Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11

116 Responses to “Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11”

1. pingback: Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 10:35 am

   Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11 « Dr Nasir Khan [...] Keep reading . . . [...] Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

2. Robert Hoogenboom Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 10:37 am

   Thanks, Joseph! Here’s another one for you to consider, the videos of the plane flying into the second twin tower, broadcast by the media as though they were authentic, are fake. One, a so-called “live” broadcast of the plane flying into the tower, shows the plane going through the building and come out the other side; what’s more, nose intact - an utter absurdity. In another video, shown in the evening, a sequence that had actually been broadcast live in the morning had been doctored, with much of the sky and New York City skyline and buildings removed, and the flight of a plane of a plane super-imposed, a plane that was not there in the earlier showing of that same sequence. A researcher called Ace Baker has actually analysed this sequence frame by frame and has found that if you make the scenery of the tower and the background exactly coincide frame by frame, the flight of the plane does not steady accordingly by becomes more chaotic, meaning that it was shot with a different (hand-held) camera and super-imposed. A third video shows the plane disappearing into the building, at an angle, like a knife goes into butter: no slowing down and loss of momentum, nothing breaking off, and creating a hole which is well-nigh equal to itself (with the wall closing up again over the right wing!) A real plane, being made mainly of aluminium, would have smashed to bits against the steel lattice and the concrete of the wall, and against the horizontal floor, which it would have had to plough through. Moreover, it would have most likely burst into flames, and then falling straight down onto the grounds. The video of the first plane, so-called shot by the Gaudet brothers, also doesn’t seem authentic. The “plane” covers too few frames in the video, and it is said that the FBI had that video in its possession for at least a day before it was given back. Look all of this up in YouTube. You will find many film clips discussing this issue of the fake videos. I am claiming nothing else: Those videos of planes flying into the twin towers are fake! Sydney, Australia Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

3. pingback: Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am

   Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11 « Suzie-Q [...] Keep reading . . .  [...] Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

4. roman Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 11:12 am

   There is no need for more conspiratorial proof on the 9/11 fiasco. Whats required is for the American people to rise up against Bush and co., and serve them up their just desserts. The world is waiting… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

5. b. j. edwards Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

   It’s instructive of your 9/11 Denial Movement, that every one of those questions above have been repeatedly debunked years ago. That this author is either too dumb to look up the answers or is intentionally lying shows us that the 9/11 Denial Movement is nothing but a house of cards that will collapse as debris on top of the existing pile of other denial movement debris, like Holocaust denial. Eventually you are going to have to grow up and stop reposting pathetic nonsense. Amazing. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

6. Indigo Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

   b. j. edwards Can you please provide evidence to support your claims? I doubt you can. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

7. Robert Hoogenboom Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

   b,j, edwards, Those questions haven’t been debunked. Sydney, Australia Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

8. nathan Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

   the person here has clearly given you questions that you say have been ‘debunked’, and if that is true it should be easy for you to ‘debunk’ them or at least give us a website or an article where we can go for research. keep in mind that people who understand that we have been lied to have done days worth research and are open-minded and willing to look at real information on the subject Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

9. Stan Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

   He is only posting here to promote his bullshit blog nobody reads. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

10. b. j. edwards Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    I always find it astonishing that 9/11 Truthers have never had any exposure to critical thinking such that they will uncritically and willingly accept debunked claims and NEVER bothering to question those claims and do their own research. Apparently, you have never considered that people like Joseph A. Lopisi KNOW that they have you as willing sheep and are using YOU. It is really is quite amazing. So I’ll do one at a time. Starting with claim #1: “1. How is it that at the crash site of Flight 93, NBC and Fox News on September 11, 2001 reported on the scene with video coverage that there was no sign of a jetliner, engines, bodies or luggage?” Now look at exactly what he is asking you to believe: that a news report on the very day of the crash, long before work had begun to recover the bodies and wreckage should be considered as evidence of no crash and we should STILL be asking questions about it? Who amongst you would seriously entertain that claim? Do you understand that workers and recovery crews arrived later and spent a considerable amount of time digging? Do you believe that there are NOT multiple lines of evidence pointing to the certainty of UA 93’s crash? See: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page3 http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1 http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/ Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

11. troofers are the new geeks Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    hey b. j. edwards are you one of those crazy no planers or one of those crazy infowars sheep? theres some of us who dont fall for either extreames and support a new investigation into 911. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

12. b. j. edwards Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    I’m just a rational person, geeks, who goes after ALL of the frauds and charlatans of the 9/11 Denial Movement like the author of the above article. How you could possibly think I have anything to do with that movement in any way possible shows me you are clueless as the above commenters are. The burden of proof is on you guys to come up with the evidence to refute the MASSIVE evidence against your claims. After six years, we still have charlatans like Joseph Lopisi above who have nothing to show other than debunked nonsense. If you think anyone will ever conduct another 9/11 investigation without reason, you’re sadly deluded. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

13. nathan Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 2:59 am

    bj do you work for the government Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

14. ctestawich Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    I never understood while reading these kinds of blogs, there are always people who go out of their way to leave a comment like “Your a conspiracy wacko / No one will read your blog / Provide evidence…” Provide evidence is my favorite. All alot of people out there want is more evidence to back up the gov’ts story, show us some of those cameras that were set up around the Pentagon. Even a 10 second clip could silaece alot of critics but they don’t show it out of national security or something. Clips of hijackers gettin on planes something. The way I am trying to look at it, is pretend you were in a coma and missed 9/11.. what kinds of questions would you ask as a person tryin to figure out what happened and why America is in a war across seas… (as a Canadian we rae still wondering how the hell we got into Afghanistan, a war we didnt start and most of us didnt want to go into…) Most of these people want to be proven wrong and are open to the idea that they could be wrong so why redicule them for questioning the powers that be (esp, when they admit they lied to get into Afghanistan/Iraq)? I thought your guys country was founded on such reasoning. Peace to my brothers and sisters in America. I kinda hope I get flamed. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

15. ctestawich Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Do some people go out of their way to go to site to site and blog to blog to leave “You guys are wackos” comments? lol “I’ll just check out this page cause it says “Some of the Outrageous Lies About 9/11″ and ridicule whomever wrote it! HA HA HA! THERE! My comment shall stifle any efforts you have to coerse the people into outrageous thinking! I am making the world a better place!” Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

16. b. j. edwards Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    ” Provide evidence is my favorite. All alot of people out there want is more evidence to back up the gov’ts story, show us some of those cameras that were set up around the Pentagon. Even a 10 second clip could silaece alot of critics but they don’t show it out of national security or something.” Why do you think you need a video or picture of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon? Are you willing to ignore every other bit of evidence, including the wreckage found inside the pentagon, and the over 1,000 people who either saw and/or recovered that wreckage? Those very people who have never contested that the wreckage was from a Boeing 757? The “need” for a video or photograph of AA 77 is just another 9/11 Denial Movement strawman to hide behind so they won’t have to deal with the massive evidence that ALL converges on the what we know is true: AA 77 hit the Pentagon. We didn’t need photographs or videos to know the Titanic sank and with AA 77 we have far more evidence. The 9/11 Truth Movement has hidden behind the “we are just asking questions” canard while studiously avoiding the answers it doesn’t want to hear. The burden of proof remains on those who claim 9/11 was an inside job. You can’t ignore that fact. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

17. b. j. edwards Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    “bj do you work for the government” LOL. No. Your question is just indicative of another favorite illogical canard of 9/11 Truthers. You don’t even have a clue why you asked that silly question. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

18. b. j. edwards Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Well, since no one contests the fact that Flight 93 did crash and there was wreckage, let’s move on to question #2: “2. How is it that three steel framed buildings on September 11, 2001 fell in freefall time on their footprint?” This is an old falsehood. None of the towers fell in “freefall” time. None actually fell in their “footprints”. WTC 7 was leaning and completely destroyed a neighboring building, Manhattan Community College’s Fiterman Hall building. The Verizon Building suffered $1.4 billion in damage from WTC 7’s collapse. It took about 14 seconds for the FULL collapase of WTC 7. “If you watch the two Towers collapse, it is obvious that they are being blown up.” Who says? This is just another assertion made without evidence. The writer cannot even show us what an uncontrolled demolition is SUPPOSED to or not supposed to ook like nor provide any such example.” “No steel framed building prior to this date or after this date has ever collapsed due to fire.” Blatantly false and stupid. Hundreds of steel-frame buildings collapsed due fire during World War II. Just look at the exhibits at The Edo Museum in Tokyo, London’s Imperial War Museum, and Dresden’s City Historical Museum . “Many steel framed buildings have experienced burning infernos for many hours and never collapsed.” With concrete cores. Or never damaged. Or never burning WITHOUT firemen fighting it. “WTC 7, a 50 story steel framed building, had two small fires in it with no noticeable structural damage when it collapsed on his footprint in freefall time at about 5:40 p.m. on September 11.” Amazing. FOUR lies in one sentence. And you believe this fraud? There were many fires burning throughout the building for SEVEN hours, with no water to fight them, helped long by a ruptured diesel fuel tank, in a structure that suffered severe structural damage on its South Side, that collapsed at a slight angle after fire had weakened the remaining structural steel that was forced to take on the additional structural load from the damaged side and did not fall in its own footprint. How could any of you praise this fraud and liar, Joseph A. Lopisi? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

19. Englishman Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 3:37 am

    Nice work. Keep fighting, keep spreading the word. It’s appreciated. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

20. Joe, Webmaster Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    The Hidden Hand of the CIA, 911, and Popular Mechanics By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press March 19, 2005 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050321052700567 Instructive fast peek at players, politics and patterns behind PM’s recent 9/11 disinfo. - Ed. A brutal purge of the senior staff at Popular Mechanics preceded the publication of last month’s scandalous propaganda piece about 9/11. Pulling the strings is the grand dame of Hearst Magazines and behind the scene is her obscure husband, a veteran propaganda expert and former special assistant to the director of the C.I.A. The Reichstag fire, a key event in German history, and the steps that followed en suite leading to the Nazi dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, provide remarkable precedents for what occurred in the United States on 9/11 and since. The fire that consumed the German parliament building on the night of February 27, 1933, is widely believed, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government to turn public opinion against its opponents and allow it to assume emergency powers. The day after the burning of the Reichstag, the government headed by Adolf Hitler enacted a decree for the Protection of the People and the State. Hitlers emergency decree dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights. Likewise, a month after 9/11 the U.S. Congress passed, without even reading, similar emergency legislation: the Bush administrations USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. The pre-prepared massive security act’s long title is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” Within a month of the Reichstag fire, on March 23, 1933, the parliament passed the Enabling Act, whereby its legislative powers were transferred to Hitler’s Reich Cabinet. This act, passed by a vote of 444 to 94, legally sanctioned the Nazi dictatorship, Another parallel is seen in the way George W. Bush and Hitler came to power. Bush obtained the presidency in 2001 through a Supreme Court decision after a flawed and un-counted election, while Hitler secured the German chancellorship through elections in November 1932 in which the Nazi Party failed to win an outright majority. Hitlers propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is thought to have let arsonists into the parliament building through a tunnel leading from the official residence of Hermann Gvring, Reichstag president and Hitler’s chief minister. Gvring then presided over the official investigation, which blamed the communists. In a similar manner, the Bush administration openly opposed an independent investigation of 9/11 and fixed blame on Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arab terrorists. Based on this official, but unproven, explanation for 9/11 the United States has invaded and occupied two Middle Eastern nations. “DISINFORMATION AND DECEPTION” “Ninety-five percent of the work of intelligence agencies around the world is disinformation and deception,” Andreas von B¸low, former parliamentary official responsible for the budget for Germany’s intelligence agencies, told American Free Press in December 2001. Like Nazi Germany of 1933, American newsstands today carry a mainstream magazine dedicated to pushing the government’s truth of 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims. The magazine pushing the government’s 9/11 propaganda, Popular Mechanics (PM), is published by the Hearst family. Its March cover story, Debunking 9/11 Lies, has been exposed by credible researchers to contain numerous distortions and flawed conclusions. American Free Press revealed that Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old senior researcher who authored the 9/11 article, is related to Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The PM article illustrates how a propaganda method, used by dictatorships, is now being employed by the U.S. government: controlling mainstream media outlets to promote its version of 9/11. The actions of Michael Chertoff concerning the events of 9/11, the non-investigation that followed, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the propaganda being disseminated in PM, are strikingly similar to actions attributed to the Nazi ministers Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Gˆring. While Chertoff is the czar of DHS, he is not sovereign at PM or Hearst Magazines, its corporate parent. The president of Hearst Magazines, one of the world’s largest publishers of monthly magazines with 18 U.S. titles and more than 100 international editions, is Cathleen P. Black, a 60-year old native of Chicago. Black oversees the publication of 175 titles around the world including Cosmopolitan, Harpers Bazaar, Town & Country, Esquire, Good Housekeeping, and Popular Mechanics. Black is a former president and publisher of USA Today. In 1983, Black was made president of the new newspaper published by Gannett. The following year she was made publisher and soon became a member of Gannetts board of directors Despite her efforts, her biography reads, USA Today did not show an operating profit in the eight years that Black was there. The newspaper’s non-profitability notwithstanding, Gannett paid Black $600,000 a year for her efforts. USA Today reportedly had a circulation of 1.8 million when Black left in 1991. USA Today is often given away free of charge. Black left USA Today to become president and chief executive of the nascent Newspaper Association of America (NAA), formed on June 1, 1992. She then became the leading spokesperson and lobbyist for the nation’s newspaper industry. Black’s position at the NAA carried “considerable political heft,” Paul Farhi of The Washington Post wrote, “given that the 1,400 members of her organization control the nations editorial pages. In 1995, for an annual salary reported to be “in excess of $1 million,” Black was hired by Hearst Corp. to head its magazine division. Named by Fortune magazine as one of the Most Powerful Women in American Business, Black sits on the boards of Hearst Corp., the Advertising Council, IBM, and Coca-Cola. She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. It is often said that USA Today is controlled by the CIA, which, like the paper, is based in McLean, Virginia. The little-known fact that Black is married to Thomas E. Harvey, an obscure lawyer who became a White House Fellow in 1977 and served as special assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), provides substance to these rumors. Black’s corporate biography does not mention her husband. President Jimmy Carter made Harvey a White House Fellow in May 1977. “In that capacity,” Harvey’s biography reads, he “served as special assistant to the Director of the C.I.A. Following that he held senior appointed positions within the Department of Defense.” The DCI at the time was Stansfield Turner, who had replaced George H.W. Bush. Prior to serving the CIA, Harvey worked at the New York law office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. The international law firm, co-founded by Morris Hadley, a 1916 member of Yale University’s secret society Skull & Bones, has ties to the CIA and lists William H. Webster, DCI from 1987-1991, as a senior partner. Webster also serves on the Homeland Security Advisory Council. In the 1980s, Harvey served as General Counsel and Congressional Liaison of the U.S. Information Agency, the former external propaganda arm of the U.S. government. Harvey also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army and Navy. In 1992, Harvey was personnel director for the Bush-Quayle 92 Campaign. Calls to the offices of Black and Harvey for the purpose of this article went unanswered. THE COUP AT POPULAR MECHANICS In the months leading up to the Chertoff article in PM, a brutal take-over occurred at the magazine. In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazines former editor-in-chief was replaced by James B. Meigs, who came to PM with a deputy, Jerry Beilinson, from National Geographic Adventure. In October, a new creative director replaced PMs 21-year veteran who was given ninety minutes to clear out of his office. A former senior editor at PM, who is forbidden from openly discussing the coup at PM, told AFP that the former creative director was abruptly told to leave and given severance pay of two weeks wages for every year spent at PM. Three or four people have been similarly dismissed every month since, he said. He said he was astounded that the coup at PM had not been reported in the mainstream media. PM has long been a supporter of the U.S. military. The magazine ran a full page ad in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in May 2003. Since the purge last September, however, PM readers have noticed that government propaganda has replaced scientific writing. A letter to the editor in the current issue says, I think you guys are just another tool in the governments propaganda machine. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

21. Joe, Webmaster Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    History Channel Hit Piece: Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud The real story behind Brad Davis, NBC, Popular Mechanics and the History Channel - media whore stooges who engaged in deliberate deception, manipulation and chicanery to please their corporate bosses Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, August 21, 2007 MP3: Alex Jones Responds to the History Channel Hit Piece The History Channel 9/11 special that aired last night was by far the worst hit piece we have ever witnessed, a completely savage, dishonest and deceptive abomination, replete with dirty tricks, malicious lies and a level of journalistic fraud that goes way beyond simple bias. Bradley Davis, the producer of the show, is a paid liar and a hit piece specialist who deceives people by gaining their confidence and then attacking them behind their back. He is famous for the smear job documentary on Michael Jackson and makes a career out of conning people and then stabbing them in the back. His tongue is so smooth, that even the Loose Change crew were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on his impartiality before last night’s hit piece was aired, with Davis having tricked them into believing he was a friend. Before filming began, Alex Jones asked Davis point blank if the documentary was going to be a hit piece, which Davis denied. After we brought attention to the History Channel’s blurb on their website, which clearly characterized the show as a hit piece, Davis panicked and promised to alter the promo, calling it a “misrepresentation,” as well as re-edit the entire program to make it more balanced. The promo temporarily disappeared from the website and the broadcast of the show was put back by a week. During the course of this second exchange, Davis again promised Jones that the show was not going to be a hit piece and was very upset that we had discovered he was behind the NBC hit piece on Jackson - seemingly frightened that his cover might be blown and his next victim would be alerted to his scheming tricks. He was terrified and kept repeating that he didn’t want to be quoted on anything he said. Just like Popular Mechanics swore that their straw man smear job wouldn’t be a hit piece, Davis engaged in journalistic fraud and complete dishonesty by lying directly to Alex Jones’ face in claiming the documentary was to be neutral just so he could secure the interview. Just like William Randolph Hearst, the progenitor of the term “yellow journalism,” Davis will go down in history as a liar and a fraud. The show itself was deliberately crafted, edited, shot and manipulated to portray the 9/11 truth movement in a completely negative light, while exalting the so-called experts to almost God-like status. - The program makers pulled out all the stops to hire nationally renowned NBC news anchor Lester Holt (pictured) to narrate the show, a trusted voice that was utilized to brutally debunk 9/11 truth representatives. - The debunkers, people like James Meigs whose scientific expertise stretches as far as being the editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly, were labeled as experts while real experts like Physicist Professor Steven Jones were stripped of any such description. - The debunkers’ interviews were pristinely shot and framed, with beautiful backdrops and highly sympathetic camera angles and filters, whereas the truthers were shot from bizarre positions, their images were deliberately distorted and even the color filter of the shot had been manipulated to make their appearance look tainted, blurred and contorted. This was an intentional ploy and a crude act of manipulation to detract credibility from the truthers and violates all known ethical standards of journalism. - The producers of the show failed to offer the proviso that Hearst Publishing, the owner of Popular Mechanics, also holds a controlling stake in the History Channel (via its stake in the A & E Television Network), therefore concealing from the viewer a blatant conflict of interest that negated the neutrality of the show before it had even begun. - The debunkers were afforded far more time on camera while the truthers were sidelined. - The narrator of the show would dismiss the questions and evidence raised by the truthers as unproven or debunked in an ad hominem manner without providing any evidence to justify the assertion. - The truthers were edited so that only hesitant responses to questions were broadcast, casting doubt on the veracity of their claims in the mind of the unsuspecting viewer. - The show included a clip of Alex Jones’ appearance at the University of Texas, at which around 500 people packed the lecture hall to hear his speech, but deliberately and maliciously edited the footage to include shots taken during recess, so as to make it appear that the lecture hall was mostly empty. In addition, lingering shots of empty chairs were included to further deceive the viewer into thinking few had attended the speech. This is journalistic fraud of the worse kind - a blatant misrepresentation and deliberate skewing of actual events. - In a similar vein, footage from 9/11 truth protests was broadcast but the angle of the shot was always tight, so as to make out that few people had attended the demonstration, when in fact thousands were present. - Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics, mirroring a dirty trick that was also employed in the BBC hit piece, maliciously lied and smeared Alex Jones and others in the program by claiming that most of the 9/11 families hate them and that they are responsible for causing the families more pain. Coburn and the show’s producers know this is an outright lie and that the majority of the family members are asking the same questions as Alex Jones and others. Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members told the Alex Jones Show directly that over half of the family members have questions about the official story. Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew offered contact details for numerous 9/11 first responders, firefighters and family members that were asking questions of the official version, but absolutely none were interviewed by Brad Davis and the rest of the show’s producers. - The producers of the show tried to make out that Loose Change had recanted their position on the issue of controlled demolition, when in fact Dylan Avery and the other members of the crew were merely using their Final Cut version to focus on other topics, having already covered controlled demolition at length in previous versions. This trick was used to claim that evidence for bombs and controlled demolition, which is attested to by scores of firefighters and first responders, none of which were interviewed by the producers, had been debunked. ————————————————————————————————————— The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe. ————————————————————————————————————— - Articles and text from 9/11 truth websites were shown, but the actual URL addresses of the sites were blurred out, with the History Channel obviously frightened that people might actually visit such websites and find out that the program was a pack of lies. - The debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta’s bombshell testimony about Cheney’s actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, “the airplane coming in to the Pentagon,” and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton. - The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones’ scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night, Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered” but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue. - The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn’t hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell. - The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded. - The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before 9/11 was completely excluded. - The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials before and on the morning of 9/11, was completely excluded. - William Rodriguez’ first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions. - NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off, contradicting Dawson’s own report at the time which stated, “Reports of a secondary device, that is another ‘bomb’ going off.” After watching this two hour charade, Alex Jones was left stunned and irate that the producers had deliberately set out to create something that goes way beyond the scope of bias - an intentional propaganda attack piece strewn with manifestly provable lies, dirty tricks and misrepresentation, and that the show’s producers, and in particular Brad Davis, had purposefully lied all along in order to shield the fact that this was a savage hit piece of the highest order. In comparison, The History Channel makes Fox News look fair and balanced! Framing Alex Jones as a demon and making out that he is causing pain to 9/11 families, when in fact during our last visit to ground zero most of the firefighters and police personally thanked us, is a very serious allegation and we are waiting to see what kind of damages will accrue as a result while we consider our next step. As we expected all along, Brad Davis and the rest of the charlatans at NBC, the History Channel and Popular Mechanics, have pleased their corporate masters by unleashing the most twisted, distorted, dishonest and savage hit piece in television history. They have shown their hand by deliberately abandoning any pretense at ethical journalism and delivering exactly what their Hearst “yellow journalism” Publishing and GE bosses demanded - a bias, malicious, deceptive, and manipulative tissue of lies and another reason for Americans to disengage from an establishment media empire that continues to hemorrhage viewers on a daily basis due to its ceaseless lies and propaganda. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

22. solis Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    bj, despite what you and your “debunking” crowd may like to believe, your arguments consistently offer nothing more than theory, half-baked rationalizing, often a complete lack of logic, and the typical apologist behavior you will see in any dogmatic suppression of truth. having been a part of the 9/11 truth movement since early 2002, i have read nearly every single one of your “debunking” sites, articles, reports, etc. in essence, they just discuss the subject, adding in every possible theory (stress, “theory”), and guesstimation, completely reaching for an answer that ends up being more ridiculous and implausible than anything they could be debunking. on a more immediate level, you don’t even go that far - you simply submit lies and then claim they are evidence. very weak, to say the least. for example, “None of the towers fell in “freefall” time.” funny, how you just blatantly make things up to “support” your arguments. in every video of the towers collapsing, ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time. why would you write something so incredibly asinine and demonstrably false? “None actually fell in their “footprints”.” yes. they did. watch any video. how on earth do you expect to get away with refuting common sense and miles of video footage? and don’t even try to quibble about the definition of ‘footprint,’ they all fell straight downward, EXACTLY like a controlled demolition. “WTC 7 was leaning” show us the evidence. “Who says [the towers exploded]? This is just another assertion made without evidence.” http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg please enlighten us on how this picture does NOT reveal explosions? even john kerry admitted WTC7 was demolished: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/220407_kerry_wtc7.html “The burden of proof remains on those who claim 9/11 was an inside job. You can’t ignore that fact.” oh really? and who made you the grand magistrate? how about the burden of proof falls on a government that provides such laughable lies in its investigation (after fighting tooth and nail to even implement an investigation) that it has lost all credibility in the process? “Hundreds of steel-frame buildings collapsed due fire during World War II. Just look at the exhibits at The Edo Museum in Tokyo, London’s Imperial War Museum, and Dresden’s City Historical Museum.” please provide proof that these buildings fell directly due to fire, and not bombs. “Why do you think you need a video or picture of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon?” because everything this administration has given us has been nothing but lies. “Are you willing to ignore every other bit of evidence, including the wreckage found inside the pentagon, and the over 1,000 people who either saw and/or recovered that wreckage?” the evidence was obviously planted. it was the freakin’ pentagon, for god’s sake. why on earth would a piece of fuselage just randomly appear nowhere near the point of impact, and not even be scratched or singed? did it just fall off the plane? and for that matter, why was the supposed plane tracked for over one hour, yet simply allowed to fly into the pentagon unharmed? it was those damn fake radar blips, eh? nothing suspicious there! “Those very people who have never contested that the wreckage was from a Boeing 757?” and of course, we all know that those who work for the CIA are unquestionably trustworthy. no gray morals there. no brainwashing. no bribes, threats, or anything of the sort. all just good, simple, hardworkin’ 100% honest folk. here is my favorite one: “1. How is it that at the crash site of Flight 93, NBC and Fox News on September 11, 2001 reported on the scene with video coverage that there was no sign of a jetliner, engines, bodies or luggage?” “Now look at exactly what he is asking you to believe: that a news report on the very day of the crash, long before work had begun to recover the bodies and wreckage should be considered as evidence of no crash and we should STILL be asking questions about it? Do you understand that workers and recovery crews arrived later and spent a considerable amount of time digging?” okay, so let me get this straight here. what you’re saying is that evidence of a plane crash will appear to the naked ONLY AFTER clean-up crews arrive? how do you tie your shoes in the morning? what kind of absurd logic is that? why did both a FOX news cameraman and CNN correspondent say they saw NO evidence of a plane crash at the site?? oh, i’m sorry — it’s because the clean-up crews hadn’t arrived! the plane was entirely underground! thank you for your brilliant enlightenment, bj! meanwhile, a few other questions for you. why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize. how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion, magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings? how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly. why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001? why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one. “If you think anyone will ever conduct another 9/11 investigation without reason, you’re sadly deluded.” the joint chairmen of congress’s own 9/11 investigatory commission - not to mention the two 9/11 commission directors - now say they were not told the whole truth by government employees who testified, and that their report is very flawed. gee, that sort of sounds like a reason to me. the bottom line, bj, is that you are simply non-credible and untrustworthy. you cannot answer any questions, and your lies are blatantly transparent. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

23. b. j. edwards Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Solis wrote without EVER having done a bit of research “having been a part of the 9/11 truth movement since early 2002, i have read nearly every single one of your “debunking” sites, articles, reports, etc. in essence, they just discuss the subject, adding in every possible theory (stress, “theory”), and guesstimation, completely reaching for an answer that ends up being more ridiculous and implausible than anything they could be debunking.” Having demonstrated since March 2002 that you 9/11 Truth Kiddies have NEVER produced one single piece of evidence to support what you desperately NEED to believe, one can only wonder if you have been living in a cave in Antarctica, Solis. Let’s start with your inability to see and to count: “funny, how you just blatantly make things up to “support” your arguments. in every video of the towers collapsing, ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time. why would you write something so incredibly asinine and demonstrably false?” I don’t. YOU do, as this video makes abundantly clear: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4 Now, apologize to all the readers here, Solis. “yes. they did. watch any video. how on earth do you expect to get away with refuting common sense and miles of video footage? and don’t even try to quibble about the definition of ‘footprint,’ they all fell straight downward, EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.” So, your definition of “footprint” includes 3, 4, 5, & 6 World Trade Center within the 208 ft x 208 ft footprints of WTC 1 & 2. Amazing. You REALLY need remedial counting education, Solis. “please enlighten us on how this picture does NOT reveal explosions?” LOL. The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on your shoulders, Solis. Please demonstrate how your photo demonstrates “controlled demolition” in any way whatsoever. And then, you can do what every 9/11 Truth Kiddie ahead of you has failed to do. You can bring to the table examples of what UNcontrolled building collapses look like. You are so GULLIBLE, Solis, believing anything frauds and charlatans tell you, never once actually thinking nor doing your own research. “oh really? and who made you the grand magistrate? how about the burden of proof falls on a government that provides such laughable lies in its investigation (after fighting tooth and nail to even implement an investigation) that it has lost all credibility in the process?” Gosh, you really are dense. First, if you had sat down and even THOUGHT for a minute you would realize that all of the EVIDENCE of what happened on 9/11 DOES NOT come from the government, never originated with nor was ever controlled by the government. You allowed yourself to be taken in by the strawman argument that what actually happened on 9/11 is just some “official story,” that the government foisted on us. Really, Solis, how can you allow yourself to be so taken in by what the 9/11 Truth Movement wants you to believe, completely ignoring the evidence? Another example of the same thing. ““Why do you think you need a video or picture of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon?” because everything this administration has given us has been nothing but lies.” The evidence of what occurred at the Pentagon is INDEPENDENT of the government. Duh. “the evidence was obviously planted. it was the freakin’ pentagon, for god’s sake. why on earth would a piece of fuselage just randomly appear nowhere near the point of impact, and not even be scratched or singed? did it just fall off the plane? and for that matter, why was the supposed plane tracked for over one hour, yet simply allowed to fly into the pentagon unharmed? it was those damn fake radar blips, eh? nothing suspicious there!” My God, you’re dumb. You want us to believe that “something” exploded at the Pentagon, killing people, and magically people were able to “plant” 757 wreckage and burned bodies in airline seats throughout the interior of the Pentagon without being seen and within minutes of the “event?” And not only that, they were able to HIDE the evidence of what actually caused the explosion? Over 1,000 people saw and/or recovered the wreckage and never claimed it was something other than wreckage? Over 200 people were involved with AA77 at the airport that morning, hundreds of family members of the passengers KNEW they were on that flight, yet you cannot even tell us what happened to the flight??? Jesus, Solis, where did you leave your brain? “and of course, we all know that those who work for the CIA are unquestionably trustworthy. no gray morals there. no brainwashing. no bribes, threats, or anything of the sort. all just good, simple, hardworkin’ 100% honest folk.” So, where is your evidence that over 1,000 people at the Pentagon and 200 people at the airport worked for the CIA and have kept their mouths shut for the last 6 years? Huh? Why are you afraid to tell us what ANY of those 1,500+ people said they saw and recovered from the Pentagon? Scared, Solis? You bet you are. Now this is REALLY stupid: “okay, so let me get this straight here. what you’re saying is that evidence of a plane crash will appear to the naked ONLY AFTER clean-up crews arrive? how do you tie your shoes in the morning? what kind of absurd logic is that?” You haven’t a clue what my statement means?: “Do you understand that workers and recovery crews arrived later and spent a considerable amount of time digging?”” What does DIGGING mean to you, Solis? Playing in a sand box? Do you have any clue at all that the surviving wreckage was in the ground and was DUG out? See: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200060.html “why did both a FOX news cameraman and CNN correspondent say they saw NO evidence of a plane crash at the site??” Because, duh, they didn’t see what they expected to see. And you want us to use them as EXCLUSIVE evidence. Amazing. “meanwhile, a few other questions for you.” Questions? You mean you’re “just asking questions?” Gosh. Let’s review: 1) You rely EXCLUSIVELY on 9/11 conspiracy sites. 2) You NEVER think through what you desperately WANT to believe. 3) Your claims are illogical and irrational. 4) You NEVER support your claims with sound evidence. 5) You IGNORE evidence INCONVENIENT to your desired conclusions. 6) You NEVER provide answers - you just ask questions. You are a perfect example of a 9/11 Truther, Solis, living in a fairyland world of nonsense, never bothering to actually think. You are a perfect example of what the frauds and charlatans of the 9/11 Truth Movement take advantage of: gullible sheep. You end up illustrating my point EXACTLY. Now, I suggest you get out into the REAL world and do some research on your own. You can start with this massive site of links to every aspect of 9/11. It will take you quite awhile. And remember, the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the shoulders of your 9/11 Denial Movement. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

24. b. j. edwards Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Left out site: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

25. b. j. edwards Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Joe, Webmaster, getting very nervous gave us articles by fugitive, Christopher Bollyn, and “peer-reviewed” experts, Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson. Now THAT”S true desperation. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

26. solis Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 3:51 am

    bj, i know it’s wrong of me, but i have to admit i enjoy watching you fall apart at the seams. your “logic” is becoming increasingly absurd, and your desperation is starting to crack through your mind-bogglingly weak “intellectual” facade. the following is my NEW favorite. now, let’s review this very carefully. essentially, bj says that NO evidence of the flight 93’s “crash” in PA was VISIBLE to any witnesses immediately after it’s impact. why? oh, it gets much, much better. because, according to bj, the plane had VANISHED UNDERGROUND! that’s right. i am not making this up. you can even read it for yourself: ““Do you understand that workers and recovery crews arrived later and spent a considerable amount of time digging?”” What does DIGGING mean to you, Solis? Playing in a sand box? Do you have any clue at all that the surviving wreckage was in the ground and was DUG out? See:” (and THEN! the best part! LOOK at what he uses for incontrovertible “evidence”! this is good:) http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200060.html whoa! did you see that?? case closed! well, you sure got me there, bj! my god, is my hat off to you! you really showed me, didn’t you? (please, anybody reading this: CLICK ON HIS LINK) my god are you an intellectual lightweight. and you know what? you just completely shot yourself in the foot, because if that’s ALL you’ve got to prove that flight 93 ‘buried itself” in the ground, thereby “disappearing” from view and leaving NO visible traces, then not only have you just completely illustrated how flimsy your “debunker” arguments are, but you have also revealed precisely how naive, gullible, and unsophisticated your critical thinking skills truly are. if you actually fell for that, then we need to start talking business arrangements immediately. wow. that was good. thank you for that. solis to bj: “funny, how you just blatantly make things up to “support” your arguments. in every video of the towers collapsing, ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time. why would you write something so incredibly asinine and demonstrably false?” bj: I don’t. YOU do, as this video makes abundantly clear: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4 so, i watched this video, bj, and whoa, you sure made a POWERFUL point THERE! essentially, what your incredibly asinine video says is that — if the twin towers fell in ten seconds, then it’s free-fall speed. but… twelve seconds? well! that just entirely proves that it clearly WASN’T freefall speed, so we all might as well just give up go home! my god… it is truly appalling how simple-minded you really are. allow to enlighten you: essentially, the towers did NOT have to collapse at EXACTLY freefall speed to prove that resistance within its path was removed/demolished/exploded/etc. in order for it to have reached the ground that quickly. even it being VERY CLOSE to freefall speed is enough to prove this. in other words, what if every floor had demolitions on it, except, say for the seven? that might have been enough to slow it down a second or two. BUT! if there were NO explosives planted, the building would have taken SIGNIFICANTLY longer to collapse. THAT’S where you fall into your typical “debunker” drivel. we’ll call that one: “splitting hairs.” ten seconds? twelve seconds? fourteen seconds? get a grip, you brainwashed fool. bj: “So, your definition of “footprint” includes 3, 4, 5, & 6 World Trade Center within the 208 ft x 208 ft footprints of WTC 1 & 2.” and as far as the usual splitting hairs argument goes, here we go again. YES, the buildings collapsed straight into their own footprints. again, despite the fact that you can’t seem to comprehend basic logic when confronted with pictures of ACTUAL evidence, the buildings EXPLODED, UPWARD and OUTWARD. thus causing the damage to the surrounding buildings. http://usera.imagecave.com/markyannone/Album9/wtc.jpg only a fool would claim this is an implosion, as opposed to an EXplosion. “LOL. The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on your shoulders, Solis.” no it’s not dimwit, except for in your disturbed little mind. as far as the vast majority of americans who want a new investigation, the burden of proof is on traitors like you. “Please demonstrate how your photo demonstrates “controlled demolition” in any way whatsoever.” don’t lie to me. i said it was indicative of “explosions” not of a “controlled demolition” and you know it. plus, anyone can SEE that that is clearly an explosion. and by the way, anybody reading this, that is a very typical “debunker” logical-fallacy response: change the argument and then refute THAT. this is what is known as a ‘fallacy of ambiguity’ also known as a ’straw man’ argument. sorry, twiddle-brain, your little tricks will not get past me. THIS is my second favorite. notice how bj essentially says NOTHING of any consequence, logic, or value: solis (in response to bj’s claim that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the 9/11 truth movement skeptics): “oh really? and who made you the grand magistrate? how about the burden of proof falls on a government that provides such laughable lies in its investigation (after fighting tooth and nail to even implement an investigation) that it has lost all credibility in the process?” bj: “Gosh, you really are dense. First, if you had sat down and even THOUGHT for a minute you would realize that all of the EVIDENCE of what happened on 9/11 DOES NOT come from the government, never originated with nor was ever controlled by the government.” uh… what? first of all, WHAT are you talking about? second of all (trying to glean any sense out of that statement whatsoever), are you saying that all of the evidence “doesn’t come from the government…”? and if so, what does THAT have to do with anything?? all right, i’m going to try to be patient here. if you are claiming that “evidence” needs to be “owned” by the government for skeptics to “prove” anything, then you are even more deranged than i thought. what would that have to do with anything? second, the government, AND high-level private sector-types (like, say, marvin bush - bush’s brother - who was intimately involved in providing security for the twin towers…) are what would be needed to pull something like this off - NOT just the government’s “ownership” of “evidence.” second, even if your weird, non-argument WERE the case, consider that one of the primary pieces of evidence is WTC7, which inexplicably collapsed despite being hit by no plane at 5pm. incidentally, WTC7 also housed giuliani’s $19million private “emergency bunker,” as well as offices of the SEC, the CIA, the secret service. FURTHERMORE, the IRS was housing between 3,000 - 4,000 documents relating to ongoing wall street investigations - including Enron and Worldcom. “You allowed yourself to be taken in by the strawman argument that what actually happened on 9/11 is just some “official story,” that the government foisted on us.” again, a complete lack of logic here. my guess is that you are either trying to fool us with non-sensical, inherently contradictory arguments, or you’re just that stupid. my guess is it’s the latter. how on earth is that a “STRAW MAN” argument, nimrod?? that IS the OFFICIAL STORY! bj: “The evidence of what occurred at the Pentagon is INDEPENDENT of the government. Duh.” again, your naivete knows no bounds. oh gee, the fact that it happened at THE PENTAGON is just one big coincidence! and besides, pray tell exactly how an airplane is allowed to fly for over an hour in american skies throughout a national FAA grounding of all planes, and allowed to hit one the most heavily fortified intelligence center in the world? bj: “You want us to believe that “something” exploded at the Pentagon, killing people, and magically people were able to “plant” 757 wreckage and burned bodies in airline seats throughout the interior of the Pentagon without being seen and within minutes of the “event?”” i saw the picture of the body in the airplane seat. tell me how that PROVES it was taken at the pentagon? and second, ALL of the wreckage at the pentagon is VERY dubious. this is beyond obvious to anyone with actual critical-thinking skills. bj: “And not only that, they were able to HIDE the evidence of what actually caused the explosion?” not at all. just tell me exactly why so many people reported seeing a C-130 in the immediate area as well. bj: “Over 1,000 people saw and/or recovered the wreckage and never claimed it was something other than wreckage?” this is also a very dubious statement. how are we to know what they saw and what they decided to tell or not tell of? again, this took place at the PENTAGON. how do you know they were never skeptical and/or paid off and threatened? “Over 200 people were involved with AA77 at the airport that morning, hundreds of family members of the passengers KNEW they were on that flight, yet you cannot even tell us what happened to the flight???” this is sooooo irrelevant. yes, they got on the flight (presumably), but then, as in the case of flight 93, why did the mayor of cleveland, a local FOX news affiliate, and United Airlines ALL CONFIRM that flight 93 landed in CLEVELAND?? like these and hundreds more, there are jut way too many questions that need to be answered. THEN, here is my third favorite part. first of all, i asked bj several excellent questions that he clearly CANNOT answer. they are as follows: why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize. how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion, magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings? how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly. why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001? why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one. now, you’d think that, given that those are all pretty good questions that i would personally love to know, bj would be able to enlighten us all. instead, his weak and cowardly response?? bj: “Questions? You mean you’re “just asking questions?” Gosh. Let’s review: 1) You rely EXCLUSIVELY on 9/11 conspiracy sites. (how on earth would he know this?) 2) You NEVER think through what you desperately WANT to believe. (a completely unfounded, childish statement that amounts to absolutely nothing) 3) Your claims are illogical and irrational. (see previous, and also notice how this is one of his own primary faults) 4) You NEVER support your claims with sound evidence. (see previous, and also notice how this is one of his own primary faults) 5) You IGNORE evidence INCONVENIENT to your desired conclusions. (again, notice how he continues to turn everything around. i responded to ALL is claims, and - irony of ironies - THIS is precisely the claim he is using to avoid answering any of MY questions) 6) You NEVER provide answers - you just ask questions. (see #2) so, go ahead, bj answer my questions. or is it because… you can’t. is it because you are a person of little intellectual fortitude who happened to fall in with the wrong crowd, deciding to go into denial and get his ego-stroked by loud-mouthed morons, as opposed to those with REAL courage and conviction? give it up, “bj” you’ve got nothing. i just decimated every single one of your arguments, and the fact that you refuse to answer any more of my questions PROVES that you are a know-nothing, gullible, weak-minded… TRAITOR. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

27. roman Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 9:23 am

    Save your breath B.J(and your fingers)your days are numbered. The noose is getting tighter and all the screaming in the world will not loosen it. One day you might realize its your own ass that we are saving. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

28. jthomas Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    bj was able to demonstrate that 9/11 Truthers like Solis are completely uneducated in any aspect of 9/11. For instance Solis how this picture, http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg, could not be evidence of explosive demolition, bj asked the logical question: “The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on your shoulders, Solis. Please demonstrate how your photo demonstrates “controlled demolition” in any way whatsoever.” How does Solis respond? “the buildings EXPLODED, UPWARD and OUTWARD. thus causing the damage to the surrounding buildings.” Exploding UPWARD? That Solis still believes that falsehood, debunked in 2002 and easily verified by anyone, is startling. Videos clearly show that dust and smoke were being sucked back down behind the collapse front of each tower. A still photo only captures the moment the picture was taken and Solis thinks the the top of a collapsing tower is perfectly still with stuff exploding UPWARD from it. Take a look at any video. Solis claims: “ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time. why would you write something so incredibly asinine and demonstrably false?” bj responds with a video CLEARLY showing WTC 2 falling FAR slower than freefall time. How does Solis respond, “..we’ll call that one: “splitting hairs.” ten seconds? twelve seconds? fourteen seconds?”, thus evading his own claim and showing that he never took a course in physics, and “freefall” times are open to negotiation, apparently. Lets examine how HIGH buildings would have to be to fall in 10, 12, and 14 seconds at freefall times: WTC 1 and 2: 9.2 seconds 1,368 feet tall 10 seconds: 1,660 feet tall 12 seconds: 2,304 feet tall 14 seconds: 3,136 feet tall Just splitting hairs, huh? Solis doesn’t like the fact that the evidence of the 9/11 attacks doesn’t come from the government. This is a fundamental fact. He avoids having to deal with the FACT that over 1000 people DID see or recover the wreckage. His response: the “could have” evasion: “how are we to know what they saw and what they decided to tell or not tell of? again, this took place at the PENTAGON. how do you know they were never skeptical and/or paid off and threatened?” So Solis has no answers as bj already showed. He has only evasions and questions designed to evade answers. Evidence that Solis doesn’t like is simply dismissed. So he’ll NEVER bother to find out what over 1000 people saw, he’ll never need to tell us how so many people COULD shut up for six years. Solis illustrates what the 9/11 Truth Movement is in all its glorious irrationality. bj easily let Solis demonstrate that fact for himself. bj really nailed it on the ahead. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

29. ellman Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Solis meets this definition very clearly: “10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists” A useful guide by Donna Ferentes http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html 1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc. 2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length. 3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make. 4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. 5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account. 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. 7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot. 8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist. 9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely. 10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question. A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

30. Spook Buster Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    The MI5 lead UK 911 Movement failed because supporters EVENTUALLY realised Machon/Shayler were gathering and feeding data to the secret services. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

31. solis Posted: Feb 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am

    ellman, as your points that supposedly apply to me are all dubious nonsense (as to be expected), i will now dismantle each one piece by piece for you. “1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.” i see truth means nothing to you (quite obviously, otherwise you wouldn’t do believe what you do). WHEN did any of the above apply to me? show me ONE specific example. “2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.” moron. this is an utterly absurd argument. number one: when did i call anyone a “sheep”? secondly, compare your argument to a court case (which it should). if you were a defendant, would you say to a judge: “sorry, sir, but this prosecutor is going on too long. can we declare this a mistrial?” the absurdity of your logic is only matched by the foolishness of the rest of your statements. “3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.” first of all, don’t even try to give yourslef the badge of honor known as “skeptic.” you are anything BUT. you follishly swallow a ludicrous story, bait and hook, failing to question any of the drivel that seems to taste so sweet. and again, you have no concept of honesty, do you? i answered EVERY single one of bj’s questions, while THREE of you now have failed to answer mine. it’s unbelievable how you do something totally inane, and then accuse others of doing it, all the while proclaiming your innocence. with people like you in the world, it’s easy to see how these clowns thought they could get away with it. “4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.” again, what on earth are referring to? give me ONE specific, example, you bald-faced liar. “5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.” well, sherlock, would you mind PLEASE telling me how occam’s razor applies to the following questions? why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize. how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion, magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings? how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly. why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001? why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one. this ought to be good… unfortunately, in the “debunker’s” world, occam’s razor is simply the excuse they give themselves for not wanting to actually use any critical thinking skills whatsoever. it is beyond weak. personally, i think it simply makes them feel educated to be able to use a phrase like “occam’s razor” in ordinary parlance. “6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.” how many ways do i have to decimate this ridiculous “argument”? 1) the 9/11 truth movement is FILLED with former presidential cabinet members, engineers, science professors, physicists, federal attorneys, high-ranking military officers, scientists, demolition experts, firefighters, etc. etc. etc. sorry, but your stupid claim was “debunked” in, oh around early 2002. 2) you talk about respectability of sources, but does it EVER occur to you hat it might be suspicious that a brutal purge of the senior staff at Popular Mechanics precipitated the publication of their scandalous propaganda piece about 9/11? oh no, going beyond occam’s razor! or how about that HENRY FREAKIN’ KISSINGER was going to head the 9/11 commission until the brave and informed ‘jersey girls’ (without whom there would BE no 9/11 commission) asked him if he had any clients named “bin laden.” oh, nothing skeptical there at all? occam’s razor! 3) simply put, none of this even applies. the enormous amount of evidence skeptical of the official story is based on scientific evidence, actual news media reports, NYC firefighters (whose ranks are vastly filled with 9/11 truthers, as is NYC), and mountains of measurable, demonstrable data that utterly contradicts nearly everything in the 9/11 commission report. “7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections skeptics make to the previous lot.” utter nonsense, as usual. every claim or question i have made, i have backed up with evidence. secondly, bj hasn’t even had the liberty of backing off when he’s wrong, because he simply won’t even answer the questions, just like ellman and jthomas. in regard to the last part of this accusation, “debunkers” simply spout utter gibberish when faced with questions they can’t answer. (see bj’s hilarious take on the crash of flight 93.) and finally, when has any so-called “debunker” EVER retracted? the most amazing thing about these twisted traitors is that i’ve seen them all sit and defend OPERATION NORTHWOODS, for chrissakes! how twisted is that? no logic, rationality, or humanity WHATSOEVER. “8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.” as usual, total and complete hypocrisy. case in point: i pointed out that an exact freefall speed is completely unnecessary to prove that resistance within the top of the building’s path was removed/demolished/exploded/et cetera in order for it to have reached the ground that quickly. yet jthomas STILL doesn’t get it and only uses the “freefall or nothing” theory. talk about hypocrisy. “9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.” first of all, who uses these comparisons? the obvious comparisons are the gulf of tonkin, which greatly escalated the vietnam, even though defense sec. mcnamara recently said it “didn’t happen,” or operation northwoods, in which the US joint chiefs of staff planned to stage a terror campaign in washington d.c. and miami. but oh that’s right. you guys are “debunkers” so to you that’s okay “because operation northwoods never actually happened” (this making of excuses by debunkers for one of the most horrific plans by the US government to attack it’s own people is entirely true — anyone reading this needs to see to for themselves. go to “screwloosechange” and you’ll see how “screwloose” is perfectly appropriate) on a side note, everybody, here is yet another classic example of “debunker” logic. can ANYBODY explain to me what the hell the following means? “9/11 truthers do not pause to reflect [on] the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.” if you’ll notice, this is gibberish. it literally makes no sense. yet this is CONSISTENTLY one of their standard retorts when they have backed themselves into a corner, try to appear intelligent, or simply want to muddle the discussion. seriously, keep an eye out for this one. it’s surprisingly common. “10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.” this one? utter naivete. see gulf of tonkin, see operation northwoods. see 9/11. see pearl harbor. see the USS maine and the beginning of hearst’s false ‘yellow journalism’, see the 7/7 bombings, in which a staged “exercise” was staking place where bombs went off in the EXACT same stations at the EXACT same time as the actual event. you see, to “debunkers” that’s all just an AMAZING coincidence. in essence: “debunkers” generally possess no critical thinking skills, although they like to think they do. they are utterly naive. completely gullible. will submit to any authority’s version of truth. they throw out far-fetched theories based on guesstimation, and accept any answer no matter how ridiculous and implausible it is over anything they could even be “debunking.” they mock and insult us for being driven by deeper truth and justice in this world, when all that matters to them is “debunking” those skeptical of an absurd and absolutely impossible official storyline. and that’s what we are. we are skeptics. you represent the unthinking, uncritical party line. you insult us because we don’t have the answers, yet this is precisely what drives us. then, when you provide us with these half-baked, illogical claims, often based on laughable theories (bj’s version of flight 93) or completely inexplicable gibberish, we realize that your own lack of answers make the official story even more suspect. you claim that, because we don’t believe that nineteen hijackers, all under FBI surveillance, none of who could even fly a cessna, led by a guy on kidney dialysis in a cave in afghanistan, somehow bested the world’s greatest trillion-dollar on-alert military and intelligence machine, we are naive. in your world, that could EASILY happen without inside help. yours is a world of fantasy that WILL crumble. it is only a matter of time. i just hope that you chose the RIGHT side of history before it is too late. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

32. solis Posted: Feb 15th, 2008 at 8:48 am

    webmaster, i am EXTREMELY disappointed in RINF’s site. i refuted each and every one of the points both of thee guys made for over an hour and then submitted it. for whatever reason, the site decided to reset itself and it never went through. i am so pissed off at this site right now. i’m done. you so-called “debunkers” win, if that’s what you wish this to mean. i put my go**amn blood and soul into that thing, there is no way i am trying that all again. so disappointed… thanks, RINF. out. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

33. roman Posted: Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Don’t worry about it Solis, these debunker’s are not interested in the TRUTH. You have nothing to prove to them. Now matter how many times you prove them wrong or correct them, they will find some unsubstantiated bullshit to try and challenge you. Who knows their origins and interests, and frankly who cares. Be at peace with yourself , a better world is nigh. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

34. solis Posted: Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    thanks, roman. you have good and wise words. interestingly enough, it somehow just went through, even after i had refreshed it three times over an hour. cool! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

35. ellman Posted: Feb 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Solis said: “i’m done. you so-called “debunkers” win.” “Debunkers” worldwide have consistently demonstrated that 9/11 conspiracy nuts like you are unable to think rationally. You are perfectly happy to believe what you WANT to believe and end up just repeating that which has been repeatedly shown to be untrue. You make claims and assertions and call intelligent, rational people every name under the book because you don’t like being reminded that you have nothing, nothing at all. You shift the burden of proof and think that will magically get you a new investigation of 9/11. It really points to the failure of 9/11 “truthers” to think critically. You can deny it all you want, but this it all is: denial. You need a sea change in thinking, Solis. You need to STOP thinking this is a war between you and them. This is a subject of evidence and what the preponderance of evidence tell us as rational human beings. You can’t continue to sit around repeating what a relatively few dishonest leaders of your “movement” want you to believe. You have to start afresh with a commitment to intellectual honesty that your posts do not in any way demonstrate. YOU have to be skeptical of EVERYTHING you read and are told, including and especially 9/11 “truthers” and their leaders. YOU have to ask yourself and others logical questions that derive from the PREREQUISITES for, and IMPLICATIONS of, any claim. For instance, if you believe that no 757 hit the Pentagon, you have to sit down, THINK, and list ALL the things you can think of - and find out about on your own - of what must have been REQUIRED for that to have happened, and what would be the IMPLICATIONS of no 757 hitting the Pentagon. You can’t go around, as you posts do, dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit your desired conclusions. In sum, you cannot be intellectually dishonest to yourself or us by unthinkingly devoting yourself to a cause. You can’t go around just “asking questions” WITHOUT questioning everything you read, hear, or are told. The alternative is the dustbin of history for you. This is what your “movement” is leaving as a legacy. Ask yourself WHY. “9/11 conspiracy theories originate from ignorance” Published: Monday, January 28, 2008 Jesse Hathaway / Columnist / jh309105@ohio.edu View larger photo. The Jews were responsible for the events of Sept. 11, 2001. So was the mysterious Bildeburger group, the “military-industrial complex,” the Israeli intelligence agency called the Mossad and the contracting company named Halliburton. Using the evil radio-wave emitter in Alaska acronymed HAARP, the reptilian aliens disguised themselves as world leaders and members of the British royal family, and demolished the World Trade Center. Confused yet? So am I. Conspiracy theories about the events of Sept.11, 2001 are more prevalent than Ohio State fans on the Ohio University campus. Now, I’m not one to judge people, but some of the people who believe in such wacky stories are plain loco. Here’s why. Our story begins in the 14th century, with a philosopher named William of Ockham. Amongst his wide studies of nature, physics, the Bible and logic, one of his achievements stands apart: Ockham’s Razor. Ockham’s Razor is simple; one of the different interpretations goes, “of equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.” To paraphrase, the theory that requires the least prior assumptions in order to be consistent is to be believed. The Razor is a principle that is applied — with overwhelming success — in everyday, logical, rational life. The people who believe that Zionists, the Mossad, the shape-shifting aliens known as the Ananuki, the Bildeburgers — heck, anyone except disaffected Saudi 20-somethings working for al-Qaeda — either don’t know about or don’t care about the basics of physics, geopolitical happenings and emergency response. They don’t understand that their theories require layers of prior assumptions, such that entire alternate world histories have to be imagined in order for their scenario to work. This is just one of the reasons that 9/11 conspiracy theories are born of ignorance and irrationality. Yeah, I said it. 9/11 conspiracy theories originate from ignorance; determining whether or not that ignorance is willful or accidental is left as an exercise to the reader. 9/11 conspiracy theories require not only willing suspension of belief, but an encouragement of poor reasoning. The human brain is not good at accurately processing vast amounts of information, because it soon gets lazy and starts looking for patterns. The human brain looks for patterns in information, as a way of easing the reasoning process. Even where none truly exist, false patterns will begin to emerge. Soon, these patterns will start to build on each other, until the cycle repeats, and an overarching mega-conspiracy is created. Unfortunately for the rest of us, some of these freaky people can vote. It’s a good thing that our country is so democratic that even sanity is not a factor in determining who gets to vote. It is also a bad thing, for the same reason. Part of being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, apparently, is seeing fascists, Zionists and Rupert Murdoch in the shadows and under the bed and lashing out at people who try to point out the error in their thinking. I say that this behavior is part of being a conspiracy theorist because it happens so much. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists like to call themselves “Truthers.” I like to call them “Troofers.” “Troof” sounds like “truth,” but after you look at the facts and think about it, you realize that “troof” is not the same thing as “truth.” 9/11 conspiracy theories may sound like truth, but they’re not true. George W. Bush did not order 9/11 to be done. There are no Bildeburgers, Illuminati or New World Order. According to Alan Moore, the author of the graphic novel V for Vendetta — also the movie that Troofers adore for its hard-hitting commentary about post-9/11 America — the original work was in no way about post-9/11 America, but rather 1980s Britain. To paraphrase the words of South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, 9/11 was done by a bunch of ticked-off Muslims. Not only does Ockham’s Razor eliminate all the other theories, but it also demands that you remember these words of advice: “Get a job, because this one goes to 11 … 9/11.” Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

36. Mick Meaney Posted: Feb 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    solis, firstly thank you (and to all who are contributing to this article) for posting some really great information and creating such a thought provoking debate. I think the Webmaster posting above is webmaster of http://www.911insidejob.net so the comment problem isn’t his fault, it’s mine. I’m the only person responsible for RINF so I will explain how the comments work. There’s several spam filters on here and sometimes (usually when a post contains links or is quiet long) the spam filters catch it - which prevents it from being published. It is rare that a normal comment will be considered spam but it does happen from time to time I’m afraid. A few times each day I check the filters incase this happens and publish any comment which looks genuine. I’m very sorry for the fustration it caused you and others who posted comments that were held in moderation, many of the comments on this article contain links which resulted in some of you waiting for your comment to be approved. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

37. bill samson Posted: Feb 15th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    Proof that 9/11 was an inside job: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jgaddguhs4 Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

38. solis Posted: Feb 15th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    mick, thank you. my comment just came through. it all worked out. honestly, thank you very much… very much appreciate your conscientiousness- s. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

39. solis Posted: Feb 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    did anyone else notice that ellman STILL hasn’t answered any of my questions? classic “debunker” hypocrisy. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

40. ellman Posted: Feb 16th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Solis, I think everyone noticed you’ve failed to address my lengthy reply, which, if you were honest, you would thank me for giving you some direction. You illustrate the problem with 9/11 truthers everywhere by ignoring that which doesn’t serve you desired conclusions. As anyone paying attention to these comments can see, the burden of proof is clearly on 9/11 truthers’ shoulders. Simply making claims doesn’t get you anywhere. You are in the minority and you are the one making claims. You have to take action otherwise nothing will happen and you will not have proven your case. I can illustrate that the burden of proof is on YOU very simply by asking you to answer this question: When do you expect to file charges against the Bush Administration? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

41. solis Posted: Feb 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    ellman, go back nine posts and you can see my lengthy response to your post. please read through it, as i addressed every one of your ideas. after i submitted it, it failed to post and state how it was awaiting moderation. later, however, it did, so please read it. your statement that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the 9/11 truthers is simply your own personal opinion and that is all. my opinion happens to be the opposite. it states that when we are given a 9/11 commission where even its top two commissioners say they were not given sufficient information, they did not receive full cooperation from the government, and the final report was therefore incomplete, we are entitled to a new, independent investigation. this is simple common sense. given what i just wrote, why would you even argue against that? additionally, the burden of proof is not on our shoulders b/c the questions we still have are the same ones that the 9/11 families had all along and were promised would be answered, yet they never were. in other words, as a country, we were all lied to through proxy, and we are STILL waiting for those answers. and finally, how on earth can you say the burden of proof is on us when SO many obvious questions have been refused an answer? WTC7 collapsing without even being hit by a plane and then all the evidence being immediately sent away overseas is an absolute anomaly that CLEARLY needs to be investigated. how can you possibly say otherwise? the entire incidence of WT7’s mysterious collapse (which BBC reported fell half an hour before it did — ???) alone is cause to reopen the investigation, yet there is so much more than that that was simply ignored. although you will likely never agree, the burden of proof has shifted BACK to the government after giving us a sham of an investigation that *even the investigators themselves* say was incomplete and insufficient. it’s really very, very simple yet you somehow fail to understand any of it. i will grant you, however, that every single one of us has our burdens of proof. it is on us to prove that we were given a sham investigation, and that is clearly what i have been doing this entire time. your burden of proof, however, is to prove that the official version of the events of 9/11 is actually accurate. you can’t have it both ways. “You are the one making claims.” no. i am not. i am asking intelligent questions that no one will answer. case in point: watch what happens here. i will repeat my same questions to you so you can simply answer them for me and then let’s see what you do. will you answer them? let’s find out. one more time, ellman, with your credibility on the line: why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize for us. (incidentally, this was mentioned in the latest james bond film as the reason james needed to investigate the bad guys) how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion - magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings? and why did rumsfeld, robert mueller, and the ‘hero’ firefighter who took the CIA around the site to find them all give differing stories of whether the black boxes were even found? how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly. why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001? why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one. there you are. watching and waiting… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

42. ellman Posted: Feb 16th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Solis said: “your statement that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the 9/11 truthers is simply your own personal opinion and that is all.” So, when do you expect to file charges against the Bush Administration? “…we are entitled to a new, independent investigation. this is simple common sense. given what i just wrote, why would you even argue against that? …we were all lied to through proxy, and we are STILL waiting for those answers.” That’s just your opinion. As we can see by the claims you repaet, you are not able to substantiate them. “WTC7 collapsing without even being hit by a plane and then all the evidence being immediately sent away overseas is an absolute anomaly that CLEARLY needs to be investigated. how can you possibly say otherwise?” You can’t give us an explanation disproving the existing evidence of Why WTC 7 collapsed; you can’t tell us what you think the evidence is; you just go around “asking questions” instead of putting evidence on the table. And no, the steel was NOT immediately sent overseas. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing after 6 full years. Clearly, the burden of proof has always been, and remains, entirely on your shoulders. “…it is on us to prove that we were given a sham investigation, and that is clearly what i have been doing this entire time.” You better get to work. Obviously, you’ve wasted six years already. “i will repeat my same questions to you so you can simply answer them for me and then let’s see what you do. will you answer them? let’s find out.” You are really slow at catching on. This isn’t a debate between you and me. You are making claims which you and your friends have never been able to back up. You are not going to get another investigation until you can bring firm hard evidence to the table that would justify a new investigation. You guys have unable to make a case. Do you really think if you wish hard enough, you’re going to get another investigation? “..and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense.” It’s telling that you have yet to debunk any one of them. That’s because real evidence is poison to you. It’s because every single one of your “questions” have already been addressed years ago and you just don’t like the answers. So, in the end, we’re right back with the same question you won’t answer. It’s the question that demonstrates the burden of proof is, without question, on your shoulders. Try to answer the question directly thus time: Solis, when do you expect to file charges against the Bush Administration? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

43. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 2:04 am

    he didn’t answer the questions just like you solis said Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

44. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 2:13 am

    i personally think that an open-mind that wants to find out the truth will enjoy the whole learning process even if it leads to painful findings… but to deny simple logic… or to just ignore facts makes conclusions impossible to be realized… you know it would be nice if we could trust the government, but there is enough evidence to doubt their credibility… where are the weapons of mass destruction? where do all the drugs get flown in from? and it goes on and on and on and on and on … throughout history… here is the most ignorant belief: it is possible to spread peace, freedom, and democracy with violence. please can you debunk that? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

45. solis Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 2:43 am

    wow. so, i guess we have finally seen it all for ourselves. ellman, EVEN with all his credibility on the line, and in the eyes of everyone here, STILL refused to answer four simple questions. as akasha mentioned, i think the point has been made. in a nutshell, here is his answer to my QUESTIONS: “You are making claims which you and your friends have never been able to back up.” no, moron. these are not claims. these are questions. more importantly, questions you simply CANNOT and WILL not answer. your last post has revealed all we need to know know about you. i was going to say it also reveals how much time i just wasted with you, but then i realized that no, this was not time wasted. this was a classic example of how “debunkers” make nothing but ludicrously fallacious claims and then can never even answer ONE simple question, even when i gave you FOUR. you’d think that if you ACTUALLY had an answer, you would be eager to mop up the floor with me, right? you’d swoop down, open a can of whoop-ass and show me the error of my ways, as i have done with you repeatedly, correct? nope. instead, your inability to do so speaks VOLUMES. you are weak. you are completely inept. your responses are utterly absurd, illogical non-sequitors. your “reasoning” (that’s a stretch) is based on stealing others’ arguments and pretending they are your own, while making accusations of impropriety that only you commit. in short, you are a loud-mouthed fool who can back up nothing he says. but i think we all knew that. honestly, it was just nice of you to finally prove it. thank you. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

46. solis Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 2:47 am

    btw, akasha, here is an answer to one of your questions, from my monthly newsletter. followed by a link at end. United State’s CIA Torture ‘Rendition’ Plane Crashes in Mexico Filled With Five Tons of Cocaine: in september of 2007, a jet crashed in the jungles of mexico carrying five tons of pure cocaine and heroin. there were no bodies or survivors found in the wreckage, indicating a bail-out. when authorities on both sides of the atlantic traced the serial numbers of the jet, however, they discovered the plane was owned by the CIA and had been used in numerous renditions to the very secret CIA torture prisons that make our country proud. just thought you’d like to know what your country is doing to fight the war on drugs. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/12/19210/608/933/420107 Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

47. ellman Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 4:19 am

    Solis, a very confused 9/11 truther, said: “ellman, EVEN with all his credibility on the line, and in the eyes of everyone here, STILL refused to answer four simple questions.” My God, you can’t even understand the answer, written in plain English? No wonder you’re so confused. Let me repeat and please read slowly and carefully until it sinks in: “This isn’t a debate between you and me. You are making claims which you and your friends have never been able to back up. You are not going to get another investigation until you can bring firm hard evidence to the table that would justify a new investigation. You guys have unable to make a case.” Do you get it now? Let’s move on to the points which your increasing desperation shows us ALL that you have to avoid at all cost. I will put it in simple terms since that is what you are your truther buddy, akasha, need. 1. You make claims against our government and against factual evidence about 9/11. 2. I remind you that the burden of proof is on YOU to support your claims. 2. When challenged, you back out and say, oh, we’re “just asking questions.” 3. You want me to answer the questions. But you KNOW I’m not the “government” you’re charging with “crimes.” Weird logic. Maybe you’re afraid the NWO will come after you. 4. I remind you repeatedly that the so-called “questions” have ALREADY been addressed NUMEROUS time over the LAST SIX YEARS. I GIVE you the links. I even show you how you must get away from irrational thinking. 5. You dismiss the links and NEVER debunk the ANSWERS. Obviously, to every rational person, you are scared out of your pants. 6. I ask you a VERY SIMPLE question several times and you get even MORE scared and REFUSE to answer it: “Solis, when do you expect to file charges against the Bush Administration?” So you have a big mission ahead of you, Solis. 1. Answer the question: Solis, when do you expect to file charges against the Bush Administration? You realize that unless you do, you’ll just sit here whining for the rest of your life. The burden of proof is on you, after all. 2. Debunk the following, or admit you are unable to. Don’t run away like a typical 9/11 Truther this time, please: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/listofresponders%26investigators http://www.911myths.com/ http://911guide.googlepages.com/ http://www.debunking911.com/ http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2006/07/information-in-english.html http://www.debunk911myths.org/ http://911mysteriesguide.com/ http://911guide.googlepages.com/ http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/ http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM http://www.jod911.com/ http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64 http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html http://jay-911.blogspot.com/ http://conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com/ http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/ http://911truthiness.org/ http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12131349/911_truth_bald_regurgitation_of_another_bombing_conspiracy http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html It’s time for you to fish or cut bait, Solis. Further evasions will discredit you amongst your 9/11 Truther friends more than anything. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

48. ellman Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 4:45 am

    Quiz for akasha: Akasha, Solis says he is not making claims, that he’s “just asking questions.” “no, moron. these are not claims. these are questions.” The following are quotes by Solis in his comments above. Please tell us all here whether the following are a) questions, or, b) claims. Thanks in advance. Quotes from Solis. “in every video of the towers collapsing, ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time.” “in every video of the towers collapsing, ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time.” “please enlighten us on how this picture does NOT reveal explosions?” “the evidence was obviously planted.” “at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs…” “i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense.” ” i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense.” “in order for it to have reached the ground that quickly. even it being VERY CLOSE to freefall speed is enough to prove this” “if there were NO explosives planted, the building would have taken SIGNIFICANTLY longer to collapse.” “plus, anyone can SEE that that is clearly an explosion.” “the government, AND high-level private sector-types (like, say, marvin bush - bush’s brother - who was intimately involved in providing security for the twin towers.” Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

49. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 5:43 am

    sometimes before you ask meaningful questions it is necessary to produce a framework with which to work with Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

50. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 5:46 am

    still though i would like to hear how these particular questions that he asking have been debunked… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

51. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

52. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0&NR=1 this next one is my personal favorite: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5386487651203625811&q=in+plane+sight&total=645&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 this is the one that woke me up initially…. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

53. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U&feature=related Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

54. ellman Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    Go to the links, akasha. Find out why 9/11 “Truth” is nothing but a pile of woo. Ask yourself why truthers like Solis have to pretend they are “just asking questions”, when in fact they are both making assertions of fact, AND claim sources of evidence are just nonsense, AND do not like the answers that have been given for YEARS, all without EVER having to take responsibility for actually supporting their claims and assertions or debunking the answers they do not like. Solis is a PERFECT example of the intellectual dishonesty of 9/11 truthers. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

55. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    ellman if someone asks you a question you should in all respects answer it… many of those links that you posted just point to other links that point to other links… do you have any ideas of your own? im just asking because what you are doing is saying because there are all these websites that say 911 truthers have been debunked, it means that they have, but there really isn’t any evidence to these claims… for starters you could start by looking at what happened with an open mind… turn off your tv for starters because what the media/government wants to program you with is fed through that hypnosis machine and from your posts and your logic? i can tell that you have fell for it, but the good thing is that you are still questioning it which is far better than i can say for most people… the fact that you do look for information to discredit the truth movement is actually honorable it shows that deep down inside you know something isnt right but you are not sure what it is, and to accept the truth of what really happened means that your whole world that you have carefully and have had set up for you by big brother will come collapsing faster than free fall speed, which may initially be frightening, but is far better than living amongst the herd Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

56. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    actually that last link does have some accurate information Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

57. roman Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Everybody needs to hug a tree…try it, it works Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

58. roman Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    what ever happened to b.j. edwards, could it be that he and Lman are one and the same? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

59. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    you mean our country is supplying the drugs? that is just plane hypocrisy? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

60. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    check this out this is bj edwards website http://911booger.blogspot.com/ maybe he does work for the government after all? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

61. solis Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    oh. my. god. unbelievable… WHY am i wasting time with this clown? this would truly be funny, if it weren’t so disturbing. well, ellman, you had every chance to regale us all with your infinite wisdom but unfortunately… you FAILED. surprise, surprise. i mean, seriously… who DIDN’T see THAT one coming? and now it looks like you really ARE so delusional as to think that your hypocrisy is not beyond obvious to everyone. congratulations! your hilarious claim that you somehow are exempt from having to answer questions is officially the most pathetic, weak, and laughable excuse i have EVER heard from a “debunker.” solis: “ellman, EVEN with all his credibility on the line, and in the eyes of everyone here, STILL refused to answer four simple questions.” ellman: “This isn’t a debate between you and me.” oh, REALLY? well, my, isn’t that just so CONVENIENT for you?? now that you have arbitrarily decided that this isn’t a “debate” you no longer have to answer any questions, do you?? well, i’m really glad that worked out so well for you! my GOD — i guess you REALLY are this stupid. i mean - seriously - do you REALLY think that no one is able to see past your lame, transparent excuse for your egregious ignorance? YOU WON’T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE YOU CAN’T! that is THE reason, and it’s the ONLY reason. why do you even waste yours and other people’s time with such bizzare excuses? ellman: “You are making claims which you and your friends have never been able to back up.” this is like talking to a wall. moron. i asked you four QUESTIONS. questions are NOT claims. are you REALLY that dense?? now, if you say i made false assumptions, then tell me EXACTLY what they are. go through all of them and tell me just ONE point in them that is false. ellman: “Ask yourself why truthers like Solis have to pretend they are “just asking questions”, when in fact they are both making assertions of fact” okay, big shot — here’s your chance. i’m calling your bluff. tell us WHAT is wrong with any of the following questions. if these “assertions of fact” are incorrect, then kindly tell us WHY. by the way, your “this is not a debate” theory is not going to work, so… cross that one off. it’s not going to work because we all see through it for the excuse that it is. i mean it. let’s do this. go through the following four questions, which i asked you long before you proferred your lame “when are you going to press charges” question. tell me WHICH assumption are incorrect and WHY. and if not, answer them. it’s simple as that. don’t give us bogus excuses. don’t make up silly stories. just tell us what is wrong with the questions and why. and if not, then ANSWER them. this is fun. we should take bets on how what type of, and how outrageous, his excuses will be for why he can’t answer any of them. don’t be afraid, ellman. you’re a big boy now. you can handle it. i’m sorry, am i making you squirm? why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize for us. how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion - magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings? and why did rumsfeld, robert mueller, and the ‘hero’ firefighter who took the CIA around the site to find them all give differing stories of whether the black boxes were even found? how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly. why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001? why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one. my guess is that your mind is already reeling with excuses right about now. what are you going to say now to try and hide your pathetic, ignorant reality? what is the one who says our questions are invalid, but then constantly makes up pathetic excuses as to why he can’t answer them, going to say? this is your FINAL opportunity to save face, ellman: answer the questions — or tell us which assumptions are wrong, and why. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

62. solis Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    akasha, by now we can both see quite clearly who we are dealing with. this guy is a charlatan. he has no answers, just a whole lot of sweeping generalizations that don’t apply; vague, rambling incoherent statements, convenient excuses when the heat gets turned up, and absolutely no critical thinking skills. you are definitely correct in how telling it is that he claims to be so informed, yet he cannot even answer a few simple questions. and keep in mind that i called him on his lame, final-resort tactic of posting links without an actual answer LONG ago. i’m used to the type so i knew it was going to be his final resort. “debunkers” don’t actually possess a critical notion of anything pertaining to 9/11, so when they are finally backed into a corner and forced to defend their absurd claims, they think that throwing up twenty-five websites somehow absolves them of having to think. unfortunately, they are merely a wall behind which he is trying to hide. uninformed and ignorant, yet inexplicably too proud to admit defeat, he just throws up two dozen websites and hopes no one will notice that he can’t actually answer any questions all by himself. what a buffoon. as an aside, what really crystallizes the obvious knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job most for me lately is simply reading all those “debunking” sites. to test my own truth, i have read every single one of them and i still continue to do so regularly. it’s pretty amazing. as i wrote earlier, all of their “arguments” consistently offer nothing more than random, strange theories, half-baked rationalizing, often a complete lack of logic, apologist behavior, ad hominem attacks, every type of logical fallacy known to man (that’s the “debunker’s” strongest point, actually), sometimes even absolute gibberish (see above) — all the usual trappings you see in any dogmatic suppression of truth. i think the point has been made, and i think this case has closed. ellman is a fraud. he is uneducated, misinformed, naive, gullible, and dishonest in every way. finally, notice how, in his standard hypocrisy, he writes the following statement: “Solis is a PERFECT example of the intellectual dishonesty of 9/11 truthers.” i will leave this with one simple question: who is the intellectual honest one? the one who has more questions than answers but dutifully answers every question? or the one who claim to have all the answers but cannot answer a single question? ellman, give it up. you have made a fool of yourself. your lies, hypocrisy, ignorance, excuses, and most of all — outright stupidity — have become embarrassing. please don’t make it any worse for yourself, buddy. this is getting painful. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

63. akasha Posted: Feb 17th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    Agency planned drill for plane crash last Sept. 11 Associated Press August 22, 2002 WASHINGTON — In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn’t terrorism — it was to be a simulated accident. Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency’s headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport. Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees’ ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. To simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building. “It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility,” Haubold said. “As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise.” Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said. Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 — the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon — took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground. The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation’s spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA. After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said. An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise. In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO’s strategic gaming division, the announcement says, “On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team … were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day.” The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute. This is similar to what happened on 7/7 with the bombings Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

64. solis Posted: Feb 18th, 2008 at 7:56 am

    i would address this to ellman, but i know he’s far too scared to even attempt an answer. nonetheless, i will throw it out there as one more question he might attempt if he actually had the cojones: the head of pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI), general mahmoud ahmed, ordered $100K wired to mohammed atta the very week before 9/11, while spending THAT SAME WEEK in high-level meetings with the white house, pentagon, NSA, and the CIA, according to senior british MP and former environment minister, michael meacher. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11 despite the wall street journal exposing this same story, musharraf simply forced general ahmed into “early retirement” and no further action was ever taken. why not, ellman, and whatever happened to “follow the money”? …sorry, couldn’t resist. but as usual, i know ellman lacks the wherewithal to even address such a question. after all, that would require intelligence, insight, critical thinking, cooperation, and education — none of which people like ellman possess. and by the way, ellman, do NOT waste my time any more with your inane statements if you cannot answer my basic questions. and quit your whining about how, since you’re “not the government,” you don’t have to answer anything. since you are obviously DEFENDING the official story, then surely you must have an inkling as to WHY you are, correct? (although i should definitely be careful as to what i assume with this guy) put your money where your mouth is and ANSWER the questions or cease and desist. tick… tick… tick… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

65. solis Posted: Feb 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am

    and again, by the way, IF you do find the courage to actually defend the official story, then DO NOT simply send us your stupid websites. i have read ever single one of them, and they offer NOTHING. summarize in your own words. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

66. ellman Posted: Feb 18th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Akasha, You give yourself away as a real newbie at this. Most people don’t have the difficulty you and Solis have understanding the nature of evidence, that Solis’ “questions” have all been addressed years ago. That you both are incapable of looking for those answers in the links I provided only demonstrates how ridiculous the 9/11 Truth Movement is. That it scares you to do so is fully evident. That you are incapable of realizing that the evidence neither comes from the government nor the media and then compound that delusion by refusing to do the research yourself to verify that just points out why the 9/11 Truth Movement is dying out so rapidly. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

67. ellman Posted: Feb 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    So now we see in full view the desperation and delusions of Solis. Depsite the posting of his claims and assertions above, Solis - incredibly - still calls them “questions.” Depsite the fact that all his “questions” have been addressed years ago, and he has repeatedly been pointed to where he can find those answers, he desperately avoids the answers and goes so far to think he can pretend the answers don’t exist. Solis is the perfect example of the desperation of the dying 9/11 Truth Movement as he tries to avoid the movement’s intellectual bankruptcy and delusional foundations. Denial in all its ugly forms. I’m sure Solis is too far gone to be helped or to help himself. He’ll still be here for a long time, just as Holocaust Deniers are still around 60 odd years after the fact of the Holocaust. It’s kind of sad to see Solis’s self destruction, but it’s the nature of the beast. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

68. ellman Posted: Feb 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    Solis, There is no “official story.” And the burden of proof is on your shoulders. That you deny both is a problem only you can solve. As we see, however, you are incapable of solving any of your problems. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

69. solis Posted: Feb 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    ellman, you pitiful, foolish little man — if these questions “have all been answered years ago” then WHY can’t YOU answer them?? it’s so funny how you are so much concerned with trying to stitch together the tattered remains of your own frail ego than simply EDUCATING YOURSELF on the issues. OMG are you stuck in a thought-loop. and EVERYTHING you say is a LIE. dude. seriously. stop. NOBODY believes you. whatever little credibility you had (doubtful, but possible) is GONE. if you could have answered the questions, YOU WOULD HAVE. if not, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE. no amount of excuses will hide your ineptitude, friend. it’s time to put up or shut up. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

70. akasha Posted: Feb 18th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    do you have any idea who controls what information is pushed through the media? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

71. akasha Posted: Feb 18th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    i looked at those links and even if they did show where the answers to his questions are (which they are not addressed i have looked) could you do us the courtesy as i did with the article i found and post the information that provides an explanation for his reasonable questions? its not difficult especially if you know where these answers are located to post them for all eyes to see… this line of reasoning? that you are engaged in reminds me of when a kid asks their father, “Why do I have to listen to what you tell me to do?” and the father says, “Because I said so.” I don’t mean to use this example to emphasize the parent/child aspect, but as a way of illustrating that just because you say something is true doesn’t mean that it is… the questions that solis is asking are just 4 of the hundreds of questions that could be asked, and you have yet to answer 1 of them and neither has the government. listen we don’t want this stuff to be true, but that doesn’t change whether it is or not. it sounds like your desire is getting in the way of your ability to apply critical thinking to these very serious matters. as to the movement dying i know that it is getting stronger by the minute with so many people sharing information with each other and so many people waking up its staggering. i dont really know why anyone would want to defend criminals unless they were paid off, and even then defending a criminal government might make you wealthy, but it will not make you worthy of respect and ultimately that’s what matters we are justified and we have open minds and we don’t want mass murderers tearing the constitution apart with deceptive scare-tactics. if you could only open your eyes and see what is happening. the psychological conditioning that is so prevalent is preventable granted that you are not willing to believe everything that the government feeds you through the media… Did you know that most if not all the media organizations are owned by the government? just a side note for everyone… the principle that Jesus Christ introduced, the golden rule… “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is very important to practice in everyday life. attacking someone because they are different is why the world is so messed up, and by calling people names and labelling others is just going to make the truth harder to understand… i ask everyone to practice this vital principle, because it will help heal the world. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

72. solis Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 1:41 am

    wonderful example of ellman’s incredibly asine and egregious ignorance: “There is no “official story.” umm… i think it’s called the “9/11 commission report.” ring a bell at all? tick… tick… tick… tick… tick… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

73. solis Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 1:50 am

    akasaha, you ask a very good question: “do you have any idea who controls what information is pushed through the media?” i’m posting here my most recent newsletter that describes, fully, and in great detail a series of pivotal recent events that have been ignored/covered-up/buried/marginalized by the mass media. it might take a bit to post cuz they’ll have to check it, but i assume it will eventually go through. hopefully the links will post as well, though it’s quite possible they won’t — if so, feel free to reply and i will happily send you any specific ones. as far as who controls the media, here is the very beginning quote with which i begin my most recent newsletter with: “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — William Colby, former CIA director, who later died under very suspicious circumstances or, check the film, “network.” it won an academy award in, like 1972, and the whole point of the film is how the mainstream news covers everything up. i know i have some sources somewhere that more accurately describe who really controls the news. i’ll try to find them and pass them on. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

74. solis Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 1:52 am

    (akasha - looks like the hyperlinks aren’t posting with this. lemme know if you want sources for anything) “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — William Colby, former CIA director, who later died under very suspicious circumstances. “To see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle.” — George Orwell ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ as seems to be the trend, global events escalate while the mainstream media offers little in the way of actual reporting, much less a critical eye. for example, reminiscent of the forty-year cold war, putin recently declared a new arms race has begun, due to US aggression. one would most likely credit this to the hostile development of a US multi-billion dollar missile installation along russia’s western border, yet how many americans are really even aware of this installation? and despite the historical proportions of putin’s statement, is it even mentioned on our editorial pages? because this and so many other major events are routinely buried, lucky to show up somewhere on page eight of your newspaper or for four hours on CNN.com, it becomes incumbent on the rest of us to take greater responsibility in discerning and discussing the real events that shape our reality, yet somehow never quite make it to our ‘national conversation.’ …although i doubt anyone on this list is unaware of as much, it is nonetheless worth repeating: the mainstream news media is not your friend. they do not have your best interests in mind. they give us only enough information to make themselves look credible, and even then, only through the most minimum possible requirement, if at all. here are a few recent events that everyone should know and/or consider critically, yet will rarely, if ever, make the front page of one’s newspaper, no matter how relevant they may be. of course, this rendition is a only a taste of the latest while our media sleeps. United State’s CIA Torture ‘Rendition’ Plane Crashes in Mexico Filled With Four Tons of Cocaine: in september of 2007, a jet crashed in the jungles of mexico carrying five tons of pure cocaine and some heroin. there were no bodies or survivors found in the wreckage, indicating a bail-out. when authorities on both sides of the atlantic traced the serial numbers of the jet, however, they discovered the plane was owned by the CIA and had been used in numerous renditions to the very secret CIA torture prisons that make our country proud. just thought you’d like to know what your country is doing to fight the war on drugs. BBC Censors Benazir Bhutto’s Statement That Bin Laden Was Murdered, Then Changes It Back After Widespread Pressure: when benazir bhutto gave an interview with BBC’s david frost last november, she explicitly dropped the bombshell, “the man who murdered osama bin laden…” …and how does david frost respond? he completely ignores it. front page news? actually, the interview is then immediately replayed by BBC without this damaging portion undermining the fraudulent war on terror. essentially… the rest of the interview is left intact, while this most crucial part is simply censored. then, a few weeks ago, and due to widespread exposure, BBC offers a feeble apology (on their blog) and returns the portion back to its website (three months later) with little fanfare. here is the original BBC interview. go directly to 6:00. by the time it reaches 6:14, you will hear it. make sure to watch david frost’s oh-so-pressing response. could this possibly be related to her death? consider that, exactly like the JFK assassination, 9/11, and every other false-flag attack recent history, the crime scene was immediately (and illegally) hosed down and all the evidence removed. not to mention that on the very day bhutto was murdered, she was set to hand a detailed dossier over to several US congressmen indicating evidence of massive voter fraud within the musharraf administration. and if that seems far-fetched… consider how the head of pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI), general mahmoud ahmed, ordered $100K wired to mohammed atta the very week before 9/11, while spending that same week in high-level meetings with the white house, pentagon, NSA, and the CIA, according to senior british MP and former environment minister, michael meacher. despite the wall street journal exposing this same story, musharraf simply forced general ahmed into “early retirement” and no further action was ever taken. whatever happened to “follow the money”? Pentagon Plants Fake Iranian Navy Threat Story, Replete With Doctored Video: it is important to remember that nearly every american war began with an alleged “naval incident” — including the civil war, spanish-american war, WWI, WWII, and the “troop surge” for the vietnam war due to the gulf of tonkin “incident.” it is also important to remember that all of these events are widely disputed to this day. regarding the gulf of tonkin, perhaps through guilt brought on by twilight years, even then-US secretary of defense mcnamara, recently admitted that the event simply “didn’t happen” — despite it being the pivotal push behind the entire vietnam war. …what will we learn in another forty years? regardless, once again, it is happening all over again. read how the pentagon staged this most recent one here. History Channel Interviews Experts: Anthrax Attacks Upon US Congress Immediately After 9/11 Were An Inside Job: this is definitely worth watching. it’s only one minute and twenty-seven seconds long, but it will definitely be enlightening. federal investigators discovered clues to the perpetrators’ identity, encoded in the bacterium itself: “there are eighty-nine different types of anthrax, but each one has its own kind of trail. this one led directly back to a strain used solely by our own defense establishment.” “the official investigation was a sham — the only people who know anything about the subject are also the suspects.” Fifth Undersea Internet Cable Severed in Less Than A Week: cut one undersea cable in a week, shame on you. cut four more in that same week, shame on me… now that the fifth cutting has instilled a new journalistic sensibility within the blogosphere due to the near-absolute absence of mainstream media coverage, does anyone actually believe that a rogue sea vessel, dragging a violently malicious anchor, accidentally severed not one, two… three — or even four — but five massive undersea optical cables in separate incidents within a week? and is it also just a coincidence that, of all the nations and cities in the area — tehran, iran, is the most significantly affected while iraq and israel remain mysteriously untouched? (and, lest anyone think that even remotely anti-semitic, an apt analogy is: right-wing warring radical neo-cons/US population = right-wing warring israeli politicians/worldwide jewish population) and could it be just a coincidence that this all happens at exactly the same time as the opening of the long-anticipated iranian oil bourse, which is set to compete with london’s international petroleum exchange and new york’s mercantile exchange by tagging their oil to a basket of currencies, as opposed to the sole US greenback? given that the petrodollar has replaced the gold standard, what exactly was bush’s trip to saudi arabia last month all about anyway? (aside from the large suitcase in the back carrying $20 billion worth of arms to a country known for funding terrorism?) and does it even seem remotely odd that the US mainstream news media has all but refused to follow this important story? interesting little experiment: go to google news. as of the moment, typing in “undersea cable cut” retrieves 1,094 news stories. typing “second undersea cable cut” retrieves 193. “third undersea cable cut” returns 98 stories,”fourth undersea cable cut” begets 63, “fifth undersea cable cut” promptly retrieves all of 24. now, would logic not dictate the very opposite to be true? when one cut is unusual, two is suspicious, three becomes obvious… et cetera, why would this not be on the front page of every newspaper? welcome to your news media. FBI To Receive $1 Billion For Biometric Data Mapping of Americans While Mexico Begins Biochipping Immigrants: is it just me, or is this disturbingly orwellian? at the same time mexico begins implanting biochips in its immigrants, the FBI is “gearing up to create a massive computer database of american’s physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and ‘terrorists…’” (and all the while refusing to secure US ports or borders) “This started out being a program to track or identify criminals,” the ACLU’s Steinhardt said. “Now we’re talking about large swaths of the population — workers, volunteers in youth programs. Eventually, it’s going to be everybody.” and of course, with the absolutely rare exception of CNN, this has been almost entirely ignored by the mainstream news. and even then it was released and buried in the media run-up to the super tuesday primaries. just thought it might be important. Bush Demands Iraqis Give Permanent Immunity to US Defense Contractors: remember how blackwater contractors gunned down seventeen iraqi civilians in cold blood last december? remember how it made the papers and then quickly faded from the spotlight, never to really be publicly discussed by the media again? well, this is the bush administration’s typical shoot-the-messenger response, delivered quietly and under-the-radar (as usual). rather than bring justice to the real criminals (is self-prosecution possible?), they simply deny iraqis the right to press charges, with pretty much no mention in the mainstream media. truth, justice, and the american way? perhaps this is precisely why so much of the world hates and/or fears the united states. John McCain and the Double-Talk Express the most amazing thing is that this guy’s lies are so incredibly demonstrable, yet we have not heard a word of any of it from presidential candidates OR the news media. even being quite the skeptic, i was fairly shocked after watching these two videos. the first details how easily mccain lies, while the second illustrates how effortlessly mccain obfuscates. did those two sentences sound alike? not if you’re john mccain. so, what are his thoughts on war with iran? brace yourself and spend forty-two challenging seconds here White House Intentionally Jeopardized 9/11 Investigation With Inside Man: based on a new book actually getting significant press, a surprisingly eye-opening article from the washington post: “executive director philip zelikow tried to push through wording tying osama bin laden to iraq, despite protests by the 9/11 commission…” “9/11 commission members were alarmed at being told nothing of FBI chief mueller’s extremely urgent meeting with (zelikow’s close friend) condoleezza rice that attacks were imminent and a plan was needed immediately. some questioned whether zelikow purposely withheld this information…” …a solid read. and, as the now-influential 9/11 widows (aka the Jersey Girls) also state: a new, unbiased, independent investigation is clearly needed. but really, the most obvious truth (aside from 9/11 being an obvious military and intelligence false-flag operation) is: why did the bush administration fight so hard for so long to even allow an investigation? google and watch “9/11: Press For Truth” (please watch very enlightening 2:00 minute trailer here.) to see how their fight for answers about their husbands’ deaths placed themselves against an impenetrable wall of cover-up, lies, disrespect, and dismissal. ultimately, this only strengthened them and, without them, no 9/11 whitewash commission would have even been formed. a powerfully eye-opening film that every global citizen needs to watch. Near-Total Media Blackout of Republican Candidate Ron Paul: if you haven’t really read/heard about/seen/heard him, then there may be a very good reason why. essentially, his message, if not his very presence, has been carefully ignored, marginalized, suppressed, and ridiculed by the entire mainstream media since the beginning of his campaign. consider the following: * after ron paul demolished the competition in every online poll after the early republican debates, the media began taking the polls down earlier and earlier until they eventually stopped putting them up altogether. * his name has consistently been simply excluded from nearly every major news poll, for no given or obvious reason. * when the few polls that DO include him show him to be running higher than giuliani and thompson, FOX, for example, unsure of how to handle the groundswell, simply excludes him from the second-to-last debate until finally relenting due to political, popular, and fiscal pressure. * when FOX is finally forced to include ron paul, they openly mock him with insulting questions. * even jay leno, of all people, (and also the only one) mentioned how odd it is that none of this is ever reported in the mainstream news. * finally, in the last “debate,” ron paul was only allowed to speak once an hour, for under thirty seconds, and then was always immediately interrupted by anderson cooper of CNN. incidentally, afterward NO online polls were to be found anywhere on the internet. * despite a standing far above thompson and giuliani when they were in the race, last month the new york times simply omitted him only from their “campaign scorecard,” including every other candidate except for him. * even when he breaks republican fundraising records twice in one month, the mainstream completely ignores it. like him or hate him, one would at least expect a simple mention of this, right? so, why would this be happening? ron paul is the most searched-for candidate, by far, on the web, surpassing every other candidate. his ‘meet-up’ groups outnumber every other candidates by ten (including the only groups in europe). he generates incredibly forceful responses on both sides, because of his powerful message. for purely pragmatic reasons, he is a phenomenon uniting wall st. investors with the poor, liberals with conservatives, radicals to their counterparts on both ends of the political spectrum, and everyone in between. he is neither “left” or “right” because he simply speaks truth, and makes incredible sense all around. as a constitutionalist, his platform is to: bring back fiscal responsibility, restore habeas corpus, eliminate aggressive wars and only justify them through collective and congressional agreement, rebuild the middle class, restore the dollar to a stable standard beyond the fed system’s word, close our 700+ overseas bases thus saving hundreds of billions of dollars, end warrantless searches, remove “torture” from our lexicon, reinstate constitutional powers, refuse to use immigration as a wedge issue, and restore dignity to our nation through humility and justice. he has: never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted to raise taxes; never voted for a congressional pay raise; never voted to increase the power of the executive branch; and has never taken a government-paid junket. he voted against regulating the internet, against the iraq war, and against the patriot act. he does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program, and he returns a portion of his office’s budget to the treasury every year. futhermore, he has been married to the same woman for fifty years, and is a former obstetrician, who has delivered over 3,000 babies. in other words, as a man of responsible values, he threatens the status quo. and this is not even an endorsement of ron paul. this is an indictment of your mainstream news media. finally… Bush Administration Caught Lying 935 Times: following 9/11, the bush administration waged a carefully-orchestrated misinformation campaign linking iraq to 9/11 and highlighting the threat of non-existent WMD’s. this new study is worth registering not only because of its details, but because it has also received its very own special little nanosecond on the mainstream newsblip radar. consider that good news… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

75. ellman Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 1:57 am

    It’s really quite sad how delusional you two are. Imagine pretending that evidence doesn’t exist and claiming its just a “story.” I can think of no two people who are as good representives of the 9/11 Truth Movement as you two. Keep it up so people reading this can see the true nature of denial in action. Holocaust Denial is a mental illness, just as you demonstrate 9/11 Denial is. Hopefully those close to Solis and Alasha will have the presence of mind to get them medical attention. They are truly two very delusional individuals. Sad cases, indeed. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

76. solis Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 3:07 am

    still waiting for you to answer even ONE question, ellman. tick… tick… tick… tick… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

77. akasha Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 3:17 am

    Ellman, you still didn’t answer the questions. I am forced to say that you are in denial, because you actually believe you answered them, but at this point I think we can all agree that you don’t have an answer and that it is pointless to even try to help you understand current events, because you totally agree with the establishment’s hypnotic version of reality. Maybe it’s because it gives you a false sense of security. Maybe you know the truth and want to suppress it so that you can help people in ‘high’ places, or maybe you just lack intellectual integrity. I don’t know what it is, but with people who are just unwilling to be open-minded, or who are willing to engage in deceptive reasoning for profit, either way I think it safe to assume we have arrived at a dead end. Solis, thank you for your information. I am flabergasted at the media’s denial of Ron Paul’s existence. It’s just un-American. I’m sorry to say, and I don’t want to, but the old U S of A has been hijacked by the Council on Foreign Relations. I guess the only viable solution that we have is for those of us who understand what is happening to band together and continue to share the truth with the world in hopes that more people can wake up. It is sad when people will fight tooth and nail to hold on to a belief system that has no real foundation. Ellman, If you are open-minded enough, please look at the video, In Plane Sight. It is the best documentary that I’ve seen showing that there is enough evidence to present a case against our government for the events that took place on 911. Another really good thing to do would be to look at the BBC video on 911 where building 7 was said to collapse before it actually did. Also, the 911 commission report leaves building 7 out. She’s standing there reporting that a building has collapsed, and the building is right there behind her, and right before the actual collapse they have technical difficulties and the screen gets phased out. Ellman, even if we’re wrong about certain facts, which I don’t think we are, there is still enough questionable material to show that our government was involved with what took place on 911. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

78. akasha Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 3:20 am

    Solis, I wonder what his motivations are for not answering the questions. Do you think he is afraid? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

79. akasha Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 3:43 am

    Here is a curious article: CBS Evening News with Dan Rather; Author: Dan Rather, Barry Petersen CBS, 28 January 2002 DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11. This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden. CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan. Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good. “The military had him surrounded,” says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, “and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time,” he says, “I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after.” Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11. AHMED RASHID, TALIBAN EXPERT: There were reports that Pakistani intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines. And the rumor was that these were wanted for Osama bin Laden. PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night. (voice-over): But it was Pakistan`s President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don`t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead. DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden`s health, I just am — don`t have any knowledge. PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan`s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom. Barry Petersen, CBS News, Islamabad. (END VIDEOTAPE) END Copyright CBS News 2002 Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

80. akasha Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 3:58 am

    here is something else that is constructive that anyone can do concerning the events that took place on 911 http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

81. solis Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 6:24 am

    akasha, that is by far THE best website i have yet seen pertaining to the pentagon cover-up. thank you. also, those articles you sent were all excellent. thanks, and keep fighting for TRUTH. and yes, it’s amazing how the mainstream media so blatantly covers everything up. honestly, they’re my new focus. not so much the corrupt politicians, but those who willingly support and enable them. as far as ellman goes, it is difficult to say. the thoughts that ran through my mind throughout all this were: 1) originally a decent-enough guy who started getting his love and acceptance from the wrong crowd, and then just lost incentive to stop. subsequently, the moral pain from his compromised positions causes him to fight ever harder to prove his points, when in reality he is subconsciously fighting for his own honor and soul, arguing ever more forcefully (using even completely nonsensical gibberish), to somehow prove to himself that he is doing the right thing. 2) hired by god knows who to troll message boards (similar to wikipedia) and do this (although they should demand their money back, if so) to the most likely… 3) he is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance, in which someone so fretfully holds on to their precious reality, no matter how obviously false it may be, just so they don’t have to ever think or question anything on too large a scale, using fervent denial to give himself a false sense of support, even if it has developed into c.d. more than anything, it’s just sad, if not a little disturbing. it’s interesting when you think of how people in nazi germany who were in such total denial. ever wonder what it would be like to speak with one of them? i think we just did. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

82. ellman Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

83. ellman Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Anatomy of the 9/11 Truth Movement: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html The 9/11 Truth Movement Woo Woo Credo: http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html You, too, can be just like Solis and Alasha: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php The book most hated by Solis and Alasha: http://www.amazon.com/Attacking-Faulty-Reasoning-Practical-Fallacy-Free/dp/0534551335/ Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

84. solis Posted: Feb 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    you are so unbelievably pathetic. your deflections fool nobody but YOURSELF. do you actually think ANY of us are fooled by the fact that you CANNOT think for yourself and have to resort to HIDING behind random, irrelevant claims through useless links? if you actually had a brain, you would simply answer the questions we asked you, as opposed to trying to deflect your ineptitude with MORE websites. give it up, ellman. no one is paying attention to you anymore. why are you even doing this? i think that is, by far, the MOST important question here. you really need to examine that. you are making an utter fool of yourself with each further statement. trust me, pal — you were exposed a long time ago. you need to realize that and accept it. give it up. nobody cares anymore. if you want to know the truth, i’m still here just because i find this whole thing entirely fascinating. watching you fall apart at the seams as we mercilessly pummel you with logic, information, and reason while you desperately try to change the subject makes for fairly good entertainment, in my book. (i have to thank you for that, by the way.) as a student of sociology, i find this all quite fascinating, but really, you’ve just sort of become our own little test-tube experiment here. that’s about it. it’s all for kicks and giggles now. akasha and i are the only ones left. no one else cares. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

85. akasha Posted: Feb 20th, 2008 at 1:45 am

    i have to agree with ellman on that one solis, i think if he is just telling us in his own little way that he can’t answer the questions, because if he does he will have to answer a whole lot more and be forced to look at the reality of the situation Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

86. solis Posted: Feb 20th, 2008 at 2:10 am

    not exactly sure what you are agreeing with ellman on, akasha — but i certainly agree with you that he is clearly trying to evade having to take any responsibility whatsoever. it would be far too frightening for him. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

87. akasha Posted: Feb 20th, 2008 at 2:16 am

    whoops i meant to say i have to agree with YOU on that one… there isn’t much of ellman’s gibberish that i agree with + does he even have any of his own ideas? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

88. ellman Posted: Feb 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    Living in denial must be fun for you two. We note that you illustrate perfectly the pathological conditions I posted links to. Of course, you KNOW you would never survive here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106880 It would scare you to death to face the real world. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

89. ellman Posted: Feb 20th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106880 Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

90. solis Posted: Feb 21st, 2008 at 1:47 am

    nope. i guess not. nice chatting with you, akasha. peace and be well! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

91. akasha Posted: Feb 21st, 2008 at 3:38 am

    you too… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

92. tristan Posted: Feb 21st, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    9/11 Truth members disown all no-planers like solis and akasha and make it clear that no this disinformation cannot be tolerated within the movement. We call on solis and akasha to voluntary stop the deliberate spreading of disinformation. Such false claims as solis and akasha make play into the hands of the Bush Administration and the CIA. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

93. Spook Buster Posted: Feb 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 am

    And what about the UK 911 truth movement thats under the control of MI5? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

94. roman Posted: Feb 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 am

    Get a life Tristan Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

95. ellman Posted: Feb 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    It looks like solis and akasha got an unexpected dose of hard reality by venturing out to the real world where their irrational and extremely bizarre thinking is pounded into dust. I have never seen 9/11 Truthers go so off the deep end as these two have. But they are representative of the 9/11 Truth Movement and it’s just another reason that movement is dying. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

96. ellman Posted: Feb 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    roman, You don’t like being rejected by the 9/11 Truth Movement? LOL! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

97. roman Posted: Feb 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 am

    Tristans statement is a joke, just like you Lman. ha ha Who has instated him as the spokesman and credo for truth movement. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

98. roman Posted: Feb 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 am

    Actually lman, tristan just might be one of your mates or sleazy ideas. Who would know, but I wouldn’t put it past you to dream it up. Anyone with a pea brain the size of yours would get up to something of that nature. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

99. ellman Posted: Feb 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    roman, No matter how you slice it, the 9/11 Truth Movement is a fringe political movement, always has been, always will be. As solis and akasha illustrate, it is made up of misfits and uneducated loons, who can’t figure out if physical reality exists or not. I am sure you are very proud to be part of that. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

100. ellman Posted: Feb 25th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

     Here’s an opportunity for Solis and Akasha to put up or shut up: Challenge to Truthers: Stump Mark Roberts! Gravy from the JREF forums will appear again on Ron Wieck’s Hardfire program, along with Arthur Scheuerman to discuss World Trade Center 7. The show will be live at 9:00 PM Eastern time tomorrow night, February 26. Having been unable to find a 9-11 “Truther” willing to debate these gentlemen, Ron will throw open the phone lines, and 9-11 conspiracy theorists are specifically encouraged to call in with their questions and challenges. The main number is 718-935-9598. If it’s busy, call 917-763-9896. You can watch the show live tomorrow night here. Put up or shut up, Truthers! See http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/02/stump-mark-roberts.html for the details Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

101. solis Posted: Feb 26th, 2008 at 5:13 am

     unbelievable. NOW i have seen EVERYTHING. ellman, you are so unbelievably spineless that you PURPOSELY WAITED until you knew akasha and i had SIGNED OFF before crawling back out from under your rock again to spew your ignorant non-sequitors. NOW i have seen how absolutely low, weak, cowardly, and pathetic you truly are. do you really have NO shame whatsoever?? pretending to address us when you KNOW we’re not even paying attention anymore? how absolutely sneaky, conniving and shameless. i just came back on a whim, curious to see if an inkling i had this morning was correct. sadly, it was. yet it’s so telling how, even after spending how many hours on ignorant and useless verbiage, you still have contributed NO VALUE to this entire conversation, in preference to hurling non-sequitors, ad hominem attacks, ignorance, stupidity, hyperbole, guesstimation, and logical fallacy — ALL THE WHILE demonstrating your COMPLETE INABILITY to answer even the most BASIC of questions. tick… tick… tick… that’s the sound we hear as we wait for you to actually put your money where your mouth is, ellman, and show us why we are wrong. that’s the sound we hear as we wait for you to answer EVEN ONE of the questions i put to you, as opposed to hiding behind worthless links that don’t even answer ANY question whatsoever. again, nimrod, you are fooling nobody but yourself. you completely lost this argument WEEKS ago, yet you are still hanging on so desperately, trying to assert your ignorant ego through the cheapest, lamest, and most pathetic attempts. and now, your final, unbelievably LAME tactic of waiting until akasha and i signed off before again rearing your ugly head finally showed everyone how WEAK you truly are. and finally, your alter ego of ‘tristan’ is fooling NOBODY. it is obvious you know NOTHING about the 9/11 truth movement, otherwise you would not be so STUPID as to equate no 757 hitting the pentagon as a no-planer. get a clue, moron. ‘no-planes’ refers to the idea that no planes hit the twin towers (which might seem much more plausible if you took the time to watch ’september clues’) NOT the idea that no 757 hit the pentagon. give it up, sad, little man. you KNOW nothing, and you have OFFERED nothing to this discussion. you have shown us that you are little more than an obsessively angry and naive individual who desperately fears answering even a single question, yet is so warped by his own misguided sense of self-importance that he can’t even bear to let this go. you want to end this like a real man, ellman? then put your money where your mouth is and answer the questions. they’re quite simple, really. and for your convenience, here they are are again. will he waffle? what excuse will he use this time to evade the questions? what lame reason will he proffer as to why he knows the official story is the real deal, yet he somehow CANNOT explain why? personally, i can’t wait. this should be good…. yet again, ellman, with ALL of your CREDIBILITY on the line: why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize for us. how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion - magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings? and why did rumsfeld, robert mueller, and the ‘hero’ firefighter who took the CIA around the site to find them all give differing stories of whether the black boxes were even found? how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly. why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001? why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one. tick… tick… tick… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

102. ellman Posted: Feb 28th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

     Solis, sticking his foot in his mouth again, wrote” “ellman, you are so unbelievably spineless that you PURPOSELY WAITED until you knew akasha and i had SIGNED OFF before crawling back out from under your rock again to spew your ignorant non-sequitors.” Amongst your other failures, you can’t even read timestamps, solis! I also not that you still refuse to refute all of the evidence against your puerile and loony claims. And, I repeat my earlier post just for you, solis: —– ellman Posted: Feb 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Link to this Living in denial must be fun for you two. We note that you illustrate perfectly the pathological conditions I posted links to. Of course, you KNOW you would never survive here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106880 It would scare you to death to face the real world. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

103. solis Posted: Feb 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

     has anyone ever mentioned that trying to change the subject won’t work with us, ellman? tick… tick… tick… tick…. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

104. ellman Posted: Feb 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

     You brought up the subject, poor kid: “you PURPOSELY WAITED until you knew akasha and i had SIGNED OFF.” I nailed you that you couldn’t read a timestamp correctly. Sorry, bumpkins. Once again, you lose. But the real subject still is the Death Plunge of the 9/11 Truth Movement. You just got another spanking, solis: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8171587265178134516&hl=en The American people are waiting for YOUR apology to them. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

105. ellman Posted: Mar 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm

     This is an article appropriate for solis, akasha, and other 9/11 Truthers and explains rather clearly the real problem they all suffer: Dr. Sanity Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life Saturday, March 01, 2008 DEEP DENIAL “Eventually, however, denial has to escalate. It breeds delusional thinking, along with paranoia and then the inevitable conspiracy theories begin to take the place of rational thought in those who deny reality for long periods of time. (See all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists for examples in our own country;” http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2008/03/deep-denial.html Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

106. solis Posted: Mar 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm

     tick… tick… tick… it’s been three weeks now, ellman, and we are STILL waiting for you to answer even a SINGLE question about 9/11. this is becoming utterly hilARious… did i mention that changing the subject simply WON’T work? haha tick… tick… tick… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

107. ellman Posted: Mar 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 am

     That’s just the denial you suffer from, solis, pretending you don’t have to refute the massive evidence against you. But then I just had an e-mail from someone at Democratic Underground that says you’re a known Scientologist infiltrator there. Rereading your insane posts here, I have to agree. Your language, tone, arrogance, intonation, desperation, and monumental irrationality are indeed the characteristics of Scientologists beholden to that group of loons. It fits perfectly. I know how to get you out. Just ask. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

108. solis Posted: Mar 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm

     wow, you seriously are getting incredibly desperate, aren’t you? it is truly amusing to watch you feebly try to change the subject any which you can, even using your standard and complete fabrications — doing ANYthing to avoid answering ANY of our questions. my god are you pathetic. even with ALL of your credibility on the line here, you STILL cannot answer even a SINGLE question. seriously, nut-case, do you REALLY think you’re fooling anyone here? it is so beyond obvious that you CAN’T put your money where your mouth is. you CAN’T defend your views. and you CANNOT answer even a SINGLE question we present to you. honestly, dude. you really need to know when to give it up. although it’s painful to watch, watching you drown is also infinitely entertaining to us. but seriously, man, just give it up. you are a complete joke and everybody knows it. tick… tick… tick… tick… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

109. b. j.edwards Posted: Mar 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm

     I see sicky solis is still around unable to refute the evidence of what happened on 9/11. Read about solis here: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Truther Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

110. solis Posted: Mar 4th, 2008 at 2:06 am

     oh hey, bj! welcome back! after you skitted off with your tail between your legs last time, we thought we’d never see again! so good to have you to kick around again, just like ellman… ladies and gentleman, this is the guy who REALLY knows how to entertain. after all, HIS reasoning for why flight 93 was somehow invisible to FOX and CNN camera men at the point of impact is because it flew ENTIRELY UNDERGROUND and had to be DUG OUT! yup — you heard that right. not a trace, not a wing, not a tail section. nope. nothing. the entire plane just MYSTERIOUSLY VANISHED UNDERGROUND, according to bj! …not to mention that this is the SAME guy who rightfully (albeit unwittingly) called the official story a “straw-man argument.” this is ALSO the same guy who, when backed up against a WALL and completely DEFENSELESS, simply began spouting absolute gibberish in a pathetic attempt to deflect having to actually answer ANY questions. fear not, good bj, your disciple/tool, ellman, has been faithfully carrying on your absurdities, inanities, non-sequitors, and outright lies in the highest of fashion. and it’s quite appropriate that you would show up at this telling time, as YOU were the VERY FIRST to admit your utter ignorance to us by doing everything you could to EVADE answering ANY of our questions. it’s funny how they always come back to the scene of the crime… so here we are — TWO of you — and we’ve even given you both THREE SOLID WEEKS to study the questions we’ve presented so that you might actually ANSWER THEM. (and again, folks, the tension here is palpable… will they actually answer the questions? what sort of deflections will they attempt? HOW will they change the subject THIS time? what will they do in their desperate attempt to try and hide the fact that they simply cannot put their money where their mouth is and DEFEND the official story? what EXCUSE will they give for not being able to answer any of the questions?) *APPLAUSE* well, bj and ellman, so glad to have you back on our show together. yet again, with the whole world watching, and ALL of your credibility on the line, for the grand prize of barely a modicum of respectability, integrity, or intellectual honesty, for the fifth time, please answer for us the following questions: why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and please don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. we have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but implausible theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize for us. according to senior british MP and former environment minister, michael meacher in a well-publicized article, the head of pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI), general mahmoud ahmed, ordered $100K wired to mohammed atta the VERY WEEK before 9/11, while spending that SAME WEEK in high-level meetings with the white house, pentagon, NSA, and the CIA. despite the wall street journal exposing this SAME story, musharraf simply forced general ahmed into “early retirement” and no further action was ever taken. rather than “following the money,” why was this never investigated, or even MENTIONED in the 9/11 commission report? how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion - magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings? and why did rumsfeld, robert mueller, and the ‘hero’ firefighter who took the CIA around the site to find them all give differing stories of whether the black boxes were even found? how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly. why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001? why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one. TICK… TICK… TICK…. TICK…. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

111. Mick Meaney Posted: Mar 4th, 2008 at 2:10 am

     Lets not get personal guys. Thanks Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

112. solis Posted: Mar 4th, 2008 at 2:51 am

     mick, that’s my SOP. but when somebody else starts hurling the insults…. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

113. robert Posted: Mar 26th, 2008 at 5:21 am

     so why didn’t they fake the plane crashing into the pentagon? There were thousands and thousands of eye witnesses to the planes hitting the tower, get rea. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

114. Chris Posted: Feb 8th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

     b. j.edwards is just another “government” liar - ignore it. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

115. sabreTruthTiger Posted: Sep 1st, 2009 at 4:33 pm

     OK, time to prove and I mean PROVE 911 was demolition and an inside job. Fire weakening steel: Kerosine fires in real world conditions or dirty burns such as 911 produce temperatures not exceeding 700F, no way near enough to weaken structural steel designed to resist 5 times their weight, especially when combined with the fact that steel has a high thermal conductivity and would draw heat away rapidly. Also the fact that the aluminium cladding was not even deformed proves the fires were not hot enough. Speed of collapse: The collapses themselves violate the law of conservation of momentum. There is no way that all the solid structural steel columns and supports, especially all the ones below the impacts unaffected by fire would offer no resistance to produce near freefall speed without demolition. The official pancaking story has been abandoned as it obviously attempts to treat the collapse as a floor by floor scenario when the load bearing distribution obviously involves the entire frame. The negation of the toppling effect: Localised damage caused by a plane impact would lead to a structural inequality, thus the top section would topple like a tree falling toward the cut, this is observed to begin happening in the south tower collapse. However, as it is the gravitational force or downward pressure from the toppling upper section enabling it to topple, it’s uneven base acting as a pivot / fulcrum against the lower section, then the more the top section forces against the lower section, the more the toppling would continue and it would fall off to the side. But the top of the lower section explodes away downward, the pivot/fulcrum pressure is released and the top section ceases toppling and falls straight down proving that gravity did not cause the collapse. Symmetric collapse: symmetric, even collapse is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, this is impossible in a natural collapse as even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse. These facts are IRREFUTABLE!! Why is there a debate? No valid debunking has ever refuted these facts and never will. I’VE JUST PROVED 911 TO BE DEMOLITION AND THUS AN INSIDE JOB - THE END. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

116. sabreTruthTiger Posted: Sep 1st, 2009 at 4:48 pm

     OK, time to prove and I mean PROVE 911 was demolition and an inside job. Fire weakening steel: Kerosine fires in real world conditions or dirty burns such as 911 produce temperatures not exceeding 700F, no way near enough to weaken structural steel designed to resist 5 times their weight, especially when combined with the fact that steel has a high thermal conductivity and would draw heat away rapidly. Also the fact that the aluminium cladding was not even deformed proves the fires were not hot enough. Speed of collapse: The collapses themselves violate the law of conservation of momentum. There is no way that all the solid structural steel columns and supports, especially all the ones below the impacts unaffected by fire would offer no resistance to produce near freefall speed without demolition. The official pancaking story has been abandoned as it obviously attempts to treat the collapse as a floor by floor scenario when the load bearing distribution obviously involves the entire frame. The negation of the toppling effect: Localised damage caused by a plane impact would lead to a structural inequality, thus the top section would topple like a tree falling toward the cut, this is observed to begin happening in the south tower collapse. However, as it is the gravitational force or downward pressure from the toppling upper section enabling it to topple, it’s uneven base acting as a pivot / fulcrum against the lower section, then the more the top section forces against the lower section, the more the toppling would continue and it would fall off to the side. But the top of the lower section explodes away downward, the pivot/fulcrum pressure is released and the top section ceases toppling and falls straight down proving that gravity did not cause the collapse. Symmetric collapse: symmetric, even collapse is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, this is impossible in a natural collapse as even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse. These facts are IRREFUTABLE! Why is there a debate??!!! IVE JUST PROVED 911 TO BE DEMOLITION AND THUS AN INSIDE JOB - THE END. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this