I do like to look at both sides of the argument. If I looked at only one angle, would that be a biased point of view?'

    and:-

    'I do know exactly what you are saying and both us admit that we are no experts in this area. We are both speculating and questioning things. '

    I stupidly took that to mean that you were undecided, it now appears that you have made your mind up (at least as far as controlled demolition is concerned). I hope that this is not because of my arguments, I thought I had provided you with quite plausible answers to your queries. You certainly didn't counter many of my points.

    With regards free fall speed and near free fall speed, I don't think you understood my last post, so I respectfully ask you to try reading it again.

    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? Not only is this counter intuative, it questions the validity of the existence of firms specialising in controlled demolition.

    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. We could say we'll do it quicker and cheaper, I mean all we'd have to do is light a couple of fires and the buildings would collapse in to their own footprints, and all this quicker than if we'd blown them up with explosives. We'd make a fortune and go down in history as the people who ended this obvious multi-million dollar scam, are you in? ;)

    Also I wonder if you would do me the favour of telling me whether you think the idea of pre-prepared, hermetically sealed, radio detonated bombs has 'any legs'? Obviously if you think it implausible I would love to hear why.

    As far as the meaning of anti-semite goes, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. 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? If these other groups were seen in an unfavourable light by the Welsh could this behaviour be seen as devisive? At the end of the day, Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans are semitic peoples, sticking 'anti' in front of the word does not change the meaning of the word does it?

  • Tina

    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?

  • Ashley

    Tina

    I neglected to respond to the collapse time query.

    According to The Kean Report (p305) 'At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds'

    I think you have stumbled on yet more reasons why a new inquiry should be launched!

  • Ashley

    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 ;)

  • 3 year old kid

    Greetings Fellow Genetically modified earthlings,

    I have got it; I now know what to call the makers of this particular radio diatribe –

    911 MU PITS!

    No seriously, what do you call someone who wheels out a UFO NUT to confess he believed all of the official "Omission" report but failed to realize Osmar Binladen is not even wanted by the CIA for the very same 911 crimes the US Government claimed Osmar controlled from his cave in Afghanistan?

    DUH !! HELLO!!! Is anybody Home?/?/? NANOOO NANOOO Beam me up Scotty!

    I mean this is the same guy who claims the public don't believe the Diana story because its just far too simple, yet to believe the official Diana story one would have to believe in perhaps 101 improbable Coincidences.

    (No don’t ask me to go there)

    It is as simple and as clear minded as this.

    The fact all the scientific investigations agree with the unaltered video evidence (and I'm not talking about films which have been slowed down then republished on the net) which shows each tall 110 floor WTC falling in about 10 seconds or just under: proves the bottom quarter mile of 1 square acre footprint reinforced concrete and steel framed building, offered almost zero resistance, to a much smaller and lighter piece, falling straight through the building footprint. (goodness knows how many laws of physics are broken here)

    Near Free fall speed, means near Zero residual resistance, which means Controlled Demolition, which means a new inquiry to investigates this Controlled Demolition hypothesis is required without delay.

    And I along with other truth campaigners at Architects and Engineers for 911 truth and elsewhere will be lobbying authorities and doing what we can to try and bring about that independent investigation.

    And at the same time we will be tackling head on anybody who gets in the way of that Justice.

    What I would say is anyone who genuinely values Justice for those who were murdered on 911 & their families (and since due to illnesses), should not try and block another truly independent inquiry by trying to undermine the credentials of qualified professionals in the truth movement with ½ backed gobblygook as peddled by some (not all) detractors.

    We all need to ensure we see real justice and the official public disclosure of the unadulterated 911 FACTS?

    Our children deserve nothing less.

  • Tina

    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.

  • Darning

    [quote post="3838"]What I would say is anyone who genuinely values Justice for those who were murdered on 911 & their families (and since due to illnesses), should not try and block another truly independent inquiry by trying to undermine the credentials of qualified professionals in the truth movement with ½ backed gobblygook as peddled by some (not all) detractors.[/quote]

    What about those who are dying right now, today, this second? There's a 911 EVERY SINGLE DAY – what are you doing about that? How are you trying to get JUSTICE for those people?

  • Ashley

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Best of luck to you Tina too. I think Ashley is more on your wavelength and should be able to bounce ideas and stuff more readily, I have to keep my powder dry and keep to a script(political reasons).

    There are things I could tell you about 911 that would really have you questioning my sanity, but as I know most people are not science savvy I am not even going to go there except to say E = MC^2 confirms that E/C^2 = M, in other words Mass is but condensed Energy.

    If you all think solid things are really solid, I can advise you this is not correct, most of mass is empty space. Mass or Condensed Energy is in fact waves confined in potential wells.

    So what happens if those confined waves are given enough energy to escape those potential wells?

    In 30 or 40 years from now you will know, but for now I can not go there because I must keep to the script for political reasons.

    So who or which conflict is of most concern to you Darning?

    What are you doing about it? Why do you expect me to do everything?

    Look, there is only 24 hours in a day and I have a living to make you know.

    What I would like to see is some Government honesty but it would appear they are all crooks at the moment.

    911 was just the start of an 80% world population kill off plan. So don't say I didn’t warn you all.

    Stock up with food, fresh water and water purification.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Tina

    [quote post="3838"]In 30 or 40 years from now you will know, but for now I can not go there because I must keep to the script for political reasons.[/quote]

    Hmmm….a script? Does it change? One day you say you'd address my questions. You don't. Next you ask for them to be pasted in. I do that, no answer. Now, a "script" is your answer.

    Ponders *Maybe the answers to my questions aren't in your script?*

  • 3 year old kid

    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

    Tina

    Great effort, but notice they rarely answer the relevant questions.

    And really, after everything you've talked about, 3 year old kid is talking about squibs….squibs!!!

    You're wasting your time, I've tried debating them, it simply doesn't work. They believe, and that's that.

    Squibs!!!

    Hilarious.

  • Ashley

    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 ;)

  • malcks

    Hotel in spain,steel framed on fire for around 20hrs did'nt fall down! whats that all about? The(good old!!!)BBC News managed to report the collapse of building 7 20min before the actual event!whats that all about? Then there's Fox News,they manage to report it having "just collapsed" and what do you know,it comes straight down during the report, WHATS THAT ALL ABOUT?I dont have the answers(although some people seem to think they do)but what i do know is that WE WERE LIED TO ON 9/11 AND 7/7, BE AWARE,BE READY BECAUSE THEY WILL TRY AGAIN

  • Tom

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Greetings Paul W & others

    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.

    However, I am also a qualified welder too, and when younger did work to PULL buildings. We were one of the first to really start recycling everything that could be recycled from a building, and our little 2 tonne trucks were running on LPG homemade gas kits. (Had 1.8 petrol engines in with low ratio gearboxes)

    We were constantly being harassed by the police claiming we had potential bombs on the side of out trucks. How times have now changed, and it did so because the likes of us proved the systems much safer than conventional petrol systems.

    Now Paul W, did you try that experiment you were advised to try by pouring water down objects or not? And if not is it any wonder you still do not have a blinking clue?

    Not got a clue, Just like the BBC, or should we say

    Big Brother Criminals

  • Tina

    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.

  • Ashley

    Tina

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    With due respect, part of your first post on this thread was: –

    [quote post="3838"]Also, would be interesting to know if ‘3 year old kid’ and ‘Ashley’ have read the Commission Report FULLY? Along with any other truthers out there.
    I’ve heard truthers argue that physicists and other professionals have declared their work on what they felt happened on 9/11, but the thing is,if you are not a physicist, how can verify their findings? Surely this would have to be on a ‘trust’ foundation. Interesting that a leading figure in the truth movement is Prof. David Ray Giffin – a Theology professor. But he then doesn’t seem to talk in regards to his field of expertise. [/quote]

    This is quite clearly trying to discredit both myself and 3yo kid and to a certain extent debunk 9-11 conspiracy theories as far as I’m concerned. Myself and 3yo kid did not hijack you and try and drum CD in to your head. We disagreed with your statement and both believe the collapse of WTC7 to be ‘the smoking gun’ that in order to believe in the official conspiracy theory you would also have to believe in the tooth fairy.

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]It feels like Ashley is trying to twist my words.[/quote]

    but later say to 3yo kid: –

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    You can’t have it both ways, I am not twisting your words I am responding to your arguments (which is what you are begging 3yo kid to try and do!). Now you have proposed reasons that it couldn’t be CD and I have tried to provide you with possible counter reasons (to the best of my ability). Now I have endeavoured to answer any question you have had with a plausible answer, I think you’d find it difficult to claim anything other. Now you’ve been ready to chuck your debunking theories at me, but it seems now I’ve answered pretty much all of them with a reason I believe you are wrong, you appear not to want to play anymore AND take your ball home ;)

    Now you say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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![/quote]

    And I am more than willing to entertain that there is evidence that you have that proves categorically that it wasn’t CD, I’m just asking if it is the evidence you have put forward here (if it is I think pretty much all of it has been answered), or is it evidence that you haven’t provided as of yet (if this is the case put it up and we’ll have a look at it).

    I can’t think of a single point you’ve put forward that can’t be explained away or debunked. It appears the difference is that when you try and explain away my theories I try and defend them. When I provide counter evidence or counter arguments that you don’t appear to be able to answer, you just ignore it and try another line of attack (not a very good tactic in the reasoned debate that you are asking 3yo kid to join in ;)

    You said: –

    [quote post="3838"]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?[/quote]

    OK you don’t believe that it fell in less than 7 seconds. Don’t believe or can prove? You provided a link to some ‘evidence’ that the south tower took over 15 seconds to collapse, despite the fact that the official 9-11 report admits it took 10 seconds. btw check out 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html and look at tower 7 collapse videos for yourself. It’s 7 seconds until you can provide anything better than those videos (that I am afraid is the way reasoned debate works)

    You don’t comment on the fact that the buildings were designed to withstand a direct impact by planes almost identical to the ones that hit them. You were very quick to point out the huge explosions and awful lots of fuel, but not so quick to admit my point.

    You claim to be calling for reasoned debate but in the next sentence say, I am swayed by evidence against CD but I’m not telling you what it is that makes me believe this. This is not reasoned debate, this could even be seen to be arrogance. Not a debating strategy that I am aware of Tina.

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]Again, I suggest repectfully that you look at some counter-evidence.[/quote]

    Might I respectfully inform you that I know enough about the NIST, FEMA and Kean reports to be sure that at the very least they haven’t done their job. Here is a quote from one of my earlier posts: –

    [quote post="3838"]When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions.[/quote]

    None of this is dealt with by any of the 3 official reports.

    To be honest Tina, the gaping holes, inconsistencies and questions are there whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

    As far as comparing your intellect to a 12 year old, I’m unsure I did this. Do you believe the official story, planes hit, fires weakened steel, buildings collapse? If not then I didn’t and if you do then I do know 12 year olds who can provide you with reasons why this isn’t the case (my wife is a teacher and they are looking at 9-11 conspiracies in her school, so I wasn’t being rude I was stating a fact ;)

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    OK, this is real easy.

    Why do the CIA not want and have never wanted Osmar Binladen for 911?

    The answer is because he had absolutely NOTHING to do with 911.

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • 3 year old kid

    Does anyone still "fink" BUSH & Blair were telling the truth when they sent us to war in Iraq because of WMDs?

    Or were they lying?

    and if they lies about that aspect, do you suppose the rest is truthful?

  • Tina

    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.

  • Ashley

    Tina

    Again you've ignored a lot of my post (which is pretty much what you are having a go at 3yo kid for). You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]I’ve answered your questions, sorry if I haven’t provided the answers you are looking for or wanting to hear from me.[/quote]

    Well I don't believe that you have, have a scout through a couple of my posts and check yourself. I am positive that you have been dropping arguments to the wayside that I have successfully countered without any acknowledgement that I may be right. I certainly haven't been doing the same with your points. I also think it is disingenuous of you when you say that one of the reasons you won't post your arguments against CD is that you don't think I'll read them. Have I failed to address even one point in any of your posts so far?

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    Quite the crusader aren't we? ;) Don't worry she has introduced the fact that there are a lot of 9-11 conspiracy theories and has suggested the children do their own research in to it, she is not offering her opinion on the matter (either pro or con). She is not 'teaching' 9-11 conspiracies, they are 'looking' at 9-11 conspiracies like I said in my post (the children are debating them rather than the teacher teaching them, they are making up their own minds and educating themselves, something I personally think is commendable). You sound of the mind that you would like to stifle this debate, I think it is excellent. I would have loved it if I'd got to do something so engaging, contemporary and interesting in my days at school ;)

    I love the way you say you are all up for reasonable debate and when you get it you don't seem to be interested. That's what I'm doing here Tina, debating the arguments with you.

    As far as the 12yo kid comments being an insult, do you believe the official story of how those buildings collapsed? I've given you a shedload of reasons that this is at best stretching the imagination and at worst a complete fallacy. If you do believe the official story I do know of children who can give you evidence to question your beliefs. If you want to take this as an insult that's your perogative but rest assured it was merely an example to show that there are comprehensive school children that can see holes in the official theory (if you can't see these holes is that their problem, my problem or your problem?).

    I am not being condesending Tina, we are having a debate. If you don't agree with the things that I say then debate them, don't cry off. If you don't want to debate any more that's fine too.

    Thanks for your time and comments, it's been a pleasure talking with you.

  • 3 year old kid

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

  • Xior

    [quote post="3838"]Can anyone confirm as fact one way or the other please, is or has Osmar Binladen ever been wanted by the CIA for 911?[/quote]

    He is wanted by the FBI

    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    If the US Government will lie about who did 911, do you suppose they are telling us the truth about how it was done?

  • Ashley

    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?

  • SuperNova

    [quote post="3838"]According to The Kean Report (p305) ‘At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds’[/quote]

    The figures are taken for the FIRST panel to hit the ground, not the total collapse.

    "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2…

    …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."

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.h

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • SteveH

    The “Incompetence” Theory has a Flaw.

    If 30,000,000 Americans are all too incompetent, then how were 19 foreigners competent?

    The “Got Luck” Theory has a Flaw.

    If 19 foreigners got lucky, then why couldn’t any of the 30,000,000 Americans get lucky?

    Neither seems to be an argument for excluding anyone, but it does expose the unfounded wishful thinking mentality that they accuse others of.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Volume

    If going along with the controlled demolition theory, how much explosives (in quantity) do you think (or know) they had to use?

    Furthermore, anyone have any idea what type of explosives would of been used?

    Thanks.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Volume

    3 year old child, can you answer the questions I posted?

    [quote post="3838"]If going along with the controlled demolition theory, how much explosives (in quantity) do you think (or know) they had to use?

    Furthermore, anyone have any idea what type of explosives would of been used?[/quote]

    Thank you.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

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

  • Volume

    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?

  • 3 year old kid

    Dear Volume and others,

    Controlled Demolition is the only way asymmetrical damage can be made to look like symmetrical gravity collapse.

    But why speculate about what type of explosives if any were used?

    To speculate is to incur errors, who needs errors?

    What the Physics proves is that on 911 the buildings were not gravity collapse alone. Period.

    It’s now time to force an independent inquiry to answer all the questions you and others may have.

    Why would you expect me to speculate and know the detailed answers without first detailed scientific investigation?

    Should the investigation not first investigate the evidence now we have proved a symmetrical gravity collapse from asymmetrical damage is almost infinitely improbable if not almost impossible?

    Just so we do not lose anybody here and we all understand this:

    Is there anyone who disagrees that a chain always breaks at its weakest link every single time without exception?

    do you agree with this Mr Volume?

  • paul w

    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.

  • paul w

    Tina

    Don’t bother; they are not interested.

    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.

    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.

    Yet the troofers still mention it, and you can bet they'll repeat the same line to the next unknowing person they meet…"and jet fuel cannot melt steel…"

    This is another method; they ignore reality and just continue to spout their theories (they also often start by inferring things that didn’t happen, did, such as jet fuel melting steel).

    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.

    That's quite true, but what they DON'T say is that, unlike the towers, the building was a reinforced concrete structure, which is basically fire-proof.

    Nor will they tell you that part of it WAS a steel-framed section and this DID collapse! Oops, best not mention that!

    Tina, they aren't interested in anything but their own twisted sense of what happened, and that means they have to bend reality to suit their version, and that’s tough, so they use a few sure-fire tactics.

    The first, and their greatest reality escape, is to disregard anything from the government, especially evidence. Regardless of how solid the evidence is, they will say that anything from the government is at best propaganda or worse, an outright lie.

    So all the reports, including (and especially) the NIST and 9-11 Commission reports, are suspect and should not be believed. Gee, that’s a quick and easy way to discount and ignore the majority of evidence! Wouldn’t you love to have that suspension of belief! You could believe anything!

    Not only that, but they also say anyone INVOLVED in ANY way with the government should be ignored. Think about that. Even witnesses to the Pentagon crash, including those who were nearly killed by the plane itself, are considered unreliable and probably suspect, if not even ‘in’ on the whole thing. In other words, liars.

    Think about that, too. For example, most troofers believe a missile (not a plane) hit the Pentagon, so to do that they have to not believe the hundreds of independent witnesses who saw a large jet plane crash. So, they make them ‘unreliable’ because they were in some way involved in government work, even if it was the business the worked for had connections to the government.

    But it’s not used on everyone. How many of the witnesses saw ‘something’ like a small jet plane, that ‘could have been a missile’? Answer, one.

    One, yet the troofers, who have to find ‘evidence’ to their insane theories, used this view and ignored the rest!

    So, Tina, that’s who you are dealing with in Ashley, 3 Year Old Kid and all the other troofers. Some of them may not personally believe in the missile at the Pentagon theory, but it doesn’t really matter as they think in an equally-preposterous idea of controlled demolition and the whole thing being an inside job.

    And check out some of their comments….

    “All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant”

    “imagine a Jenga tower, flick out a block on one side, start a fire in that space and what would you expect to happen?”

    Unbelievable. Having sad that, in many ways it’s as funny as fuck. I particularly liked the maths and physics lesson you gave. My, didn’t he quickly lose the enthusiasm for that argument!

    Yes, I know this is a horribly serious issue, but it’s been fun watching you paste these drongos (Aussie slang for fuckwits). I do now have to let you down though: it’s not that difficult.

    Re: SuperNova

    "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.

    “Hey, Ashley, let’s get that Jenga tower out from the cupboard and let’s work out what happened…”

    “Sure, 3 Year old Kid, but let’s have another toke first!”

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • 3 year old kid

    NO!

    GOOD!

    Now we may be getting somewhere with these Sheeple.

    Baa Baaa

    you sure do make good slaves.

  • Ashley

    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 :)

  • 3 year old kid

    Mr Volume come in Mr Volume are you reading me over:

    Repeat:

    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.. Does a chain ever break at any point other than its weakest link? NEVER!

    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? (asymmetrical damage)

    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 always, without exception, break first at their weakest point. ALWAYS!!!

    Good easy Example even Paul W can understand, a chain always breaks at its weakest link first, every single time without exception – and will do this for ever.

    What the Physics proves is that on 911 the buildings were not gravity collapse alone. Period.

    It’s now time to force an independent inquiry to answer all the questions you and others may have.

    Why would you expect me to speculate and know the detailed answers without first detailed scientific investigation?

    Should the investigation not first investigate the evidence now we have proved a symmetrical gravity collapse from asymmetrical damage is almost infinitely improbable if not almost impossible?

    Just so we do not lose anybody here and we all understand this including you Mr paul W:

    Is there anyone who disagrees that a chain always breaks first at its weakest link every single time without exception?

    Is there anyone who disagrees that every structure breaks first at its weakest point every single time without exception?

  • paul w

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Mayday Mayday , rescue required, MU PIT Alert MU PIT Alert!!!

    Mayday Mayday!!! EIIKK EIKKK EIKKK!!!!

    SLOBBER SLOBBER SLOBBER!!!!

    DUH!!! IT WAS TILTING, DUH !!!

    But it did not have any angular momentum DUHHH!!!!

  • 3 year old kid

    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!!!!

  • Ashley

    Paul

    It’s quite simple, do not be so insulting. All it does is speak volumes about you rather than us. If you are confident of your position you shouldn’t feel the need to resort to insults. Conversely if you are a bit out of your depth then you may be hoping they’ll help your cause :)

    You say you’ll try and stop the name calling and 2 lines later describe me as a f*ckwit. Are you unable to have an adult conversation without calling people names? Is it a medical condition, do you have some online form of Tourettes?

    You do make me chuckle, I mean you quote from the 911myths website like it is some kind of authority, and in the blinking of an eye you slag me of for using ‘troofer’ websites to get information. Don’t you see you are doing the exact same thing but trying to disprove the hypothesis? Do you have any more ways you’d like to try and hamstring my argument? Would you like me to type one handed? Would you prefer to give me a list of sites you find acceptable and ask me to prove it using them? Stop being daft.

    You have categorically ignored my direct questions to you, so before I enter in to further debate with you I will re-ask them: –

    [quote post="3838"]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:
    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

    Now let me see if I can make this plain enough for you to understand (as by your insults you seem to be displaying a fairly low level of intelligence). This independent report says that there were spherical pieces of iron found in the dust. These spherical pieces of iron are as a result of very high temperatures which melted steel/iron in order to create them. Explain it if you can, or just admit you can’t, but please don’t ignore it again (I’ve got a get-out for you on it, mad conspiraloon troofers sprinkled New York with tiny spherical pieces of iron, so they could later use it to claim the steel melted, yeah that’d do it).

    I categorically said to you ‘don’t claim it was molten aluminium as this would vapourise before exhibiting this colour’ and what do you do?: –

    [quote post="3838"]Additionally, the highest recorded temperature exceeds the melting point of aluminum, 1220 °F, making molten aluminum a distinct possibility.”[/quote]

    Are you even reading this stuff before you paste it? I wish I had a debunking website, I’d put a sentence in each article saying ‘The person using this is clearly an idiot as they haven’t read this disclaimer in order to remove it’, it would be great fun catching people cutting and pasting without reading it.

    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

    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.

    You also say there was firefighting in these other buildings (Caracas etc). Are you claiming no firefighting was attempted in either WTC1 or WTC2?

    Another direct question that I asked you and you failed to furnish an answer was: –

    [quote post="3838"]Have you even read the NIST report?[/quote]

    The reason I ask this is you keep asking us and from your line of questioning you make out that you’ve read it (in it’s entirity). Is this the case?

    I also asked you if you had any objections to a new inquiry?

    Now at the end of the day you are pouring scorn on my use of Jenga to try and show you how it fell. This is an original idea that came from inside my head in order to try and help people understand the law of entropy. I think this pretty much proves that I am not ‘just using troofer websites’ to argue my case. Now on the other hand you are going off to whatever debunking site you can find and pasting pages of their information in the vain hope that it makes you look clever. It doesn’t, it makes you look hilarious because you are doing exactly what you’re slagging me off for (and I just proved that I’m not guilty of it). Feel stupid yet?

    I’ve got to say Paul, that you are looking a bit childish with all the name calling. I thought it was us troofers who were supposed to be calling names not you highly intelligent debunkers.

  • paul w

    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.

  • paul w

    Countdown to Ashley and 3 year old kid moaning 'you haven't answered our questions', 'you're being rude…" 5.4.3.2…

  • 3 year old kid

    Thank you for that paul W,

    or should one say

    Mr Mu Pit.

  • 3 year old kid

    DUH!!! IT WAS TILTING, DUH !!!

    But it did not have any angular momentum DUHHH!!!!

  • 3 year old kid

    Controlled Demolition Hypothesis Confirmed!

    Confirmed!

    Confirmed!

    Confirmed!

  • paul w

    3 year old kid

    What the living fuck are you on?

    “DUH!!! IT WAS TILTING, DUH !!!
    But it did not have any angular momentum DUHHH!!!!
    Controlled Demolition Hypothesis Confirmed!”

    Do you realize this is exactly the reason you are a fuckwit?
    I repeat, what he living fuck are you on?

  • paul w

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Many of your "TROOOOOOOOOFFFFFFEEEEERRRSSSSS" are in fact qualified Architects, Engineers and indeed Physicists some of whom actually have built skyscraper steel framed buildings for a living.

    And I can confirm none of these buildings have ever come down inadvertantly.

    There are people who actually have constructed aircraft for a living, who have actually "PULLED" buildings for a living and who are former Jet fighter interceptor pilots too along with 757, 767, Jumbo Jet pilots too.

    Indeed what expertise do you have Mr Paul W?

    Except the very fact you openly and correctly contradict the ludicrous Keith Seffen paper, openly confirm the tower tops were toppling due to asymmetric damage and hence asymmetric collapse initiation, then confirmed the tops had to have angular momentum to do the tilting, so – hence by your own admission confirm the TROOOFERS are correct old bean. Only controlled demolition could destroy a building symmetrically despite an asymmetrical collapse initiation at the top.

    Then you try and backtrack, lie and basically make yourself look like a right nini.

    Just confess, just confess you know absolutely nothing of science or Engineering – it is not a crime to be science ignorant as you obviously are Paul W.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid
  • http://www.radiophonic.org.uk Neil

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Don't argue with a Qualified Engineer, who has actually done Demolitions for a living and can see 3 CDs on 911

    Have any of you people ever done a demolition or even any welding or even any steel framed construction?

    If not then shut up, you are not qualified to even have a valid opinion.

  • http://www.radiophonic.org.uk Neil

    [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."

  • 3 yearold kid

    Go on then Neil,

    Prove with Physics and Maths 911 was a Gravity only collapse.

    Were is you Factual Evidence?

    Were is your Physics proof?

  • 3 yearold kid

    Were are your Qualifications to make the claims you do?

  • 3 yearold kid

    Go on Neil and Paul W,

    Just confess, just confess you know absolutely nothing of science or Engineering – it is not a crime to be science ignorant.

    But it is a crime to try and cover up a crime.

  • Louise

    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.

  • Ashley

    Paul

    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.

    You take the mickey out of me an 3yo kid, saying we’re complaining that you aren’t answering our questions and then you complain we don’t answer your questions (which we do!)

    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)

    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.

    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). 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 (like you have failed on numerous occassions with the questions I have asked you).

    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.

    This big paragraph that you posted and then just dismissed everything in it without any evidence is just typical of you. FFS Paul get a grip, I’ll answer a couple of these for you (the ones I ignore are not ones I believe, like I said I don’t believe every conspiracy story about 9-11): –

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    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. This doesn’t work as I could look at brain surgery for many years, it wouldn’t make me a brain surgeon. You seem to have probably just enough intelligence to tie your own shoelaces, 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.

    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.

    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.

    With regards the CCTV at the Pentagon, only 2 pieces have been released. This is most likely the most surveilled building in the world, there are without doubt other angles and views. 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.

    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. 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?

    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). I would be very interested to know where the Sulfur that was found at ground zero came from (as mentioned in the FEMA report).

    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 :)

    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. 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.

    You are again purposefully muddying the waters with regards the BBC and WTC7. You act as if this premonition was reasonable. 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. 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). 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. 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).

    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. That is counter intuative. 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).

    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!).

    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).

    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). Do the American military use Thermate (I’ll give you another clue, they do). 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?

    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?) but I KNOW that the theory of controlled demolition was not entertained in any of the official reports (to quote you – have you even read the NIST report?).

    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.

    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.

    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 ;)

  • Victor E

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

  • paul w

    "The core was described as “indestructible” at the time of construction." 3 year old kid

    And the Titanic was described as "unsinkable".

    You are an idiot.

  • paul w

    "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?

  • paul w

    "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). 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 (like you have failed on numerous occassions with the questions I have asked you)."

    No, the troofer sites are not 'just as valid' as the ones I use. Troofer sites are full of innuendo, and highly inaccurate, full of misquoting and worse, falsification of evidence.

    That's why I use, and name, those debunking sites. For answers to your questions.

    Ashley, out of interest, how old are you?

  • http://www.radiophonic.org.uk Neil

    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.

  • Ashley

    Neil

    If you don’t mind I’d like to comment on your points.

    You say: –

    [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.[/quote]

    Ummmm nope, you’re wrong. Blinkered anti-troofers claim this but there are many holes in the official story and a lot of the so called debunking has been debunked itself. People like you and Paul w don’t provide a reason why 36% of people in the US don’t believe the 9-11 story, why over 60% of people in the US and UK don’t trust their governments. Is this 1/3 of the population all insane? Have they all contracted some sort of virus?

    The theory over the Kennedy second shooter was debunked and remained that way for over 40 years, but what do you know a former FBI mettalurgist now claims that the evidence points to a second shooter (http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-FBI-Analysis-of-Kennedy-Bullet-Points-to-a-Second-Shooter-55014.shtml).

    [quote post="3838"]Where are the people who planted the demolitions? Who are they? Why has nobody involved come forward?[/quote]

    What you mean like the people who helped overthrow Mossadeq in Iran, like Ollie North did in the Iran Contra scandal, like the Watergate scandal. This might shock you, it might even make you a little worried but intelligence agencies and black ops departments of Western countries sometimes do very unethical things. Do you remember the story of the 2 SAS men caught in Iraq dressed as arabs in a car full of RPGs, explosives and guns (just what do you think they were doing?). They were arrested by the Iraqi security services and then we stormed the jail and broke them out. Some people think differently, some people do things that us normal people would describe as monstrous. Please don’t be naive.

    [quote post="3838"]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]

    I don’t believe I have sneered at any of the victims and/or relatives of 9-11. If I have I am very sorry as this was in no way meant. I think that because of the holes in the official story, a new inquiry is necessary. It is an insult to the people who died, their families they leave behind, the first responders who’ve died or are ill due to the dust (that they were told was safe), the soldiers who’ve died in the 2 illegal wars that were launched with this as a springboard and the countless civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, that 80 times as much money could be spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal as was spent on the 9-11 Commission Report.

  • Ashley

    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'.

  • 3 year old kid

    Thank you for your insight Mr Paul W, and your honesty in relation to your lack of formal qualifications or relevant industrial experience and for that you should be commended.

    There are over 400 Qualified Architects & Engineers, who, in their opinion, request a new independent investigation of 911 because they, all of them, believe, based upon the destruction sequence facts, that it could only be a Controlled Demolition.

    Here are some of the reasons why a new investigation is requested:

    Asymmetrical damage always causes asymmetrical collapse initiation of which would have toppled the tower tops, so why did all the 3 towers come down symmetrically despite asymmetrical damage?

    Angular momentum of the tilting tops – the moments of inertia would have forced the tops over the side – what stopped this massive inertia seeing as surrounding air alone could not do this?

    Falling bodies always fall through the path of least resistance, on 911 the top portions of 3 tall towers fell through the path of most resistance – 3 times.

    Falling bodies cannot normally fall through solids, semi solids or more viscous fluids as though falling through low-viscous fluids, yet on 911 the top fell through a steel framed & reinforced concrete lower structure at nearly freefall speed. It would have taken about 20 seconds in salt water, yet took only about 10 seconds through the buildings heaviest components.

    If the top had fallen in a vacuum it would have taken 9.22 seconds, in air around 10 – 11 seconds.

    How can a lower much heavier and much stronger support structure only offer about the same resistance as air resistance?

    The answerer is obvious – Controlled Demolition. There are several types of demolition; top down, bottom down, side in & side out etc.

    A new investigation is needed to identify what really happened during the collapse sequence on 911 and to bring justice to those victims murdered by profiting criminals.

    Criminal Terrorists did 911; however they could not have been the 19 Muslim Hijackers as claimed by the FBI.

    And seeing as we know for a fact two of the alleged Muslim suicide Hijackers still flies for Saudi Airlines – should we not have a new investigation to find out who really did do 911 seeing as Osmar Binladen is still only a SUSPECT with no court worthy evidence for conviction?

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • Ashley

    Paul

    Just a quick comment, you said in an earlier post: –

    [quote post="3838"]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’.[/quote]

    Are you saying that WTC7 WAS hit by a plane? You say ‘WTC7 was not hit by a plane’ closely followed by 'All easy to say, and completely inaccurate'. Please could you give me the details of the plane that hit WTC7, you might like to get in touch with FEMA, NIST and the Kean Commission as I'm pretty sure they don't know about this particular nugget of your 'troof'.

    I'm so dying to call you a dimbulb, but that would lower me to your level and that is not where I want to be. You may want to pull your foot out of your mouth at some point.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • http://letssaveus.ning.com/ toeg

    Paul W,

    I HAVE read the NIST report. You should, too. It would save you from embarassing statements not included inside the report. They DO NOT give a reason for the WTC7 collapse. Your statement about "the report is coming out soon," is a nice Walt Disney thought, but as with Disney, it is pure fantasy. There is no report coming out seven full years after the event.

    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.

    The towers fell at almost free-fall speed while taking the path of greatest resistence. This, again, is the only time in recorded history that such an event has occurred. I can't wait for your explanation on this. Near free-fall speed + path of greatest resistence = normal event.

    It's obvious that you are not aware that the northeastern air corridor of the United States is THE MOST HEAVILY GUARDED air space in the entire world, yet nineteen clowns with almost no piloting experience zoomed about with impunity for almost two hours. Never before, nor since, has ANY PLANE, let along FOUR JETS have been allowed to sight see famous American landmarks for almost two hours.

    'Splain, Lucy

  • http://letssaveus.ning.com/ toeg

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    No one is perfect, the truth movement is far from perfect and never will be, but to claim anyone in the Truth movement is sneering at the unfortunate victims of 911 just because they seek a new truly independent inquiry is most malicious and baseless.

    Were those who warned of Hitler in 1930s idiots?

    We are warning of potentially a much greater threat than Hitler ever posed to humanity.

    If all people do not wake up soon, then many will never wake up, it is as simple as that.

  • 3 year old kid

    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

  • paul w

    "Were those who warned of Hitler in 1930s idiots?

    We are warning of potentially a much greater threat than Hitler ever posed to humanity.

    If all people do not wake up soon, then many will never wake up, it is as simple as that." 3 year old kid

    The above comment should give eyeryone a very clear idea of the paranoia, ignorance and delusional qualities of the troofers.

    One fascinating aspect I've noted from troofer ravings like 3 year old kid, is the way they see themselves as the ones saving the world.

    Hmm. Add 'massive insecurity complex' to the list.

  • paul w

    "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…?

  • paul w

    Oh, and another question to either Bill or Ben.

    Of the 'over 400 Qualified Architects & Engineers' who have joined the 'truth' movement:

    1. How many are actually 'qualified'?

    2. Is it true that it is less than 10%?

    3. How many qualified architects and engineers have NOT

    joined?

    And your answer is…?

  • paul w

    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

  • http://www.radiophonic.org.uk Neil

    Nice to be accused of racism – can't see how, but there you go.

    The "truth" movement are not searching for the truth. They're searching for evidence that fits their hypothesis (which, it must be said, often boils down to the racist idea that "Muslims in caves couldn't do this").

    After making this documentary, I've been accused of being a cretin, a racist and a "bitch" of the British security services (despite the fact that one of the contributors to the thing is a vocal critic of the "secret state"). For the record, I didn't spend "hours, days, weeks, months creating your special little project" The interviews took place over a week or so (total time two hours) and the editing took a couple of afternoons. You guys have spent longer wallowing in the esctasy of sanctimony about it than I spent making it.

    I only came back to add comments the other day because I amused me you were still working yourself into a frenzy about something that was only meant for a not for profit community radio station in the UK.

    As Paul Stott says, quoting Jon Ronson, arguing with you guys sucks the soul out of you.

    Another thing that I hate about truthers: You think you're smart when you're stupid. I'm out of here, I'll leave you to your echo chamber. Maybe I'll return when we do the Cynic's Guide to 7/7 Conspiracy Theories (though I wonder if you guys care about that – it wasn't in America so it's not important, is it?)

    Paul W – Leave these fuckers to their circle jerk; if you talk to most people about this stuff they just laugh and think truthers are crazy. I'm starting to think the majority have a point.

  • Ashley

    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..

  • 3 year old kid

    The exact same system was used by Hitler to get the German people to go to war in 1939 as has been used by Bush/Cheney and Blair/Brown since 2001.

    He who does not know his history —– etc.

    Its a fact: Afghanistan & Iraq were wars based on bare faced lies, and if Bush attacks Iran, do you suppose the US fleet in the gulf stands any chance at all?

    Iran has a massive supply of the latest Russian made anti ship mobile missiles in the hills – there is nothing which can stop these anti ship missiles.

    How long do you suppose the US Fleet will last against the Iranians supported by both China and Russia?

  • 3 year old kid

    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!

  • paul w

    Hey Neil

    Yeah, they're fuckwits, I know. I'm replying more for anyone reading this (if anyone else is?) than those two idiots.

    I'm currently doing a lengthy reply to Bill and Ben, and then leave them to their paranoia. Suckers.

    Bill and Ben:

    Ben (Ashley), good to see you can count, mate. Yes, getting your reply ready. Don't panic, it's coming. Not sure what the fuck you've been smoking, but I never said a plane crashed into WTC7. As usual, you completely misunderstood, or ignored, the comment about planes NOT hitting WTC7. Go read it again, you moron. Sheesh!

    Bill (3 year old kid): er…ummmm…nah, got nothing to say, other than that you're an idiot.

  • paul w

    Neil

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

    Cheers

  • Victor E

    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.

    I teach GCSE Biology but we have to cover for other science teachers from time to time.

    One experiment we do is set objects falling through different liquids and teach the children to time how long it takes to fall 1 metre.

    As far as I am concerned it is impossible for any building structure to just fall directly through a steel & Concrete building in the same time as it would in air.

    Perhaps "3 year old kid" could be more diplomatic when trying to explain this not so simple science.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Ashley

    Paul

    [quote post="3838"]Not sure what the fuck you’ve been smoking, but I never said a plane crashed into WTC7. As usual, you completely misunderstood, or ignored, the comment about planes NOT hitting WTC7. Go read it again, you moron. Sheesh![/quote]

    What you said was: –

    [quote post="3838"]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’.[/quote]

    So the statement I made 'WTC7 was not hit by a plane' was in your words – 'All easy to say, and completely inaccurate'.

    You call me a moron but don't even understand your own posts. Why don't YOU go read it again.

    Looking forward to your lengthy reply. Please could you do everyone a favour and paragraph it to make it easier to read. The last time you made a lengthy reply there was one paragraph that contained about 20 sentences.

    Cheers

  • Dr. Spalding

    [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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Lets ROCK Dr. Spalding – go on then give the errors, here is my 911 Physics:

    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 –

    First we must identify what we already know as FACTS: –

    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 = (1/2)*g*(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.

    Come on Dr Spalding give us your Peer review – that is if you really know anything about real Physics.

  • 3 year old kid

    Dear Victor E,

    Thanks for your post.

    I will try and be more polite to other posters even if they are MU PITS.

  • paul w

    Ben (Ashley)

    Jesus wept, you idiots take everything out of context. Unbelievable.

    Sigh. The point I was making is that troofers like you require quick, witty one-liners so you don't have to think too much about detail. Usually, the things seem to say a lot but mean fuck all.

    As an example, I used one of the common troofer arguments, that WTC7 fell but it was not hit by a plane (so why did it fall?)

    Hence the catch all comment on many troofer sites: 'WTC7 was not hit by a plane'

    Not, it was not hit by a plane but it was gutted by multi-floor fires, had serious structural damage, and was in danger of collapse. But when did reality have anything to do with the 'truth' movement?

    And by the way, re your comments about my writing style…er, go fuck yourself?

  • 3 year old kid

    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!!!

  • Ashley

    Paul

    Charming and erudite as ever. I didn’t accuse you of having any style in your writing.

    As for me not taking your comment in context, you really are limited in your grasp of the English language aren’t you? You said that my comment that ‘no plane hit WTC7′ was ‘easy to say, and completely inaccurate’. Now generally this would be taken to mean that my comment was ‘completely innacurate’, being as my comment was ‘no plane hit WTC7′, your comment gives the impression that a plane hit WTC7 (pretty simple isn’t it?)

    I’m still waiting for answers to the several direct questions I’ve asked you (glad I’m not holding my breath).

    I had to laugh at your sycophantic behaviour earlier in the post, ‘oh Neil I like downloading mp3s of sport and politics and stuff, do you have any recommendations’. LOL you suck up, you’ll be asking for his autograph or a signed photo next.

    Neil has created a one sided, crap piece of ‘journalism’. There is not even an attempt to be even handed and then he has the cheek to position it as something newsworthy (I see a career with Fox News in the not too distant future).

    He says that ‘There is a generally accepted narrative about the events of September the 11th, believed by everyone from Noam Chomsky to Donald Rumsfeld’.

    This comment is absolute hogwash, 36% of American people believe their government are complicit in 9-11 in some way (that is approximately 100 million people in the US alone).

    On June 10, 2008 Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who in the past has repeatedly called for a new 9/11 investigation, introduced 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Robert Wexler joined Dennis Kucinich as co-sponsor of this impeachent resolution.

    The 35 impeachment articles included 2 articles questioning the events of 9/11, the others articles centered on false information released to the public to justify the war. The House of Representatives then voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee.

    A new independent 9/11 investigation has been called for by 4 presidential candidates for 2008 Cynthia MyKinney, former 6-term democratic Congresswoman from Georgia, candidate for the Green Party Ralph Nader (Green Party), candidate for President of the United States in five elections Ron Paul, veteran republican Congressman, Mike Gravel, former Democratic United States Senator from Alaska. Mr. Gravel just recently ended his presidential campaign.

    Further politicians, who are demanding a new 9/11 investigation are:

    Jesse Ventura, a former Governor of Minnesota
    Cindy Sheehan, US-anti-war activist, challenging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the 2008 elections.
    Senator Karen S. Johnson, elected member of the Arizona State Legislature
    Paul Hellyer, former Minister of National Defense of Canada,
    Libby Davies Canadian Member of Parliament
    Michael Meacher, former Minister for the Environment in the cabinet of Tony Blair.
    Tony Benn, former Minister of Technology and longest serving MP in the history of the Labour party
    Andreas von Buelow, former Minister of Research and Technology in West Germany
    Mrs. Heike Hänsel and Dr. Axel Troost, members of the german parliament, and several members of local and regional councils in Germany.
    Giulietto Chiesa, an italian member of the EU Parliament.
    Berit Ås, a former Member of Parliament in Norway
    Mahathir bin Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malysia from 1981 to 2003.

    Yukihisa Fujita, member of Parliament for Democratic Party of Japan in January and April 2008 made lengthy statements at the House of Councillors, the national parliament of Japan, in his function as one of the directors of the Japanese Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee. He demanded further investigations and questions being answered, his lengthy presentations were broadcasted live nationwide on Japanese NHK television.The Democratic Party of Japan is the main opposition party and has a majority in the Upper House of Parliament and holds 36 % in the Lower House, the more powerful house.

    Yukihisa Fujita is currently working to form an international coalition to demand an independent, international 9/11 investigation.He just returned from a second trip to Europe this year and has been in Venezuela’s legislative National Assembly in 2006 passed a resolution by the unanimous vote of its 167-members.

    The resolution in one article asked the U.S. Congress to “Demand that the government of President Bush explain the self-inflicted attack on the World Trade Center and its victims and the links between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family.”

    President Chavez and other government officials repeated similar questions.

    Add to this the pilots, architects, civil engineers, ex-intelligence personel, first responders etc etc (ad infinitum) and there a few people who would call Neil on his statement.

    Noam Chomsky to Donald Rumsfeld LOL, maybe in his world but not in reality. I love the way non-troofers paint us all as conspiraloons, this discrediting of the messenger is a widely used ploy. There are a lot of intelligent, professional people that question the official story of the events of 9-11, unfortunately they aren’t intelligent enough to call their opposition idiots, imbeciles, morons, dickwads, fuckwits or use any other of your highly intelligent debating techniques (such as ignoring questions, discounting evidence, pouring scorn on arguments, acting arrogantly etc).

    I have tried my best not to insult you or call you names, I think you’re making yourself look stupid without my help. Paul, PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED YOU, I cannot put it plainer than that can I?

  • http://www.radiophonic.org.uk Neil

    [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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Perhaps next time the producers could ask Father Christmas or some of his Raindear to go on the show and pipe up how honest the US government is and how it would never go to war based on false pretxes and so forth.

    911 was not an inside job, it was done by 19 Muslim Terrorists controlled by a guy who lived in a cave. LOL

    And not once but 4 times all in the same day it managed to get NORAD to stand down, even the Pentagon was hit.

  • 3 year old kid

    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/

  • Sprite

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    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!

  • 3 year old kid

    paul w

    Posted: Jun 30th, 2008 at 12:18 am

    Quote:

    Hey Neil

    Yeah, they’re fuckwits, I know. I’m replying more for anyone reading this (if anyone else is?) than those two idiots.

    I’m currently doing a lengthy reply to Bill and Ben, and then leave them to their paranoia. Suckers.

    Bill and Ben:

    Ben (Ashley), good to see you can count, mate. Yes, getting your reply ready. Don’t panic, it’s coming. Not sure what the fuck you’ve been smoking, but I never said a plane crashed into WTC7. As usual, you completely misunderstood, or ignored, the comment about planes NOT hitting WTC7. Go read it again, you moron. Sheesh!

    Bill (3 year old kid): er…ummmm…nah, got nothing to say, other than that you’re an idiot.

    End Quote:

    Paul,

    What is

    10.00 – 9.22 =

    So if you cant even do that sum then is it not you who is the idiot?

  • Ashley

    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?

  • 3 year old kid

    [in loud megaphone]
    Come in Dr. MU PIT Spalding, are you real or faked up. over?

    Why will you not answer the simple question Spaulding, is it because you are A FAKE. over?

    Are you talking the usual "Cult watch" Bullshit. over?

    Come in Spalding, Come in – Come clean and tell the truth. over.

  • paul w

    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?

  • Ashley

    Paul

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    I’m interested to know the bit where I’m frothing at the mouth. As far as I’m concerned all I am doing is debating. Is it not you who is having to resort to insults, rather than me? (in this latest post alone we have had: – idiot, dipshit, dick-for-brains, moron and bastard – you really are charming). Is this not exactly what troofers are described as resorting to when people disagree with them?

    You appear to be addressing both your Bill and Ben comments to me as I have said both of the above. With regards WTC7, the comment ‘you are an idiot’ does not discount the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy). If I am an idiot, please could you describe to me how this law is not applicable to WTC7.

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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) [/quote]

    Hehehee this is really funny, have you ever tried reaing a book? I can’t really give you any mp3s but some of the books I’ve read over the last six months or so have been very interesting, try some of these if you feel up to the challenge of the written word: –

    The Great War for Civilisation – Robert Fisk.
    Very interesting and in depth study of the Middle East since the Ottoman Empire. Very informative but very harrowing in places.

    Velvet Elvis – Rob Bell
    A book that is interested in the application of Christian faith in the contemporary world.

    Propaganda – Edward Bernays
    A real eye opener, gives you an insight in to how companies and governements steer us in their required directions. Written by a relative of Siegmund Freud (his nephew IIRC)

    The Shock Doctine – Naomi Klein
    Scary book on Chicagoan Economics. Puts forward the idea that the big money is now taking advantage of disasters (coined as ‘disaster capitalism’) and that the tsunami, the war in Iraq, the floods of New Orleans etc have been used by the mega-rich to get even richer.

    Demanding the Impossible, A History of Anarchism – Peter Marshall (not yet finished)
    Interesting book on the history of anarchism (no Paul it’s not all about letting petrol bombs off)

    Pity the Nation – Robert Fisk (not yet finished)
    Yet another interesting yet harrowing book, this time on the history of Lebanon.

    Political Ponerology – Andrew M Loaczewski
    This book written by a polish born psychologist posits the idea that somewhere up to 25% of the population are either psychopaths or sociopaths and that the traits of these people mean that over time they rise to power. Very interesting book (unfortunately not backed up with much scientific study), but quite a scary read all the same.

    Beyond the Cosmos – Hugh Ross
    Really cool book that looks at quantum physics and Christianity. Sounds like a bit of a wierd mixture but it basically sets out to prove that a belief in God is not at odds with quantum physics (as it may be seen as being at odds with other branches of science).

    The Kingdom of God is Within You – Leo Tolstoy
    A great book (imo), puts forward the ideas of non-violent protest, anarchism being the logical outcome of a true faith. This book apparently had a profound effect on Gandhi.

    Sorry there’s no fiction in the list but there’s only a limited amount of time to read and I want to make best use of it.

    I love the ‘hot chickky babe’ comment, it says an awful lot about you ;)

    Your comments on the average troofer are yet another sweeping generalisation. As for the number of friends a person has, that is a really interesting comment. My personal opinion is if you get more than a handful of people who you can really connect with through the course of your life then you are extremely lucky.

    I guess it all depends on how you would class friendship, is it someone you would trust implicitly with anything or is it someone you can go down the pub with? You could write a book on the subject but I would be of the mind that quality is more important than quantity (just my personal opinion, not saying I’m right).

    As for your comment of being very busy with work, yeah I guess those shelves don’t stack themselves eh fella ;)

    I love the ‘last major effort’ comment, is this a way of trying to get the last word Paul? As in ‘I will write my final comment’ and not reply to you any longer. This would be a bit childish but I won’t complain as there are only so many times you can ask someone the same question without getting bored.

    If you find me dim Paul I must apologise, I do however have quite a high IQ (although these things are culturally biased), a 2:1 BSc Hons and consider myself fairly well read. Perhaps I should just call you a f*ckwit to expose my true intelligence.

    If you find me monotonous, I think you’ll find that it is probably more your fault than mine. I mean if you answered the questions that were put to you, I wouldn’t have to repeat them 5 or 6 times.

    Nice to see you consider this to be a form of sport rather than a serious discussion (lots of fun to rattle you say), is this not disrespectful of the dead and injured? As far as I was concerned this was a very serious thread on a very serious subject. Perhaps I should be more flippant.

    As for being sad, lonely and isolated, I’m sorry to disappoint you but this isn’t the case. I have a wonderful family and some very close friends. Whilst I wouldn’t denigrate my wife by describing her as a ‘hot chickky babe’ and my 2 beautiful daughters(6 and 3) are the absolute ‘apple of my eye’, I’m more than happy with my lot thank you for your concern.

    I fail to understand how my opening my eyes to the reality of the world is in your mind a source of suffering. It isn’t easy when you realise that your government lies to you on a regular basis, that you’re seen as nothing more than a resource, that the surveillance society has more to do with keeping you in line than defeating non-existant terrorists, that the wars your country are engaged in are aggressor wars (contrary to the Geneva Cenvention and the same as Hitler started), that the sanctity of human life is held in such low regard by the powers that be, but I’m damn sure I’m not going to fall for the circuses and bread, if you want to believe the absolute bollocks most of our politicians spout then more power to you. It doesn’t make you right and imo you are letting them decieve you, but that’s your choice.

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • 3 year old kid

    The answer is Controlled Demolition Paul.

  • 3 year old kid

    Your answer is Gravity, can anyone see a big fat problem with Paul's answer?

  • 3 year old kid

    The problem with your answer Paul is there was less than 10% the necessary energy stored in the entire upright structure to do the Work.

    Were did the other 90% of the energy come from Paul?

  • 3 year old kid

    You sure do make a good SLAVE paul.

  • Purple Heart

    So are you saying that I went to war based on a crock of lies?

  • 3 year old kid

    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

  • 3 year old kid

    Your comment is awaiting moderation because it contained links.. just checking that you're not a spam bot.

    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:-

    ht

    tp:

    //video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=alex+jones+warns+of+911&sitesearch=#

  • Elbow 05

    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 w

    Bill and Ben

    At it again, eh, boys?

    3 Year Old Kid gets more bizarre as times goes on. You want to tell me what force was greater than gravity on 9-11?

    Ashley, thanks for the book suggestions, but why choose an author (Fisk) who says troofers as deluded? And the Christian one…are you a Christian?

    Oh, your reply is coming. I'm sure you will enjoy it!

  • Ashley

    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).

  • Science Boffin

    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.

    See the witness evidence of demolition explosives.

    http://video.google.com/videosearch?sitesearch=&a

  • Victor E

    Is there another one of these yellow journalism hit pieces because I want to have another laugh?

  • Sprite

    3 year old kid

    Elbow 05

    Science Boffin

    Are the same person. They all share the same ID.

    The fact you need to do this, 3 year old kid, proves you do not have complete confidence in your own theories.

    Please give us an explanation as to why you feed the need to take on 4 personalities.

  • Science Boffin

    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.

  • Victor E

    I have to say some of your correspondents are funny, stupid beyond belief, but funny.

  • Louise

    [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?

  • Inside Job

    Can anyone see a Conspiracy theory developing here?

    Are you all Conspiracy nuts?

  • Inside Job

    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?

  • Science Boffin

    Was it not Bush & Cheney who refused to appear before the 911 commission under oath?

    Then they went together in closed session but still refused to testify under oath.

    Yet here we have 120+ firefighters who were there on 911 in signed sworn statements saying they witnessed Controlled Demolition and many explosions.

    So why should anyone believe the official story if they will not even testify under oath?

    I believe the Firefighters accounts and I believe the Controlled Demolition Physics.

  • Ashley

    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!

  • Ashley

    Well I take it back, they did mention the building still standing in the background. They said that the information came from Reuters and apparently was put out by a small local news team and removed when it was found to be an error. I still find it amazing that a 600 foot, 47 storey building with a footprint the size of a football field can be misplaced by anyone, let alone make it as far as Reuters and on to the BBC and CNN. I mean: –

    ‘WTC7 has collapsed’
    ‘no it hasn’t – it’s there blocking out half of the freaking sky!’
    ‘oh yeah, my mistake’

    Apparently the reason the BBC lost signal during the report was not because someone noticed the building in the background, but because the satellite link was on a timer and went off at 5.15 exactly. The ‘blocking’ and ‘artefacting’ that was displayed at the end was more reminiscent of a weakening signal, rather than one that had been turned off at precisely 5:15. I get blocking like that on Sky in periods of *very* heavy rain, if the signal is ‘off’ I get a ‘no satellite signal is being recieved’ message.

    They have also found their tapes of the day, they had been put back on the wrong shelf (they were put back for the year previous), fortuitous that someone was looking on that particular shelf wasn’t it?

    They made it seem the most natural thing in the world, what they didn’t explain is how this information got on the wire in the first place. The finger has now moved from the BBC and CNN to Reuters, they need to explain where they got it from, which local station, when was it reported, is there archive footage of it etc? They say in the program that WTC7 would be the only steel framed building in history to collapse due to fire damage, but in the same breath explain away this very eerie premonition as a mere freak occurence.

    It was a lot more balanced that I thought it would be but it did sway towards the official story towards the end. They also tended to end most of the questions with the offical version of events or a piece of debunking.

    They used a clip of Dylan Avery swearing when he was told Richard Clark didn’t see anything out of the ordinary, this will defintely have had a negative effect on viewers. I can kind of understand him snapping at such a stupid question, I mean the Head of Counter Terrorism at the time didn’t believe the conspiracy theories – vegans don’t eat foie gras either.

    NIST are indeed using computer simulations (maybe they don’t want to look like idiots, if they try using real world models and fail again).

    It all sounded very plausible and they gave them very reverential treatment, the idea of the floors sagging and the connections between the horizontal columns and vertical columns shearing.

    Apparently this is what caused it to collapse at almost free fall speed, what it fails to mention is that nearly all of these connections would have had to have failed to provide only 0.6 seconds of resistance. These steel supports were very polite, not one of them wanted to be first to go, so they all went together.

    According to the BBC the floors were the size of a football field. The fires would have gone all round this building eating up what was flammable and then moving on, it would have been a chaotic fire and certainly would not have been uniform.

    The footage of the south side of the building makes it even more believeable that this building was a controlled demolition. There are fires and structural damage, there is smoke all over the place, but if you look at the north side of the building there is hardly anything, there’s fire in a couple of windows. There’s no structural damage, most of the windows on most of the floors appear intact.

    So how with all this damage on one side of the building, with intact windows on the other side, did the building not go over to one side? Why did it not partially collapse on the one side? Why did all of the beams and columns on the ‘good’ side, give way at the same time as the ‘bad’ side? Were the beams and columns on the north side less resistant to fire? Were the ones on the south side made of kryptonite?

    There was an emotive bit from one of the firemen included, basically saying you shouldn’t comment unless you were there and used the loss of friends to justify this. I’m so very sorry for the loss of life on that day (and since), but trying to make out the only people who should question the events are people who were there is cobblers imo (was everyone involved in the FEMA, NIST and Kean reports there on the day?).

    I respect firemen implicitly (they do a very dangerous job) but for this guy to say he knows more about building collapses and the workings of physics than say Steven Jones because of their locations on one day in history is clearly preposterous. This is like Bush and the ‘we should never entertain outrageous conspiracy theories’, it is an effort to stifle debate, it was emotive and questionable.

    They ended with the chief of the Fire Department saying ‘we have to keep our facts facts and our fiction fiction’ or some such other rubbish.

    The facts as I see them are, no steel framed building, before or since, has collapsed due to fire damage. The fires and impact damage in this building were asymmetrical. Two major news channels predicted the collapse by some 20 minutes due to it being put on the wire that it had collapsed. When it did collapse it completely ignored the 2nd law of thermodynamics, completely ignored the asymmetrical damage, completly ignored the law of conservation of momentum and failed completely and totally at every point around the perimeter within 1/10th of a second and collapsed in to its own footprint at almost freefall speed.

    Where’s the facts and where’s the fiction?

  • veritas

    [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.

  • 3 year old Kid

    To anyone with even half a brain cell here is an experiment which can be done on a blazing camp fire to prove that 911 collapses were not due to fire & gravity alone :

    Take one old steel Chip pan net.

    Cut liberal amount of damage on one side of net.

    Build a ruddy great campfire & put a large flat rock on the ground at the centre.

    Put the damaged chip net on the rock and put a heavy brick or stack of bricks on top of the damaged net.

    Once balanced set the fire going and get it as hot as it possibly will go.

    Pour as much jet fuel or any other hydrocarbon fuel on the fire for as many days or weeks as it takes to get the net to buckle and allow the brick or bricks to fall.

    What you will find is two key things will happen.

    The bricks will not crush the net by giving way instantly but will topple over towards the weakest side slowly.

    It will take at least 2 days of red-hot continues fire before the toppling process even begins.

    Now do the experiment again but put 47 core supports in this time Use 47 welding rods)

    Do you suppose it would take more or less time to fail?

    Now on 911 it was the same gravity but your model is an even more severe case than 911, because the bricks are far heavier than the net structure.

    NIST will never use real models to simulate 911 because they can not fiddle the results and parameters.

    Jet fires on columns will never weaken them because there is only one way in by conduction for the heat but two ways out, up and down. Then there is Convection and radiation losses also.

    Only a paid CRIMINAL would claim fire dropped WTC 007 symmetrically at almost freefall speed despite asymmetrical fire damage. And only a perfect CRETIN would ever believe such total and utter Balderdash and Piffle.

  • 3 year old Kid

    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.

  • 3 year old Kid

    Earths gravity at sea level causes an acceleration 9.81 metres per second squared.

    In earths gravity it is physically imposible for 911 to be anything other than Controlled Demolition. PERIOD.

  • paul w

    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???

  • Ashley

    Paul w

    [quote post="3838"]Man, that Fisk sounds like a troofer! What a moron![/quote]

    One of the most respected journalists to work in the ME in our lifetimes (first for The Times and subsequently The Independent), has conducted two face to face interviews with bin Laden, but because he disagrees with Paul w he is a moron. This is a very new benchmark for intelligence, so new it is not currently accepted, but over time the 'agree with Paul w intelligence test' I'm sure will become the de-facto standard worldwide.

    Look Paul there are people who don't believe the official story all over the place, there's over 100 million in the US alone. There are politicians, architects, engineers, pilots, ex-intelligence employees, firemen, demolitions experts, soldiers, first responders, physicists, chemists and on and on. What makes you so sure you know better than all of these? The fact you've visited screwloosechange? Just out of interest what qualifications do you hold?

    9/11 was an inside job, WTC7 is the smoking gun. If you don't believe it that's up to you, but don't show yourself to be an ignoramus by resorting to insults.

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • 3 year old kid

    How is this for Paul W's Specious logic?

    "Trrrooofffers cant be right because there may be 400+ Architects and Engineers and other professionals but far more have not joined so how can they be right?"

    So go on Paul W, show us 400 Architects and Engineers who say the government story is right?

    Indeed, did you yourself not debunk the only person to cover the collapse sequence, Kieth Seffen?

    Was it not you who informed us the tops were toppling, yet Seffen's paper claims there was symmetrical destruction initiation?

    How come Seffen did not know what even thicko you knew?

  • paul w

    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

  • paul w

    Just tried to post a (lengthy) comment but it didn't appear. This is a check.

  • paul w

    Moderator: my original post did not 'stick'. Is it too long? Too boring? Possible cause of heart-failure for Bill and Ben?

  • Mick Meaney

    It's published now Paul, because of the word count and the links this site thought it was spam and binned it. Just recovered it now.

    I'm trying to get people to use the forum to stop this from happening because I have to fish out quiet a few comments each day which have been binned by mistake.

  • paul w

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Thanks for the post Paul W,

    I am now convinced you really do not have a blinking clue about the science issues and what is or is not Physically impossible in earth's gravity.

    You yourself debunked the only fool to cover the destruction sequence (Kieth Seffen) by confirming the tops were indeed toppling.

    Yet you think that burning jet fuel fires or office fires and asymmetrical damage can collapse 3 buildings symmetrically at almost free-fall speed.

    When you brushed your teeth did your teeth fall out?

    When you washed, did your arms & legs fall off?

    When you farted did you shoot through the ceiling?

    I suggest you stop taking the strong Marijuana Paul W, its making your grip on reality very wibbly wobbly.

    FACT

    Its just not physically possible for any uneven fire to collapse a building symmetrically, and never within 2 hours – why spend millions on demolitions if fire would do it?

    And certainly not at almost free-fall speed through undamaged lower 80+ floors.

    But thanks for the long post you put a lot of effort in and now we know you at least have given the issues some thought.

  • Ashley

    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 ;)

  • 3 year old kid

    I would like to say a little prayer for all those who are still seeking justice for their relatives, such as the jersey girls and those people who sadly lost their lives on and since 911.

    May those who perished rest in peace and may those who are still able get justice for those who perished.

    May those who actually did 911 be found guilty of mass murder and treason and be impeached as traitors.

    Amen

  • Ashley

    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’

  • Ashley

    Hey Paul, I found that site that links to the voice-over artists site. It is http://debunking911.com/ (one of your authoratitive sources I believe) and the link is on the front page described as: – 'Important New Site'. The site is http://www.ae911truth.info/ 'voice over artists for 911 truth' doesn't have quite the authority of 'architects and engineers' or 'pilots' but I guess he's got to do something between waiting tables and doing voice overs in ads.

    Important New Site – rofl

    And you say we drag the bottom of the barrel.

  • Louise

    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.

  • Ashley

    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOC… this is the first paper to be published by http://www.journalof911studies.com/ for peer review. They also have more being planned for submission.

    Please could you point me in the direction of the peer reviewed papers published by screwloosechange, debunking911 and 911myths. TIA

  • Just-Me

    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].

  • paul w

    Ashely

    "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"

    Oh my god…Stephen Jones!!!! What a hoot! Thanks, Ashley, now I KNOW you are an idiot!

    PS Nice cutting and pasting, Ashley! :)

  • paul w

    Note how Ashely is answering none of my questions but asking his own?

    Run Ashley, run!

  • paul w

    Ashley, are you on medication?

    Just saw the link you gave re the nose cone. Hmm. Can you explain what the living fuck this has to do with my comment that the hole in the C ring was not from the nose cone (which would not have survived the first impact) but the debris, including heavy stuff like landing gear, etc?

    Are you saying that I made a mistake it suggesting the nose cone probably wasn't metal? Did you note I said MOST nose cones are not metal? Now, if that's a mistake, so be it…but the issue was what made the hole in the wall, and you said it probably wasn't the nose cone. I agreed, and said the experts agree too – they reckon it was the mass of debris that smacked into it.

    Look, this is hopeless. You're just going round in circles and evading answering any of my questions. Reply if you want, but I'm just not interested.

    Ashley, I am sorry for the name-calling, but you deserve it. You are an idiot.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Thanks Just-Me – good points.

    I have a problem with the whole official story.

    TROOOOFFFERRsSSS are only human and do make mistakes from time to time, but are basically honest.

    Does anyone here think Bush and Co are honest?

    Point made and accepted then. right!!?/?

  • Ashley

    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 :)

  • Ashley

    Paul

    Before I delve further in to your post can you answer a couple of questions for me? There aren't going to be hundreds, just a couple of the ones that I don't think you've answered thus far, and that I think are very important. I'd like to try and get answers from you before we go in to all the things you have widened this argument in to.

    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)

    You'll have to pardon me for putting the clues there, but being as you have been asked these questions on a number of occasions I thought you could do with the help ;)

    I think that the really long post you have made (which I must say is quite exhaustive), was made by you in order to try and hide these questions. I think you know they can't be answered within the confines of the official story.

    I won't be so childish to put 'run Paul run' or any such other rubbish, but if you can't answer these question please just say.

    I have no doubt you're going to whinge about me asking more questions, but please bear in mind I have asked you these several times before.

    There are 8 questions here that I believe cannot be debunked, if you would like to pick a similar number of questions that you would like me to try and answer first I'm more than happy with that.

    Now if you are unable to debunk any of these, how can you say a new inquiry is not necessary? If you are able to debunk all of these then I will happily consume an item of my headwear.

    Just as an aside, not to prove anything but I'm interested in your answer. Looking at the three building collapses do you think they *could* have been caused by controlled demolition? I am not asking you here to agree they were, but I am asking, do you see anything in any of the 3 collapses that could not have been caused by controlled demolition (not speaking of the logistics of getting the bombs in, motive etc, but do you think the towers *could* collapse in that fashion from explosives/cutter charges?).

  • Just-Me

    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!!

  • Ashley

    Just-Me

    Good post. I agree regarding the name calling but Paul steadfastly refuses to see *any* outstanding questions and believes the official reports answer *everything*. Anyway calling him a dumb idiot is pretty tame compared to what the little potty mouth has been calling people who disagree with him (you might want to put on your tin hat and flak vest for when he reads your post ;)

    Regarding cards on the table, I am in the MIHOP camp (in case you hadn't gathered) but the way I see it we are both fighting the same corner. Some would see there being a gulf between the camps but as I see it whether they made it happen or let it happen, it's still treason and they still have blood on their hands.

    Regarding the idea of a self destruct mechanism in tower 7, Mark Loizeaux of CDI said on the recent BBC Conspiracy Files that the explosives they use have a shelf life of two years (after that they don't guarantee they will go off). That is not to say there couldn't be a mixture of chemicals that could last longer.

    I do take what Mr Loizeaux has to say with a pinch of salt as he originally said about WTC1&2 on 9-11: –

    'the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one wouldlike [sic] fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping.'

    What he's saying here in Physics terms is 'I don't understand how the tower didn't take the path of least resistance' as he knows it would have. He later retracted this in a statement in New Scientist magazine. His company was awarded contracts for the clean up operations after 9-11 and a lot of his work comes from government or big business (make of this what you will).

    I agree that WTC7 is the smoking gun, but the responsibility video and the irregularities mentioned above prove beyond doubt as far as I'm concerned that the US administration lied (either that or their intelligence services don't know their left hand from their right, can't spot the gold on his hands and think Osama ate all the pies on that particular day). IIRC the Bush 'Let us not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories' comment was to back up this taped confession.

    I think this is a house of cards for the Bush administration and if it topples I can't see there being much honour amongst reprobates like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

    I agree regarding your points about civil liberties, it's positively Orwellian both here in the UK and even worse in the US. I've watched a couple of good films about this, a UK focussed one is 'Taking Liberties' and to see what the Neocons have been up to with the Constitution (just a goddam piece of paper according to Dubya) you could watch 'Washington You're Fired'. Apparently the Bush administration were carrying out the operations covered by the Patriot Act some 7 months prior to 9-11, if these operations are supposed to catch terrorists they're not very effective! Unless of course they let it or made it happen on purpose. They are trying to have their cake and eat it here the way I see it. If the operations in the Patriot Act work then it implicates them, if they don't work it's a waste of money and an invasion of privacy. What they can't claim is the Partiot Act catches terrorists and 9-11 happened.

  • paul w

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Official Statement Confirms Detonations on 9/11

    The rank of this witness is:

    CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE OF BATTALION 46

    CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE QUOTE :

    “SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT.

    “INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN 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. I WENT INSIDE AND TOLD EVERYBODY THAT THE OTHER BUILDING OR THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION OCCURRING UP THERE AND SAID THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER MAJOR EXPLOSION. I DONT KNOW IF WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE SAFE HERE.”

  • 3 year old kid
  • paul w

    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.

  • paul w

    "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.

  • paul w

    Ashley:

    Number 1:

    “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?

    Number 2:

    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.”

    Why is it ‘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?

  • Ashley

    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.

  • Ashley

    Paul

    I would like to point out to you a little bit of what I consider to be hypocrisy (or blatant stupidity). To debunk 3yo kid you say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    In the next post you say: –

    [quote post="3838"]“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.[/quote]

    Can you not see that this is the exact same thing? Are you that stupid? Come on Paul, you list some debunking sites like they are an authority (are they? What are the qualifications of the people who run these sites? Are they architects & engineers? Are they pilots? Are they academics?) and then pour scorn on 3 of the most respected of the 'conspiracy' sites.

    This takes the biscuit, you are I would say the: -[quote post="3838"]Unbelievable.[/quote][quote post="3838"]Idiot.[/quote]

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    And if you think this sort of thing is not happening in the UK, check this out:-

    http://infowars.net/articles/july2008/080708Polic

    7/7 was also a pretext for population control and enslavement.

  • 3 year old Kid

    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!

  • Science Boffin

    German Film re 911 being an inside job

    http://www.videocommunity.com/pc/pc/display/7167

  • paul w

    “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.

  • paul w

    3 year old kid

    Increase the medication.

  • Just-Me

    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 ;)

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

    NO?

    So we need a new investigation to actually find out who did 911. RIGHT?

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • 3 year old kid

    Then I think we should investigate who made millions on PUT options?

    WOT? You mean you did not know it was the head of the CIA who was one of the people who made millions out of 911?

    Mmmmmmm? I wonder who pulled that investigation into insider trading?

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • Ashley

    Paul

    As I have asked on a number of occassions, can you answer the 8 direct questions I have asked you? If the answer is yes then do it, if it’s no then please can you confirm this?

    You are continuing to try and draw me in to a slanging match, something I am not willing to get involved in. Here *AGAIN* are the 8 questions (we’re almost getting in to double figures, the number of times I have asked you these and you are expressing exaspiration at *my* debating techniques!).

    [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]

    Your appealing to other readers on this thead is hilarious, it’s almost desperate. Answer the questions Paul, don’t avoid, evade, misdirect, just give answers (even if the answers are that you cannot provide answers).

    Now I will look at your most recent post. There is yet more ‘morons’ and ‘idiots’ etc, can you please let me know what your qualification 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?

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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. [/quote]

    Now your original quote gave the impression that you believed this guy heard rivets popping (which personally I think is absolute hogwash, with the amount of noise that was obviously in the area, the fact that the rivets which he claims were ‘popping’ were 500 feet above him and within a building.)

    If you were not trying to imply that the guy heard rivets popping with this statement, what exactly were you trying to imply?

    I mean from what I can gather from your revisiting this point is, that he heard a noise coming from a building about to collapse. Funny that isn’t it, a collapsing building making a noise? What are you trying to prove with this statement, or is it just some random comment that wasn’t supposed to serve any purpose whatsoever? And shock horror! Other people heard the noise from the building. If you can’t say for a fact that the noise was rivets popping, can you say for a fact that it wasn’t a noise in some way associated with controlled demolition (the answer to this is no before you go off on another tangent. If you don’t know what it was then you can’t know what it wasn’t – within reason).

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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![/quote]

    Of the 8 direct questions that have been asked of you on several occassions, which of these would you claim fitted in to this category and why? With regards the ones that don’t fit in to this category, please do me the favour of answering them before I have to ask them yet again and again and again and……..

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    Yes Paul, some people believe in planes, some don’t. Some believe in space weapons, some don’t. Some believe it was made to happen by the government, some believe the government let it happen. These are symptoms of people trying to come to their own conclusions from looking at the available evidence. You say that ‘no such monumental differences exist within the debunking crowd’ and this I agree with, you all believe the official story word for word. Who appears to be doing the critical thinking for themselves and who appears to be following a crowd? You really are dull aren’t you?

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    No Paul this is patently untrue, I don’t use the term sheeple (which is what I’m guessing you meant by sheepie). I think there are people who cannot believe it because their psyches are protecting them from the implications. I also think there are people deliberately involved in disinformation. I also think there are people who believe the government are too inept to carry anything out like this. I also think there are many people who have yet to see any of the evidence which is suspicious (other than in MSM sponsored hit pieces like ‘The Conspiracy Files’). I also think there are people who are too dull to see there are very definite holes in the official story. I don’t think you need to ask me which ‘camp’ I think you belong to ;)

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]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). [/quote]

    Yes Paul 9-11 cultwatch (yawn), is a deliberate attempt to try and smear truthers and avoid the questions that cannot be answered within the confines of the official story (EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!). If you cannot discreit the message, then discredit the messnger. The brief flurry you talk of, would this involve the paltry 100 million Americans that think their governement was complicit in the attacks of 9-11? Can you not see that there *must* be something fishy if this many people question the events?

    You claim intellectual superiority over me (as can be seen from your numerous insults), if you truly believe yourself to be some intellectual leviathan then ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I’VE ASKED YOU. There’s only 8 of them, they’re listed above and above and above and above and……..

    You say you are having problems untangling my thought processes, is this a problem with my thought processes or your limited ability to process things? I think I have made my opinions on the events of 9-11 abundantly clear, if you cannot process this then I apologise for your lack of logical thought processes.

    Oh and btw, please answer the 8 direct questions I’ve asked you when you get a chance.

    And one other the thing, you know those 8 direct questions………..

  • 3 year old kid

    "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.

  • Mick Meaney

    There is a clear moderation breech here, please ensure everyone reads this

    http://forums.rinf.com/showthread.php?p=2560#post

    I honestly don't want to start banning people, so don't get personal and keep the debate focused on evidence. Thanks.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    See this for high witness testemony, how can 118 high witnesses all be wrong?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=818701343

  • Just-Me

    [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

    Curioser and curioser

    In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request submitted by Kevin Ryan, Mick Harrison and Paul Smith, the government has disclosed documents confirming that Pakistani ISI General Ahmed – the guy who wired $100,000 to lead hijacker Atta — met with a "Senior Representative from the Joint Chiefs of Staff", Centcom Commander General Tommy Franks, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Wolfowitz, Feith, other PNAC members, and probably Intelligence Committee members Graham and Goss, and others in the week before 9/11.

    h

    ttp://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/07/confirmed-pakistani-general-who-wired.html

  • 3 year old kid

    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 w

    Hello everyone, here’s yet another example of debating a troofer like Ashley. It first began with this post I made (a reply to Ashley’s questions):

    ———- (Ashley’s question); “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.”

    (My reply): 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 (there was other stuff, but that is the gist of the thing)————

    This is how Ashley then replied:
    ——— “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?” ——–

    So, I replied thus:
    —— “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. ——

    So, what happened then? Ashley replied with this:
    ———“Now your original quote gave the impression that you believed this guy heard rivets popping (which personally I think is absolute hogwash, with the amount of noise that was obviously in the area, the fact that the rivets which he claims were ‘popping’ were 500 feet above him and within a building.) If you were not trying to imply that the guy heard rivets popping with this statement, what exactly were you trying to imply?”———

    Okay, note how Ashley says, “Now your original quote gave the impression that you believed this guy heard rivets popping…” and also, “If you were not trying to imply that the guy heard rivets popping with this statement, what exactly were you trying to imply?”

    Okay, let’s first deal with “Now your original quote gave the impression that you believed this guy heard rivets popping…” To do this, please re-read my original quote; “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 .

    Can you find anything whatsoever in which I give an impression trying to imply that the guy heard rivets popping? It just ‘aint there. I was (obviously) trying to answer the question of random explosions and the ‘pop, pop, pop’. Whether I did this is another matter, but the so-called implication about rivets simply isn’t there. His other comment is next; “If you were not trying to imply that the guy heard rivets popping with this statement, what exactly were you trying to imply?” What was I trying to reply, er, random explosions and the ‘pop, pop, pop’?

    This reply is typical of Ashley’s troofer mindset: I post a reply about explosions and the pop, pop, pop, and he twists it around to: “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?’ See how he changes tack? He ignores my reply to his original question about explosions (and my question to him about how he thinks it “sounds far too regular to be written off as random explosions”) and starts a new topic about what the guy heard. Note that wasn’t the issue in the first place. He simply made up another issue and asked a question about it. As I said, it’s how troofers like Ashley work. Most (all?) of their questions are exactly like this, a reasonable-sounding question (how could someone heard rivets popping?) based on fabrication.

    Also note how he’s changed tack again; now the issue is answering his ‘8 direct questions’. Note that he’s mostly ignored my lengthy reply and questions to him by simply dismissing them as “muddying the waters”. Hmm, nice way to fob the questions off, eh!

    This is why logical, rational debate is not possible with troofers. Ask a question and you’ll receive a hall of mirrors reply, one that ignores the issue and replaces it with one of their own.

    Personally, I think Ashley’s a fuckwit. Then again, he’s waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of 3 year old kid!

  • Ashley

    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 w

    "before I answer any more of your questions…."

    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.

    "I would ask that you answer my 8 direct questions…." What was that I said in the last post about his new tack?

    Gee, Ashley, you really want to hold onto the fantasy about 9-11, don't you? Is your life that boring? Or are you just as delusional in other things? Avoidance issues, maybe?

    Who the fuck knows. Here is yet another earlier example of avoidance and changing tack. This was a reply to Ashley when he asked how they knew WTC7 was going to fall 20 minutes before it did:

    ——– "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.”

    Why is it ‘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?"

    (Ashley's reply):

    "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"

    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.)

    This is a comment to me from a much earlier post: "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."

    What a moron. The guy's totally bogus and a complete waste of time. Ashley, as I said, you're a fuckwit.

  • Ashley

    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).

  • Just-Me

    [quote post="3838"]Just-Me , In case you forget I say exactly as I please, when I please – get use to it.[/quote]

    I fully understand that and of course you are completely free to do so.

    I was merely trying to instil the idea that open unbiased [where possible] debate is an excellent vehicle to draw others in and allow them to research and question for themselves. It's been a slow process but the public are having doubts.

    People generally object to being told how/what to think or what is the correct interpretation of an event. I personally prefer to tease folks into the debate. A debate that many have never even given a second thought. Allow them to think, analyse, question and draw their own conclusions.

    It only takes a trickle of doubt that the Official story doesn't hold water .. soon that Official ship may sink!

    Stubbornly insisting that only one conclusion may be drawn leads people away labelling us cuckoos, nuts, bonkers and lest we forget "Conspiracy Theorists".

    [quote post="3838"]Rather than calling it the Cynic’s Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE.[/quote]

    ^ Perfect example. How many times in this thread have you told people they are CRETINS before they have even had the chance to listen to the MP3?

    It really doesn't help the "Truth" movement. You may of course continue as you see fit but wouldn't it be beneficial we [Truthers] didn't resort insults but engage the enemy gently together "one doubt" at a time?

  • Just-Me

    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

    Just-Me

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]It really doesn’t help the “Truth” movement. You may of course continue as you see fit but wouldn’t it be beneficial we [Truthers] didn’t resort insults but engage the enemy gently together “one doubt” at a time?[/quote]

    I completely agree with your sentiments but I have been trying to persuade Paul w there are some doubtsquestionsoddities about the events of 9-11 but he point blank refuses to acknowledge even one of the things I've pointed out (especially with regards the 8 direct questions I've asked and asked and asked).

    What he has managed to do is use pretty much every obscenity in current usage in the English language towards both myself and 3yo kid. It is so hard not to resort to insults, I mean if I put an orange in front of this guy he'd swear blind it was a grape and call me a f*ckwit.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are people who deserve to be insulted, but I agree it doesn't make it right to do it.

  • Just-Me

    @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"]

  • 3 year old kid

    See this for high witness testemony, how can 118 high witnesses all be wrong?

    Vote – who says all 118 are wrong?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=818701343

  • Physicist

    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

  • Just-Me

    ^ LOL .. Osama in a deep cave with a cache of food, water and guns .. you know I reckon he knew about this before you did ;)

    PS I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and guess the above post was malicious with intent to label "Truthers" as the lunatic fringe by association … I'm right I reckon on this occasion :)

  • Just-Me

    [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.

  • Nemesis

    DUHHHH Its OK, there is nothing out there – the gulf of mexeco proves that.

    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

  • Killshot

    I wonder if it could bring down the protective Magnetic field?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-65784385

  • 3 year old kid

    Dr David R Griffin only looked at 38 references who stated they observed either explosions or Controlled Demolition.

    On further investigation it was found there were 118 fire-fighters who stated they witnessed either Explosions or Controlled Demolition.

    So Are 118 fire-fighters ALL wrong?

    Would 118 referees be wrong if a goal was scored or not?

    Would 118 butchers not know if it was a kebab or a lamb chop?

    Would 118 car mechanics not know if a tyre was bald or not?

    Would 118 Physicists not know how to differentiate 2X^2?

    Would 118 hairdressers not know if someone had brown hair or blond?

    Would 118 Fire-fighters not know the sound of Explosions?

    Would a fruit and veg man not know a carrot from a pea?

    Would a “Cult watcher” not know the difference between the smell of sweet perfume and a big fat smelly FART?

  • The Killshot

    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.

  • Physicist

    Quote:

    Just-Me

    Posted: Jul 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    ^ LOL .. Osama in a deep cave with a cache of food, water and guns .. you know I reckon he knew about this before you did ;)

    PS I’m gonna take a stab in the dark and guess the above post was malicious with intent to label “Truthers” as the lunatic fringe by association … I’m right I reckon on this occasion :)

    End quote

    Whatever

  • Physicist

    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?

  • Just-Me

    Is this a wind up? lol .. I'll bite (once)

    I typed a message but hit SUBMIT without putting my name in … so had to type again.

    Anyway, the shorter version. Objects from space may at some point impact Earth or a close call having severe impact on Earth. Man that stands to reason and scientific consensus!

    However, why would the USA mobilise their military (9/11 being the pretext by complicity or a simple act of terrorism) in Afganistan/Iraq in order to prepare for such an event. What are the benefits?

    You reckon oil [and opium] will be the ultimate resource[s] to secure prior to a cataclysmic event. "Computer says NO" obviously except the opium ;)

    PS You're welcome to your opinion :) but I dismiss it outright I'm afraid … call me crazy ;)

  • Just-Me

    [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 :)

  • 3 year old kid

    Ye I know what you mean, I have no idea either.

  • Just-Me

    [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

  • 3 year old kid

    So, who funded & trained the Governemnt's 19 "terrorists"?

    pehapse this will help answer that key question:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8yPzPgWEA&fe

  • 3 year old kid

    To know what happened on 911 you first have to realise who funded, trained and helped the 1993 wtc bombers.

  • The Killshot

    Double blind trials are just what are needed. But even if someone wrote up a scientific paper, sighned it with wittneses – who would believe such a far out technology even could exist?

    You do not need to know if it is real or not, just put it on your radar and if for whatever reason the situation arrises as set out in the film, go to high alert and take appropriate precaustions. or not.

  • The Killshot

    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

  • Just-Me

    [quote post="3838"]So, who funded & trained the Governemnt’s 19 “terrorists”?[/quote]

    A good point as it seems a few of the so named hijackers were indeed given some form of training by the US. If we look at the Afghani Freedom Fighters (Cold War) were they not also funded, trained and equipped by the US. It's apparent that they are no longer allies but now enemies. Good call training those that will act against you. There is a litany of such policy/action by the US (and many other governments/states) throughout history.

    [quote post="3838"]Double blind trials are just what are needed. But even if someone wrote up a scientific paper, sighned it with wittneses – who would believe such a far out technology even could exist?[/quote]

    Yes, of course if it was peer reviewed and duplicated by said peers. That's what science does.

    [quote post="3838"]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?[/quote]

    I would suggest not no. It is after all a Secret Program but that does not mean it was a success.

    The absence of evidence is simply NO EVIDENCE to back a claim thus it's conjecture.

    Many prominent scientists and other learned folks hypothesised that exploding a Nuclear Weapon could lead to catatrophic destruction of the Earth by means of a runaway Nuclear chain reaction. That was proven by experiment to be incorrect. At that point in time I could certainly understand their concern.

    [quote post="3838"]Early Stanford Research Institute experiments [/quote]

    I do not disagree that such programs existed. Is there evidence to support a better than chance result? No, there is not as we have no idea the true level of subjects involved and thus any outcome being better than chance alone. If I invoked a study with 1,000 individuals and 2 of the 1,000 actually hit pay dirt (and lets be honest the CIA et al Remote Viewing Program was sketchy at best). I could proclaim that only those 2 individuals had the skill while the other 998 did not or I could conclude that it was pure chance. It's entirely relative and ultimately subjective but certainly not scientific without full disclosure.

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

    Scientifically, I'd certainly be interested in the physics.

    You used 30,000V (a palour trick I guess) a Remote Viewer uses .. for want of a better decription "imagination" based around known facts of current technology .. it's a simple process to extrapolate what may be possible. Science has proven this through history both to be fact and fiction. Is ESP or Remote Viewing possible .. it may be but it has yet to be proven.

    Oh, an by the way I too have levitated. Had I not known I had ingested Ketamine I would have concluded as a matter of absolute fact that I did indeed levitate and would have argued with disbelievers. I of course understood the chemistry.

    Absence of fact or evidence does not for me equal impossible nor probable. I have an open mind. I await science.

  • The Killshot

    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?

  • Just-Me

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    According to some!? Without evidence [double blind study] it remains subjective testimony.

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    The US Military Machine has vast resources at it's disposal. 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. Anyway, with science experimentation some ventures are great ideas but ultimately dead ends.

    [quote post="3838"]The program was shut down eventually but now the viewers work for whoever pays apparently.[/qoute]

    It must be very well paid. Not one person has won the $1 Million Randi Challenge (only 3 have completed the preliminary tests. All failed.)

    [quote post="3838"]Regardless, due to clear results from experimentation I can confirm the levitation of a body using some 30,000 volts is real.[/quote]

    I didn't say it was false. I'm certain I could Levitate with the aid of magnetism. A known force. Please ellaborate on your experiment to satisfy a curious mind.

    [quote post="3838"]What level of physics are you currently at?[/quote]

    Is that important? Feel free to keep your explanation in layman's terms.

    I'm a Communications Engineer (~15 years) if that assists a little in determining my knowledge of Physics.

  • The Killshot

    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?

  • Just-Me

    We've moved from your assertion that ESP or Remote Viewing is a reality to the physics of a body falling in a vacuum.

    I see where you are going with this and I'm not about to debate WTC1/2 falling at ~freefall speed. Old news!

    I've never disagreed with the evidence (video and seismograph data) that indicated ~freefall speed (WTC1/2). In my opinion it's not conclusive proof of controlled demolition however I do not rule it out.

    If this is relative to WTC7 then I heartily agree. WTC7 IMO was indeed pulled. I remain fixated with WTC7 as it's both current and the most extreme anomaly.

    Now would you care to ellaborate on how exactly you achieved levitation? No? Thought not.

  • paul w

    "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!!!!

  • paul w

    Leave troofers alone for a few minutes and it turns to Planet X, remote viewing, ESP, levitation and bizarre fixations.

    Hey, what about the Reptilians, you forgot the Reptilians!

    Then again, it makes as much sense as WTC7 and the Towers falling at 'free-fall speed'. Do you notice how it changes from 'near' free-fall to free-fall speed in the blink of an eye? Bit like 'no steel-framed building has collapsed due to fire' and 'no steel-framed building has totally collapsed due to fire'…I often wonder if the Madrid building fire has anything to do with this, you know, the part about the steel-framed section of the building collapsing?

    Er, chemtrails, anyone?

  • paul w

    “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?’….

  • Just-Me

    [quote post="3838"]“WTC7 IMO was indeed pulled”

    And you are indeed an idiot.[/quote]

    That's my opinion Paul. If you agree with NIST that's fair enough. If you intend to behave like a child then you will be ignored .. simple huh!

    [quote post="3838"]It’s not that the money is “missing”, then, at least according to Rumsfeld[/quote]

    Sorry but I believe very little that exits either Cheney's or Rumsfled's mouth[s]. Anyway, I raised a question NOT an assertion. The point I was trying to make was that vast sums are diverted for Classified Operations i.e. Remote Viewing .. IMO that's a waste of money.

  • Ashley

    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

    Nail head Ashley!

    The curious aspect of this is that Paul actually questions certain aspects!? Yet, he continues to quote Admin and Staffers as fact!? [Yes, cut n paste]

    If you take maybe just a single moment Paul you will realise that I neither accept nor reject other "Truthers'" theories regarless of how obtuse. I either do not discuss it [especially the tangencial] or discuss it requesting bona fide evidence.

    [quote post="3838"]Now plainly the US Government saying this doesn’t make it true, and we don’t know what the real or current situation is.[/quote]

    I agree that the link to 9/11 is tenuous but can we conclusively remove it from debate? I think not. It's valid!

    PS Ashley as you may have realised some here are only one [both camps].

  • Ashley

    @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.

  • paul w

    Just as an aside, I was talking with a friend on the weekend who is a psychiatrist for a company that is involved in remote viewing, his main subject knowledge is hypnotizing chickens, but he has a good knowledge of WTC7 and he agreed that Ashley is 5' 10" with brown hair and all his own teeth.

    PS Hello Just Me! Will reply later.

    PPS 'Nail head Ashley'! Lol!

  • paul w

    "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.

  • paul w

    Readers, here is the latest garbage reply from Just Me:

    "The point I was trying to make was that vast sums are diverted for Classified Operations i.e. Remote Viewing .. IMO that’s a waste of money."

    Now, I'm gonna be kind and say they displayed typical troofer inconsistency (I could be blunt, but will consider those of a timid nature). Anyway, here is their original quote:

    "The US Military Machine has vast resources at it’s disposal. 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."

    So, they think the comment, "Incidentally whatever happened about the Pentagon un-accouted for $Billions Cheney discussed a day or so prior to the Pentagon attack" is about funds for remote viewing, and not about the un-accounted for billions Cheney discussed the day before 9-11?

    Sigh. Give me strength…notice how troofers like Just Me twist and distort things? And does anyone out there know what this means: "Yet, he continues to quote Admin and Staffers as fact!?"

    Who the fuck are Admin or Staffers? The NIST engineers? The people running this blog? And note they are STILL whiing about cut and paste….if I put links in, they whine and if I put in the details in they STILL whine…geez, I don't know what the uck makes 'em happy, but as I prefer the details, I put in the details. Sheesh!

  • Just-Me

    [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.

  • Ashley

    Paul

    Are you planning on answering the 8 questions I have asked you?

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]Just as an aside, I was talking with a friend on the weekend who is a psychiatrist for a company that is involved in remote viewing, his main subject knowledge is hypnotizing chickens, but he has a good knowledge of WTC7 and he agreed that Ashley is 5′ 10″ with brown hair and all his own teeth.[/quote]

    I am confused as to what you are trying to do here, I haven't mentioned 'remote viewing', let alone my friend mentioning it. Is this trying to discredit the messenger again Paul? Are you trying to say that my friend with a first class honours degree in Chemistry, with a good working knowledge of physics (A @ A level) and who works for a company that does demolitions is somehow not credible enough to express an opinion?

    As I have asked before, what exactly are your qualifications in order to be able to dismiss people with good degrees with the flippant attitude you exhibit? If my friend, who has subject knowledge, is not qualified in your opinion then you must have discovered some of the laws of physics at the very least. Are you Einstein speaking from beyond the grave? Gallileo? Sir Isaac is that you?

    I think I've worked out what the 'w' is for in 'paul w'. Oh btw when you say: –

    [quote post="3838"]Just as an aside, you’re friend is an idiot.[/quote]

    Do you mean 'your friend is an idiot'? 'You are friend is an idiot' doesn't make any sense to me.

  • Ashley

    @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.

  • Just-Me

    @ Ashley: No Probs .. my error for using shorthand :)

    [quote post="3838"]Now plainly the US Government saying this doesn’t make it true, and we don’t know what the real or current situation is.[/quote]

    So very true :) Eyebrows' raised at all? I think we are on the same page.

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    Yes, it has short-comings but can it be totally ruled out? 1st: There was really little effort. 2nd: Maybe some funds were given to Terrorists. I agree though that it's possible there is no direct link to 9/11 but it's an ideal coincidence to "sweep under the carpet". After-all the country is under attack as seen by Dubya's reaction on the day :rollseyes:

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    It's endemic not simply a Bush Admin issue. You really think the players [Republican/Democrats] don't sweep up for each other?

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    Hello! So even if one removes entirely any significance of 9/11 and the lost $$. It has been a catalyst for the Public to ask questions after all it's their $'s being spent and devalued. FED print money to service the debt for the illegal war.

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    Take a step back. It doesn't necessarily need to be linked but it's a HUGE issue now in full view. We are on the same page!

    As I do Ashley I respect your views/opinions but why not agree to disagree on some points, move on and view the BIG picture?

  • The Killshot

    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?

  • Tom

    I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, and have worked ten years in the Engineering field of Structural analysis; I have read a few of the 9-11 conspiracy books written by David Ray Griffin, and I believe that the twin towers collapse was due to pre-planned and pre-installed explosive demolition devices. Read Griffin's books.

  • Ashley

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Well spotted Ashley,

    Check this out re 911 latest:

    Navy Prosecutor In Gitmo Case: "If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome"

    "Bin Laden driver" case contains revealing details

    Steve Watson

    Infowars.net

    Wednesday, July 23, 2008

    http://infowars.net/articles/july2008/230708shot….

    give it time to load.

  • 3 year old kid

    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

    [quote post="3838"]Does anyone actually want to know how to do levitation with 30,000 Volts [/quote]

    Yes, I've asked several times! Would you really need 30K Volts! I'm sure I could manage with some suitable permanent magnets. Now ante up or shut the fuck up .. sorry but you are getting tedious :0

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    I personally think this ridiculous. While Scotland Yard has released only a few "stills" and rather scant information [to much annoyance]. I firmly believe 7/7 was simply a copy cat by dis-affected individuals. This holds true for Glasgow Airport too .. a Doctor no less. You would think a Doctor would have sufficient knowledge to create a device which was not simply a fire and propane. As a kid I made "Soda Bombs" with weedkiller and sugar just for fun (similar to IRA and the Oklahoma Bombing technique). It not exactly rocket science. While truly retarded had I been caught with such items nowadays I would most probably be held indefinatley especially if I had dark skin!

    Anyway, to try get back on track would the genuine posters be willing to state their objective view across the board. I'd be happy to exchange points of debate with a view to firm up my own belief. Disposable E-Mail addie initially obviously :)

    I don't have a huge amount of free time so much so that I've yet to complete either "The New Pearl Harbor" nor "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions". While I have read the FEMA and NIST Reports.

    PS Just to reiterate [for the benefit of Ashley primarily] several posters here are the same person with the same gramatical errors and speeling [sic] mistakes. Sad!

  • Louise

    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

  • Ashley

    @Louise

    Are you implying that I am posting under names other than Ashley? Because I most certainly am not.

    There is a serious conversation going on here about the events that led to 3,000 people dying on the day, a load of first responders and approximately 1.3 million Iraqis, so you might do well not to describe it as a form of entertainment or a 'soap opera' (and then you say of us 'lack of respect there is about all those who died on 9/11 and subsequent aftermaths.')

    I have posted messages on numeous threads on rinf, ones about Iran, Condoleeza Rice, arms manufacturers, Bush and Cheney and some others. I didn't see you piping up, are these not 'PRESENT' enough for you.

    You tried to imply further up this page that the events of 9-11 are old news and we should move on, might I be so bold as to suggest that it is not your call. Might I even be so bold as to say that, if we use your logic, we should forget about the Holocausts, WW1, WW2, the Magna Carta, the Gunpowder plot, the great fire of London, The Civil War, Slavery and anything else that is more than 2 weeks old? Is this some kind of symptom of 'the MTV generation' that you are exhibiting?

    History is important as we are supposed to learn from it, if we have a skewed version of the events of 9-11 then if we don't find it out, then we leave ourselves open to the same thing happening again.

    As for qualifications, I am not trying to be elitist, I am not trying to say that people who don't have a degree shouldn't post. I am merely trying to ascertain the level of Paul w's education to see if he has a right to describe someone with a 2:1 BSc a f*ckwit, if indeed anyone has that right anyway.

    You cried off earlier because you accused me of twisting your words (when in reality I was merely debating with you). Now you start off on some Illuminati trip about 7/7 when all I did was point out that it was lucky (if you can use that word about that day at all) for US media that it was one of the 12 days in the year where the UK and US date formats don't make a difference. Are you trying to twist my words Louise?

    Just out of interest Louise, being as you commented on the '8 bloody questions', what do you make of them? Do you think it was bin Laden in the responsibility video, given the points made above? I fail to see how anyone could believe that was bin Laden, it makes no sense. If you do think it was bin Laden then why? If you don't think it was bin Laden then you are willing to admit that the US administration lied about it (oh me oh my that would be a conspiracy wouldn't it?). I'm guessing you'll do the same thing as paul and ignore this question beause really it answers itself.

  • Ashley

    @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.

  • Just-Me

    Thanks Louise

    No time currrently to track back your prior posts but I appreciate your support. The reality is not the PAST but the PRESENT I think we agree. Dark Days indeed.

    Ashley has re-iterated the same questions YES! [I never entered that debate *phew*]. Point is .. just to clarify I don't feel he/she is using aliases but that's just my opinion. [Just so I'm not mis-understood again :EEK:].

    [quote post="3838"]And, what is it with people obsessed with qualifications?! Can only those with an academic background in Science talk here?[/quote]

    [quote post="3838"]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![/quote]

    Your quotes above seem to contradict each other!? Maybe I've misunderstood. I think the contradiction is by design in which case I agree.

    Everyone must be able to express an opinion rightly or wrongly. As much as I distrust the Administration's interpretations I certainly don't accept David R Griffins subjective analysis outright (especially as his first 2 books were primarily based on others' works). Alas I firmly believe in LIHOP. The very idea that the Admin had no prior knowledge I find completley ludicrous. It was written all over Dubya's face [so very subjective and hardly stellar research ;)]

    My problem is the power wielded by Government (Now: Tantamount to Fascism) and the resources they control. While select Academics/Professionals have little power or budget.

    [quote post="3838"]I don’t really know why I’m adding to this insane ‘conversation’![/quote]

    Me neither :(

    At work everyday I speak with people that are bigots or racists (long story). Only a few I tempt away from the Darkside. The Interweb is great you can chat with people from around the world ;)

  • Ashley

    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?

  • Louise

    Hi Ashley,

    I really want to make this brief as I don't want to enter into any to and fro between theories and speculation over the events of 9/11.

    You may be shocked to see me answer your post, as you say I will ignore like Paul does/did. Sorry, I don't believe we know each other at all. I will respond, but let me say this again, I am not interested in debating issues surrounding the events of 9/11.

    Anyway…. I thought it was fairly clear that I was referring to 3 Year Old Kid having many alter egos, not you Ashley. I did say "3 year old kid [and their many alter egos!]".

    You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not regard this as a "serious" conversation. The way I see it is people who already firmly believe what they believe arguing their points. There are insults, spamming, rudeness, elitism (the whole 'what is your qualification' stuff) and so on. You may see this as a serious conversation, thats fine. I don't, that should also be fine. Before I get my virtual head bitten off, I'm not implying that Ashley has made insults, spamming, and such.

    Ashley, would it be fair to say that most of your energy and time on rinf is spent on this comment thread? Of course I may be wrong. I just see where time and energy is put. That is not to say that you don't respond to other articles and on other sites, as this isn't quite what I said originally.

    I didn't imply that 9/11 was old news, I SAID that it was a past event. Theres a difference. You mention past historical events – the difference here is that most people take them as fact that they happened and learn from them, not discuss that they didn't happen the way it was or was some sort of "cover-up". Just for the record, I do believe that the events of 9/11 actually did happen on that day!

    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.

    "You cried off earlier because you accused me of twisting your words" – I did??? Where??? And I wasn't twisting your words, it was sarcasm.

    Your 8 'bloody' questions!!! Well, they did make me laugh as you also answer them (you call them clues, but they are in fact your answers!) I'm also not entirely sure what it would mean to you if someone agreed with you. What is the point to the questions?

    As far as the now infamous Bin Laden video, I don't believe that was him. Shock! Horror! Are you telling me that the government has lied to me? Wow! Never knew that governments lied to us? …..This is sarcasm again.

    Ashley you really seem to take my previous comment as a personal attack on you! I was talking in very general terms about this comment thread and how others talk about this on the net and in the real world.

    Oh, forgot to add…. Ashley, please dont take this personally, but I really don't want to enter into some type of debate with you. Surely, you will allow me to have my own opinions and thoughts.

  • Louise

    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.

  • Just-Me

    [quote post="3838"]I do question the events of 7/7. Peter Power [/quote]

    I do too but the only link between 9/11 & 7/7 was "Copy Cat" IMO. PP statement on TV .. possible UK Government had prior knowledge? Certainly it was/is possible.

    [quote post="3838"] probability [/quote]

    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 post="3838"] other strange things train not running that day meaning they physically couldn’t have made it to the tube trains in time to let the bombs off.[/quote]

    There have been inconsitencies certainly and HUGE ones. That does not mean by definition it's false. Jury is still out here.

    [quote post="3838"]Why on earth would they buy return tickets?[/quote]

    I do it all the time as a matter of habit. Both day to day journeys and ones which I might return from that day. Granted "Suicide" was never a major thought. If I had planned an "Attack" I'd be damn sure to buy a return ticket. Why? No need for a cover story. Came to London for the day Officer here is my ticket. Rather that trying to explain why they had a backpack (hint: immigrant) and a one way ticket. [that's just what sprung to mind BTW .. a certain amount of truth.]

    [quote post="3838"]paper passport[/quote]

    Probability low agreed. I'm more concerned about the fact the flight manifests have not been released!

    [quote post="3838"]Blair not authorising a public inquiry in to the events[/quote]

    Agreed! WTF is that about exactly! Back to the LIHOP theory. 6 years since 9/11 and after backing a damaging war. Blair uses intelligence (lol) and let's some amatuers kill some folks. Could happen but I doubt they had any idea TBH.

    [quote post="3838"]It’s fishy, I’ll admit not as fishy as the big smoked haddock that is 9-11, but certainly fishy.[/quote]

    A big smelly wet fish not totally unrelated by not linked directly i.e. by design.

  • V

    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?

  • Ashley

    Hi Louise

    Nice to see you back. You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]Anyway…. I thought it was fairly clear that I was referring to 3 Year Old Kid having many alter egos, not you Ashley. I did say “3 year old kid [and their many alter egos!]“.[/quote]

    but the full comment was: –

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    When you say '(Ashley, 3 year old kid [and their many alter egos!] and Paul W)', that implies that I have one or more alter egos. 3yo kid is a singular entity and 'their' is a plural, sorry to argue semantics, perhaps you could try reading it again (I'm more than willing to accept it was a genuine mistake, but please don't imply I can't understand basic English ;)

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]You may be shocked to see me answer your post, as you say I will ignore like Paul does/did. Sorry, I don’t believe we know each other at all. I will respond, but let me say this again, I am not interested in debating issues surrounding the events of 9/11.[/quote]

    This begs a fairly obvious question, what are you doing posting on a 9-11 thread if you are not 'interested in debating issues surrounding the events of 9/11'? Do you go to many threads you aren't interested in and tell people on them how uninterested you are?

    Apologies re the twisting of words, I had you confused with someone else.

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not regard this as a “serious” conversation. The way I see it is people who already firmly believe what they believe arguing their points.[/quote]

    So what you are saying is that only conversations where one or more parties haven't made up their mind can be classed as serious. I see the subject matter of this thread as being inherently 'serious', sorry if this is not your opinion.

    I would dearly love to know how you can reconcile this: –

    [quote post="3838"]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![/quote]

    with your further comments in the same post: –

    [quote post="3838"]Let alone the lack of respect there is about all those who died on 9/11 and subsequent aftermaths.[/quote]

  • Ashley

    @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.

  • Ashley

    Continued

    You say: –

    "As far as the now infamous Bin Laden video, I don’t believe that was him. Shock! Horror! Are you telling me that the government has lied to me? Wow! Never knew that governments lied to us? …..This is sarcasm again."

    I cannot for the life of me see how you can 'just let that slide'. You agree that the American government and in particular Bush lied to the public regarding the veracity of the video of bin Laden.

    They used that video to justify bombing the crap out of Afghanistan. They then made a non-existant link between the Osamalike in the video and Saddam HusseinIraq (there wasn't even a link between the real Osama and Saddam, let alone this guy in the video) and then went to war with them!

    Estimates of deaths due to the war in Iraq are 1.3 million people and you think they should be allowed to sweep it under the carpet! You say I should think more in the present, well the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq (and soon to be Iran if they get their way) are pretty present.

    If the evidence used to go to war with these sovereign states was false then Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and more are war criminals as they have carried out wars of aggression based on fabricated evidence.

  • Ashley

    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 ;)

  • Ashley

    I just quickly worked out the probability of the same 3 stations being picked by 2 seperate entities.

    IIRC it would be (1/370) x (1/370) x (1/370) = 1/50,653,000

    i.e. 50,653,000 to 1 against. I think we can all agree that is pretty long odds. This is purely picking the same 3 stations without factoring in the other 2 probabilities (like I said, not enough zeroes in the world).

  • 3 year old kid

    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?

  • paul w

    Sorry, dear readers, but I’ve been away and if you can be bothered, I’ll have to take you back to a Just Me reply. It all began with this comment from Just Me; “The US Military Machine has vast resources at it’s disposal. 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.”

    So, I replied, and the crux of my reply was this comment by Cheney: “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.”

    How the fuck the idiot troofers turned that into ‘Cheney’s Lost Billions’ is another matter (albeit typical of how they work), but it’s clearly about system incompatibility between departments and not about him ‘losing’ money. Anyway, how did Just Me’s reply to this: “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.”

    A tangent? A flippant remark? Baiting the ESP/Remote Viewer aspect? I beg to differ, as this ‘Cheney’s Billions’ garbage is an oft-quoted ‘just asking’ comment used by troofers as a reason WTC7 was brought down on purpose. It didn’t seem flippant to me, it seemed liked the same idiotic question I’ve heard from many other troofers.

    Then again, in Just Me’s defense, this is how troofers work, with lots of ‘flippant’ comments. And never any conclusions – did ya note how they made sure to explain they weren’t ‘drawing any conclusions’? This is another troofer feature – make sure there is nothing firm so one cannot pin them down on those horrid things called ‘details’.

    As expected, Just Me finished with questions, just like Nail-Head Ashley and 3 year old Moron. Try and debate with a troofer and you’ll get no conclusions but lots and lots of questions. And why not? It’s easy, as it requires no evidence or basis of fact. The problem comes the moment you try and answer the question with details, particularly those that do not conform to their view, to which troofers like Just Me simply ignore it, as Just Me did with the Cheney comment.

    Just Me Mouth, Nail-Head Ashley and 3 year old Moron are perfect examples of the troofer version of debate. In a normal debate with a normal person, Just Me would comment about Cheney losing billions, which is a perfectly reasonable question, and I reply by saying it wasn’t about cash but Cheney complaining about systems used between departments, and Just Me would either agree or disagree with more info or another comment, but do they? Nope, not a cracker. They simply ignore it and end with this unbelievable comment: “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.”

    Clarified? What the fuck? Clarified???? See how they work? Just Me didn’t even answer the issue yet think it’s been ‘clarified’! This is yet another troofer trademark; ignore the issue, then quickly move on under the assumption it’s been dealt with.

    Anyway, enough of Just Me for now. Later on in the blog, I see Nail Head Ashley plods into the fray about my post to him, when I made fun of his earlier post. Here’s his quote: “Is this trying to discredit the messenger again Paul? Are you trying to say that my friend with a first class honours degree in Chemistry, with a good working knowledge of physics (A @ A level) and who works for a company that does demolitions is somehow not credible enough to express an opinion?”

    Jesus wept, Ashley, I WAS TAKING THE PISS! Gawd, do you get anything??? I was making fun of your post, you moron, by swapping around words and such. People do things like that. Even troofers do it. Come on Nail Head, you’re not THAT thick….sheesh….anyway, dear reader, did you note (yet again) how Nail Head misses/evades the point I was making: the issue was not whether his friend is ‘credible’ but that I suggested if he believes 9-11 was an inside job, then he’s an idiot.

    Why is he an idiot? Okay, Nail Head, tell your friend about these comment from firefighters at WTC7 (the ones I osted to you ages ago): “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… were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse…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…”

    What will your friend think about that lot, Ashley? Now, I agree that they are free to think what they like, but if after reading that, they still say it shouldn’t have collapsed, as you do, then I reckon they’re an idiot. Just like you.

    And by the way, dear reader, here are the questions I asked Nail Head about WTC7; “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?” And what reply did I get from Nail Head? Nothing. Not a scrap.
    Also, when Nail Head asked about why the BBC knew WTC7 was coming down 20 minutes before it fell, I replied with this comment from a chief firefighter; “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.’ In other words, they knew THREE HOURS before that it was gonna fall. And what reply did I get from him? Nothing. Not a scrap.

    And HE wants me to reply about his idiotic fucking eight questions! This moron hasn’t replied to ANY of those I posted him and even squirmed out of it by saying I was asking them to ‘muddy the waters’! Lol! What a pathetic cocksucker (oops, sorry Louise, I meant fuckwit)

    Anyway, back to Just Me Mouth. Now, after all the explaining I did re the confusion about Cheney’s comments, we get this diamond in a post to Nail Head: “So even if one removes entirely any significance of 9/11 and the lost $$…”

    Lost $$? What the fuck? Lost $$??? Again, see how they work? Didn’t I prove earlier that Cheney wasn’t talking about lost money but the incompatibility of the systems between the departments? Yes, I did, and did Just Me Mouth say they weren’t reaching any conclusions about this? Yes they did, yet here they are, still talking as if it IS actual money. Unbelievable.

    And get this finish as a wonderful example of the troofer mindset, from Just Me to Nail Head: “Take a step back. It doesn’t necessarily need to be linked but it’s a HUGE issue now in full view. We are on the same page! As I do Ashley I respect your views/opinions but why not agree to disagree on some points, move on and view the BIG picture.”

    In other words, ignore the details Ashley. Don’t look at the details but step back and see the WHOLE picture, don’t get caught up with those horrible details…it’s all about the HUGE issue and BIG picture…but no conclusions, mind.

    Just Me Mouth, Nail Head Ashley and the wonder boy, 3 year old Moron. What a bunch of dills.

    PS. Ashley. Yup, I know Just Me wasn’t being critical when they called you nail head, but I’m doing the Troofer Twist by taking it completely out of context, as you morons do with comments by the firefighters, air traffic controllers and whoever else you can miss-quote.
    PPS. Screams of ‘well, if you’re going to be rude I’m going to ignore you…” 5,4,3,2,1…
    PPS. What about my eight questions!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Mick Meaney

    [quote post="3838"]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.[/quote]

    Please provide evidence to support your claim that this was produced by paid criminals. This request is not open to debate, show your evidence or retract the statement.

    [quote post="3838"]

    When did RINF stop publishing quality?[/quote]

    Quality is a matter of personal opinion, every side and every view should be explored. It just so happens that 911 Cultwatch and the Cynic's Guide are on to something regarding the mentality and conduct of a lot of truthers. I do not understand objection to this kind of content, if truthers do actually seek the truth. I would like to see just one truther deny racism in the movement. They can't and they won't.

    The common response to this is: "There's racists in every movement".

    Agreed. But they are not put in positions of influence and leadership. The truth movement actively encourages the support of some very questionable people.

    [quote post="3838"]

    Have MOSAD agents taken over?[/quote]

    I know full well what that is code for and it will not wash here.

  • paul w

    'And guess what – NO CCTV, just like Diana.'

    3 year old kid

    Hmm. Strike thoughtful pose. Look worried, yet also in contemplation of this phenomenal news.

    Hmm. Donuts……

  • paul w

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Auuuu Gggt PING! its paul W,

    What are you attempting to do, shift the discussion away from what Ashley's probabilities of 7/7 being a genuine terror attack onto some event which happened 60 years ago and only mentions 1/20 of those who were actually murdered?

    Why do you people never mention the other millions upon millions who met similar tragic fates?????

    Is it because it is one of your political power toys perhaps?

    Well, it does not fool anyone these days, so why don't you for once answer Ashley properly and give the person an honest answer for a change instead of coming across pretty deceitful?

    And, which company was doing the CCTV coverage on 7/7?

    Yet not a single genuine image from any of those videos has ever been shown – WHY?

    Why, because the Government story is a big fat fraud.

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Ashley

    paul

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]I see Nail Head Ashley plods into the fray about my post to him, when I made fun of his earlier post. Here’s his quote: “Is this trying to discredit the messenger again Paul? Are you trying to say that my friend with a first class honours degree in Chemistry, with a good working knowledge of physics (A @ A level) and who works for a company that does demolitions is somehow not credible enough to express an opinion?”
    Jesus wept, Ashley, I WAS TAKING THE PISS! Gawd, do you get anything??? I was making fun of your post, you moron, by swapping around words and such. People do things like that. Even troofers do it. Come on Nail Head, you’re not THAT thick….sheesh….anyway, dear reader, did you note (yet again) how Nail Head misses/evades the point I was making: the issue was not whether his friend is ‘credible’ but that I suggested if he believes 9-11 was an inside job, then he’s an idiot. [/quote]

    Thick? You really are dumb, it would only be taking the piss if the new comments that you swapped in were valid. If they are not valid then there is no ‘taking the piss’, it is just a bunch of random comments. What you were trying to do was discredit the messenger *again*, it’s been a standard ploy of yours from the very beginning of this thread.

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]And HE wants me to reply about his idiotic fucking eight questions! This moron hasn’t replied to ANY of those I posted him and even squirmed out of it by saying I was asking them to ‘muddy the waters’! Lol! What a pathetic cocksucker (oops, sorry Louise, I meant fuckwit)[/quote]

    This is either a case of more of your dumbness or just plain old fashioned lies. I have addressed 14 of your questions. You clearly cannot (or will not) answer my questions, COULD YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THIS? If you can answer them, then do it! Answer my 8 questions and I will answer some more of yours. I don’t think that it is reasonable of you to expect answers to every single one of your questions before you address any of mine (especially given that the majority of my questions were asked first!)

    You say: –

    [quote post="3838"]What will your friend think about that lot, Ashley? Now, I agree that they are free to think what they like, but if after reading that, they still say it shouldn’t have collapsed, as you do, then I reckon they’re an idiot. Just like you.[/quote]

    You are an idiot, in fact I think that might be the biggest insult ever made to the idiots of this world. He did not say it shouldn’t have collapsed and nowhere did I claim that. He said that fires could not have caused it to collapse in the manner that it did.

    You keep going on about the huge damage and it might be that you are too stupid to understand this but, NIST, as it currently stands, SAY THE DAMAGE HAD NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE COLLAPSE (do you understand what this means?). They claim that the single cause of this collapse was fires (according to the head of the investigation on the BBC programme ‘The Conspiracy Files’).

    Even if the damage to the building had been a contributory factor, the law of increasing entropy (this is a ‘law’ of physics, not a theory) would state that it would have failed on the side with the damage, rather than everywhere at the same time (this would also fit with ‘the path of least resistance’ which is how an object *always* moves through a system).

    Every single exterior column would have had to have failed within 1/10th of a second for the building to collapse in the fashion that it did. Given that the fires moved around and subjected different areas to different heats, for different periods of time, it is impossible to claim that such a uniform effect could be caused by such an non-uniform cause.

    You keep saying that they had 3 hours foreknowledge of the imminent collapse of WTC7. According to Mark Loizeaux, the seismic engineer who happened to be passing by with his equipment on the day said that the building would collapse and gave an indication it would come down around 5pm (this was at midday). That’s a full 5 hours notice.

    I’m intrigued to know how a seismic engineer could predict a building collapsing some 5 hours prior, was it jumping up and down? Surely fires in a building don’t register on seismic equipment do they? (I don’t know, I’m no expert here, but surely fires in a building don’t cause tremors in the earth) It certainly wasn’t collapsing at midday so what made the seismic readings that this engineer used to predict the collapse? (this doesn’t even begin to look at the questions of who was he? Why was he there? Under whose request? Who was paying him? Who is his employer? Was he a local resource or from another part of the US? How did he manage to be in just the right place with just the right equipment? etc etc)

    Now steel framed buildings have partially collapsed due to fire damage, this is undisputed. What I am saying is that a steel framed building has not *totally* collapsed due to fire damage, this is also undisputed. There most certainly hasn’t been an instance of one totally collapsing in to its own footprint (or close to ‘in to its own footprint’ if you want to be pedantic).

    Do you understand the distinction between a partial collapse and a total collapse? Should I draw you some pictures? I am not saying for one minute that the fact it collapsed proves a conspiracy, I am saying the manner of the collapse proves the conspiracy (such uniformity, such a neat rubble pile, such a complete and total failure of every supporting column at essentially the same time). I can’t comprehend how you cannot understand this.

    What you are asking me to believe is tantamount to a fairy tale, you are asking me to suspend the laws of physics that even my rudimentry knowledge says are applicable. You are asking me to believe that chaotic fires led to a uniform effect. You really are gullible if you think your debunking sites can answer this. This is *basic* physics!

    Can you let us all know what ‘the “Jewish’ question” as you put it, is? If you are asking whether Israel may have been involved and specifically Mossad in 9/11, then I think you have worded your question insidiously.

    If Mossad were involved (and there does appear to be some strange evidence that points to a level of knowledge, if not direct involvement) that would make it Israeli involvement, not Jewish involvement. Questioning whether Israel was involved isn’t anti-semitic, racist or judeaphobic, they are a sovereign state and the investigations/reactions to their behaviour should not be coloured by the religious or racial make up of their state, either positively or negatively (something I think that should also apply to Iran incidentally).

    I think the labelling of countries based on their racial/religious make up is devisive. Would it suprise you that the largest Jewish population in the ME outside of Israel is in Iran?

    Is criticising America anti-Christian? The point I am trying to make is that the behaviour of the leaders in a particular country does not, by implication, taint everyone who shares the same faith as them. Do you get what I mean?

    Criticising Blair for taking us in to 2 illegal wars does not reflect badly on all Christians because the predominant religion in the UK is Christianity and that is the same religion as Blair (although the Christian God I believe in said ‘Thou shalt not kill’ but that’s for another thread I think).

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • Ashley

    Further to the probablity worked out above, I am missing some things but here are my rudimetary calculations in to the probability of Visor consultants work matching the terrorists attacks: –

    Picking the same 3 stations out of 370: –

    (1/370) x (1/370) x (1/370)

    Picking the same hour for each of the 3 bombs: –

    1/24 (you could argue that it should be 3 fold for 3 bombs but we will assume that all 3 went off at the same time)

    Picking the same day in a 6 month time period (this is an arbitrary figure, it's possible drills are more frequent and attacks less frequent).

    1/182

    So to put this lot together we have: –

    (1/370) x (1/370) x (1/370) x (1/24) x (1/182)

    Which gives us odds of 221,252,304,000 to 1 against. Any takers?

  • 3 year old kid

    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.

  • 3 year old kid

    Does Paul W still buy the official balderdash?

    If so, is he some sort of disinformation agent?

    And what are paul W's official qualifications, IF ANY?

  • Mick Meaney

    [quote post="3838"]I think this radio program was pure yellow journalism (by paid criminals) [/quote]

    John can you please provide your evidence for this.

    Thanks.

  • Ashley

    DOH I am stupid. I forgot to include the probability of the terrorists choosing to bomb 3 underground stations and Visor consultants choosing to work on 3 underground stations. If we say that a reasonable figure for both attacks and drills would be up to 5 (2 more and 2 less than happened). This would add the following probability calculation: –

    1/5

    This would then be multiplied by the figure above (1/221,252,304,000)

    Giving a probability of 1,106,261,520,000 to 1 against. That is over 1.1 trillion to 1 against.

    I'm sure there are other things I've overlooked but I wouldn't be betting the farm on odds over 1 trillion to 1!

    Edit – it should be (1/370) x (1/369) x (1/368) as each station is chosen, that would make it 1,097,307,993,600 to 1 rather than 1,106,261,520,000 to 1 (mad that it makes nearly 9 billion difference for that little error)

  • V

    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.

  • Mick Meaney

    John/v/3 year old kid/science boffin/killshot/physisist/nemesis and the other alias you use, you know full well who runs this site. If anybody is looking for dishonesty, they might well look at the posters on this page.

    Continue to make unfounded accusations against me and my site and you will no longer be welcome. I really am sorry to say that John, but you know perfectly well what I'm about and I see no reason why I should be repeatedly insulted by anybody — let alone those who know the amount of work I put into this site.

    We simply disagree with each others opinion, that is all. It is only truthers who have viewed my opinion as a personal attack on them, which it is not, and it is only truthers who have made personal attacks against me, because I don't share the same views as they.

    I won't allow this site to be dragged down like so many others by accepting this kind of behaviour.

    This is a final warning to everyone posting on this page:

    One more insult, one more name call, one more accusation, to ANYBODY from ANYBODY and I will prevent you from posting on the site.

    I have given warnings about this before, and this is the final one.

  • Just-Me

    ^ 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*!!

  • V

    OK I take it all back, its not like Gandhi buying shares in Halliburton.

    And there is no question of any influence by any secret services or organisations such as "kilt Watch" or whatever their name is.

    But, it does make a very good conspiracy theory for TrOO00000FFERS to chew over?

    I will be off line for some time whilst I upgrade to a monster computer.

    So, for those who like to put things together and grasp what is really going on, go to Google video and type in "ring of power"

    The two parts are well worth viewing.

  • V
  • paul w

    “it would only be taking the piss if the new comments that you swapped in were valid. If they are not valid then there is no ‘taking the piss’, it is just a bunch of random comments.”

    Dear reader, anyone who replies to a piss-take, even a poor one, with a serious discussion of what humor is meant to be, clearly just…doesn’t…get…it.

    Ashley never really has. From wondering why the top of the towers didn’t simply topple over the side, to explaining the mechanicals of a piss take, he has stumbled from one inexplicable reality to another, never really knowing what the fuck’s going on except that out there is a big, mean monster of a New World Order just waiting to enslave us all.

    I should have told him ages ago that I didn’t really mean the name-calling, it’s just a way to rid a bit of personal frustration (so, my apologies to you Ashley). He’s clearly got brains – if his education background is truthful (and I have no reason to think it isn’t), and I sympathize with many of the comments he’s made about the state of the world and how we treat each other, yet there seems to be this troofer membrane covering the ‘critical analysis’ part of his brain when it comes to 9-11. And probably other conspiracies, too.

    Anyway, dear reader, here we are, debating what a piss-rake is. Okay, let’s cover this one. Here is Ashley’s original post: “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’”

    This is my reply: “Just as an aside, I was talking with a friend on the weekend who is a psychiatrist for a company that is involved in remote viewing, his main subject knowledge is hypnotizing chickens, but he has a good knowledge of WTC7 and he agreed that Ashley is 5′ 10″ with brown hair and all his own teeth.”

    Jesus wept, why didn’t the ‘hypnotizing chickens’ indicate to him that it wasn’t a serious comment? Or that it could be a piss take? What about “he has a good knowledge of WTC7 and he agreed that Ashley is 5′ 10″ with brown hair and all his own teeth.” No? Hmm. Naturally, it’s up to you out there to decide whether it’s good humor or complete crap, but I am trying, and it ‘aint easy.

    Anyway, as per his usual practice, after the linguistics lesson, we get another rip-snorter: “I have addressed 14 of your questions.” Sigh. See how troofers subtly twist things around? Yes, he ADDRESSED my questions but didn’t ANSWER them. Here’s an example, starting with my question to him: ‘the C ring’ section: ‘the official story is that the landing gear caused this hole. Is that unreasonable?

    His reply: “No this is not unreasonable Paul, but given that the engines of the plane were much more solid and heavier, where did these go?”

    See? First he seems to agree with me, but then asks another fucking question which discounts it! Did he agree with what I was suggesting, or not? Who the fuck knows? And did he give any other information other than a possibility? No. All I got was yes, then no, then ’what about…nothing definite, nothing solid, just lots of mirrors. As I’ve said before, you rarely, if ever, get any form of commitment or conclusion from a troofer, but you will get no conclusion, inconsistency and mirrors.

    Also, as per usual, he completely misses/evades the point: the official story was the LANDING GEAR that caused the hole, so why ask about the engines? I just figure they were in there somewhere, but did not have anything to do with the C Ring hole. Or maybe they were talking about the FRONT landing gear? I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter; according to the crash investigators, it was the ‘landing gear’ that probably caused the hole, along with other debris pushed in front.

    But Ashley isn’t convinced, so he finishes his ‘reply’ with the classic of classic troofer features: ask more questions! Don’t believe me? Check this lot out: “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?”

    Yeah, there are lots of fucking questions! Nine of the bastards, nine! It’s another well-known troofer feature, the more questions one can ask means the greater chance of conspiracy – did ya note his ‘lots of questions, aren’t there? Yeah, and I’m sure Ashley and all the other troofers brand those questions as ‘anomalies’.

    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? Oh, for a laugh, check out the unbelievable stupidity of that last question; ‘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…

    You really do have to laugh at the demands…he wants photos of them ‘removing the landing gear’. What, does that mean no photos = inside job? And if one did provide photos, you reckon if a NWO had in fact carried out 9-11, they wouldn’t be pushed too much to stage a photo! 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?

    All in all though, it’s clear that Ashley questions a plane hitting the Pentagon. God only knows where he thinks the passengers went. An alien bunker under Area 51? And he classifies THAT dog’s breakfast as a ‘rely’ to my question!

    Anyway, now I have to admit a mistake. Ashley said his friend said WTC7 fires could not have caused it to collapse in the manner that it did. I misinterpreted the comment, so my apologies to all. But isn’t it funny how troofers scream blue murder when one misinterprets their comment but are happy to do likewise to the ‘explosions’ comments from firefighters and such, changing their meaning from the bangs and pops normally associated with large fires (let alone a 110 story building collapsing) into pre-planted explosions caused by controlled demolition. Do I need to mention inconsistency again?

    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? For an idea of what he thinks about the NIST report and its authors, check his comments from earlier posts: “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?”…”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.”…”As mentioned previously NIST started their investigations using real world models, they could not get these models to collapse and had to resort to computer simulations in order to prove their theory. Now I KNOW that I could get a team of demolition experts to effect a collapse like that on a real world model, I wouldn’t have to resort to theory to prove that the buildings could collapse in an identical manner.”…”(oh and I’m not on about what NIST says, I’m on about what it looked like)”…’clearly shows the molten metal that doesn’t exist according to NIST”…”Might I respectfully inform you that I know enough about the NIST, FEMA and Kean reports to be sure that at the very least they haven’t done their job”…”Your blind faith in the official documents is hilarious Paul”… “NIST will never use real models to simulate 911 because they can not fiddle the results and parameters.”

    Let’s repeat some of this: “so they could alter the parameters. Hey it’s no wonder people are asking for another investigation eh?” So Ashley reckons the NIST authors purposely altered the investigation? Here’s another one: “so then (they) changed tack and used a computer simulation to prove their theories (where they could alter the input parameters to their hearts content)”. Pretty strong statement, but what about this: “oh and I’m not on about what NIST says”….and this…”that I know enough about the NIST, FEMA and Kean reports to be sure that at the very least they haven’t done their job” and this, “NIST will never use real models to simulate 911 because they can not fiddle the results and parameters.”

    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?

    Actually, they are consistent, to a degree – they pick out any morsel they agree with or which helps their cause, and ignore or belittle the rest, exactly as they do with everything about 9-11.

    Oh, and you’ll love this…Ashley once moaned how the BBC knew WTC7 was going collapse twenty minutes beforehand. I cleared this up by using a quote by a senior firefighter, who said they knew it was going to collapse THREE hours before it did. Naturally, I got no ‘okay then’ from Ashley but a story about a seismic engineer who said WT7 would come down around 5pm, giving everyone a full FIVE hours notice of its collapse. Is Ashley so unbelievably dense as to not understand that this SUPPORTS the concept that the BBC probably knew the building was going to collapse beforehand? (Then again, the way he spoke of this spooky-like ‘seismic engineer’ I think this man may be another ‘anomaly’ Who knows?)

    Oh, one guess to how he finishes this garbage pile, that’s right, more questions: “I’m intrigued to know how a seismic engineer could predict a building collapsing some 5 hours prior, was it jumping up and down? Surely fires in a building don’t register on seismic equipment do they? (I don’t know, I’m no expert here, but surely fires in a building don’t cause tremors in the earth) It certainly wasn’t collapsing at midday so what made the seismic readings that this engineer used to predict the collapse? (this doesn’t even begin to look at the questions of who was he? Why was he there? Under whose request? Who was paying him? Who is his employer? Was he a local resource or from another part of the US? How did he manage to be in just the right place with just the right equipment? etc etc)

    That’s ELEVEN fucking questions and with the ‘etc., etc’ at the end, he could have more! And yet again, he completely missed/evaded the issue, gave no conclusions, and finished with heaps of questions. Does anyone see a pattern?

    As far as the ‘Jewish question’ is concerned, maybe I could have worded it better (and not ‘insidiously’ as Ashley put it – why is everything a conspiracy with this man?). It was about a recent post from ‘V’ and the reply from the moderator. I’ve read enough troofer posts to know there is a distinct Anti-Semite aspect to the troofer movement, but realised I had never felt such a belief from Ashley – which is very positive, and kudos to him. But…I need to know, so I asked. Maybe I should have put more thought in the wording?

    Anyway, look how he finishes his answer….”would it suprise you that the largest Jewish population in the ME outside of Israel is in Iran? Is criticising America anti-Christian? The point I am trying to make is that the behaviour of the leaders in a particular country does not, by implication, taint everyone who shares the same faith as them. Do you get what I mean?”

    That’s right, more questions, but only three this time. Phew!

    Ashley, I’m over this. If you keep communicating with Just Me I’ll make the odd comment but I’m more concerned where you end up. Unfortunately, I’m thinking its gonna be a rabbit hole of paranoia and dark thoughts. Please don’t go there. The world is bad enough with poverty and such, so work on alleviating that. 9-11 wasn’t an inside job, and it’s taking all our time and effort from the real problems we both need to deal with.

    And once again, sorry for the insults, I don’t actually mean them.

  • Mick Meaney

    [quote post="3838"]OK I take it all back[/quote]

    Thanks John

    [quote post="3838"]Is this really your site?[/quote]

    Yep.

    [quote post="3838"]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. [/quote]

    I'm not connected to the radio station that produced the show. I was actually involved with the truth movement for… well since before it became the truth movement. I do have my questions, they ain't the same ones most truthers have, I do blame the Bush Admin for massive negligence, not only on the day, for months before hand – – and also afterwards, resulting in the rapid deterioration of health for many who worked at ground zero and live in NY.

    Yes it was the foundation for illegal wars which are still going on today but I see the truth movement as backwards, they focus on the deaths that we cannot change but do almost nothing to try and prevent the deaths of today and tomorrow.

    Not only in war but other global injustices which can be stopped if enough people are aware and make a stand against them; like slavery, poverty, fascism etc.

    The amount of research into 9/11 on both sides of the debate is ever growing, the newer research which debunks much of the conspiracy theory does make a pretty hard case. I do not believe it was an inside job.

    The research is one thing but my main problem with the truth movement and my main reason for refusing to support them, is the tolerance of racism and their ridiculous, sometimes aggressive behaviour. The way they treat those who do not agree with them has earned them the cult label. This is justified for the most part but with that said not everyone in that movement behaves in this way, there's some very good and decent people in the movement, I want to make that very clear.

    I had many friends in the truth movement, who I would still call friends, it's OK to have different views. Those who act like a simple political disagreement is in fact a personal attack against them, so much they try to smear others, are a perfect example of what the show is about, in my opinion.

    This is cult like behaviour.

    [quote post="3838"]just ban the AKA asses .. please :)[/quote]

    I don't check every person, I only look if I'm given reason to. I personally don't mind it unless someone is doing it to try and make someone else look stupid or hurt someone's feelings.

  • paul w

    "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."

    Just Me

    Another fucking troofer and another typical bullshit answer from Just Me.

    "Fact remains though regarless of your view money is missing…" Jesus wept, there was no money, you fucking m%#@!*n, how many times do you need to be told?

    Dear reader,here is the part Just me has just quoted:

    ——— 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. ———

    Okay, note the ‘lost’…it means no actual money is lost, but the system used for accounting. Geez, read the goddamn article!

    ——– “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.————

    Again, note it wasn’t about actual money, it was about the accounting.

    —– Now plainly the US Government saying this doesn’t make it true, and we don’t know what the real or current situation is.—–

    To translate this for Just Me, it means whether they will be doing anything to improve the accounting.

    —– 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 the “Missing” and ‘$700 billion without proper documentation’…once again, for Just Me, it’s not actual money but the system of accounting.

    None of this means anything to Just Me. They'll just ignore the issue, give no conclusion and ask lots of questions.

    Gee, where have we heard that pattern before?

  • paul w

    "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.

  • paul craig roberts

    July 25, 2008

    The Epiphany of Rev. Thomas Are
    Are You Ready to Face the Facts About Israel?

    By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

    “On October 21 (1948) the Government of Israel took a decision that was to have a lasting and divisive effect on the rights and status of those Arabs who lived within its borders: the official establishment of military government in the areas where most of the inhabitants were Arabs.”

    Martin Gilbert, Israel: a History

    I had given up on finding an American with a moral conscience and the courage to go with it and was on the verge of retiring my keyboard when I met the Rev. Thomas L. Are.

    Rev. Are is a Presbyterian pastor who used to tell his Atlanta, Georgia, congregation: “I am a Zionist.” Like most Americans, Rev. Are had been seduced by Israeli propaganda and helped to spread the propaganda among his congregation.

    Around 1990 Rev. Are had an awakening for which he credits the Christian Canon of St. George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem and author Marc Ellis, co-editor of the book, Beyond Occupation.

    Realizing that his ignorance of the situation on the ground had made him complicit in great crimes, Rev. Are wrote a book hoping to save others from his mistake and perhaps in part to make amends, Israeli Peace Palestinian Justice, published in Canada in 1994.

    Rev. Are researched his subject and wrote a brave book. Keep in mind that 1994 was long prior to Walt and Mearsheimer’s recent book, which exposed the power of the Israel Lobby and its ability to control the explanation Americans receive about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

    Rev. Are begins with an account of Israel’s opening attack on the Palestinians, an event which took place before most Americans alive today were born. He quotes the distinguished British historian, Arnold J. Toynbee: “The treatment of the Palestinian Arabs in 1947 (and 1948) was as morally indefensible as the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis. Though nor comparable in quantity to the crimes of the Nazis, it was comparable in quality.”

    Golda Meir, considered by Israelis as a great leader and by others as one of history’s great killers, disputed the facts: “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.”

    Golda Meir’s apology for Israel’s great crimes is so counter-factual that it blows the mind. Palestinian refugee camps still exist outside Palestine filled with Palestinians and their descendants whose towns, villages, homes and lands were seized by the Israelis in 1948. Rev. Are provides the reader with Na’im Ateek’s description of what happened to him, an 11-year old, when the Jews came to take Beisan on May 12, 1948. Entire Palestinian communities simply disappeared.

    In 1949 the United Nations counted 711,000 Palestinian refugees. [United Nations General Assembly Appendix 4, No. 15 ]

    In 2005 the United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimated 4.25 million Palestinians and their descendants were refugees from their homeland.

    The Israeli policy of evicting non-Jews has continued for six decades. On June 19, 2008, the Laity Committee in the Holy Land reported in Window Into Palestine that the Israeli Ministry of Interior is taking away the residency rights of Jerusalem Christians who have been reclassified as “visitors in their own city.”

    On December 10, 2007, MK Ephraim Sneh boasted in the Jerusalem Post that Israel had achieved “a true Zionist victory” over the UN partition plan “which sought to establish two nations in the land of Israel.” The partition plan had assigned Israel 56 percent of Palestine, leaving the inhabitants with only 44 percent. But Israel had altered this over time. Sneb proudly declared: “When we complete the permanent agreement, we will hold 78 percent of the land while the Palestinians will control 22 percent.”

    Sneb could have added that the 22 percent is essentially a collection of unconnected ghettos cut off from one another and from roads, water, medical care, and jobs.

    Rev. Are documents that the abuse of Palestinians’ human rights is official Israeli policy. Killings, torture, and beatings are routine. On May 17, 1990, the Washington Post reported that Save the Children “documented indiscriminate beating, tear-gassin