Real 9-11 Research

[RandomGuy]

7YXzjAKJQOg

WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel

This is a good one. It shows the truth movement actively faking evidence.

[RandomGuy]

I have yet to see any evidence that the "truth" movement has watched any of these videos.

That says volumes about their ultimate motives and rationality.

[RandomGuy]

sh8hErn2UZU

"Bush's brother was in charge of security" debunked.

[RandomGuy]

jir7yWTroN8

WTC "Pre-Collapse Explosions" Identified

[Galileo]

sh8hErn2UZU

"Bush's brother was in charge of security" debunked.

Who WAS in charge of security, and why was the alarm system in WTC 7 turned off at 6:47 A.M. on the morning of 9/11?

[RandomGuy]

iBHi9CbrNf4

"No video of a plane hitting the pentagon" debunked.

[RandomGuy]

jir7yWTroN8

WTC "Pre-Collapse Explosions" Identified

This is another one where the "truth" movement is shown to be demonstrably faking evidence AND profiting from selling videos of the faked evidence.

Such is probably how mouse got suckered by someone for his "WTC demolition tapes".

While I do not try to take advantage of the gullible, it seems some in the truth movement aren't so ethical.

[ChumpDumper]

Who WAS in charge of security, and why was the alarm system in WTC 7 turned off at 6:47 A.M. on the morning of 9/11?The alarm system wasn't turned off. It was set to test mode because -- wait for it -- they were testing it. It sent a fire signal to the fire department when fire broke out -- just not a detailed one.

And the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was in charge of security.

Duh.

[RandomGuy]

bMZ-nkYr46w

WTC fires were fully sufficient to cause the collapse.

This is, I think my favorite out of all of them.

[Galileo]

The alarm system wasn't turned off. It was set to test mode because -- wait for it -- they were testing it. It sent a fire signal to the fire department when fire broke out -- just not a detailed one.

And the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was in charge of security.

Duh.

Putting it on TEST STATUS is the same thing as turning it off. Either way, no alarms were received. Of course, not long after it was turned off, a huge explosion almost killed Barry Jennings and Mike Hess, then the building fell down. Smells like arson.

When someone turns off a fire alarm just before a building "burns" down, that's arson. Given that no arson investigation has occurred, that's evidence that WTC 7 did not come down from fire.

[RandomGuy]

Putting it on TEST STATUS is the same thing as turning it off. Either way, no alarms were received. Of course, not long after it was turned off, a huge explosion almost killed Barry Jennings and Mike Hess, then the building fell down. Smells like arson.

When someone turns off a fire alarm just before a building "burns" down, that's arson. Given that no arson investigation has occurred, that's evidence that WTC 7 did not come down from fire.

_kSq663m0G8

Let me know when you have finished watching it.

[ChumpDumper]

Putting it on TEST STATUS is the same thing as turning it off. Either way, no alarms were received.False. A fire signal was sent. And really, it's not like there weren't any firefighters in the area.



When someone turns off a fire alarm just before a building "burns" down, that's arson. Given that no arson investigation has occurred, that's evidence that WTC 7 did not come down from fire.Arson means fire.

You need to make up your mind and get your lies straight before you post them.

I noticed you haven't answered where the charges were placed in any of the buildings.

Here's a link to all the architectural blueprints of the North Tower. Since your four-year math degree has made you an expert on explosive building demolition, I expect you to be specific.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/index.html

[Galileo]

_kSq663m0G8

Let me know when you have finished watching it.

very sloppy with facts, WTC 7 was 355 feet from the Twin Towers at the closest point.

Just because a truss fails, or all three trusses, doesn't make a giant building fall. All the columns hold it up, too. This movie is plain stupid.

None of the BS in this video will make the final NIST report, scheduled for release 75 years after the JFK files are released.

[DarrinS]

Any of you twoofers subscribe to the energy beam theory?


http://noplanes911.blogspot.com/2007/02/diected-energy-weapons.html

[RandomGuy]

very sloppy with facts, WTC 7 was 355 feet from the Twin Towers at the closest point.

Just because a truss fails, or all three trusses, doesn't make a giant building fall. All the columns hold it up, too. This movie is plain stupid.

None of the BS in this video will make the final NIST report, scheduled for release 75 years after the JFK files are released.

:spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin

[RandomGuy]

WTC 7 was 355 feet from the Twin Towers at the closest point.


Ok then, link?

This should be easy enough to find.

[Galileo]

Any of you twoofers subscribe to the energy beam theory?


http://noplanes911.blogspot.com/2007/02/diected-energy-weapons.html

what's that? Do believe in the radio waves theory? The cell phone theory?

[RandomGuy]

wtc maps

--------------
:oops
(begin edit)
heh, this was meant to go into a search engine for the distance between wtc7 and the towers. I don't expect Galileo to actually be able to provide some actual proof. That doesn't seem to be his forte...

[Galileo]

Ok then, link?

This should be easy enough to find.

Your video made the "less than 300 feet" claim.

Link?

[Galileo]

Ok then, link?

This should be easy enough to find.

wtc 7 355 feet
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wtc+7+355+feet&btnG=Google+Search

[RandomGuy]

wtc 7 355 feet
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wtc+7+355+feet&btnG=Google+Search

Rense?

PrisonPlanet?

This is not neutral proof of the distance between buildings. This is simply copy and pasted articles and people quoting each other.

I would like some link to a verifiable neutral source.

[RandomGuy]

Your video made the "less than 300 feet" claim.

Link?

Honestly, I have run out of time.

I can find no evidence to support either distance as of now. I will continue looking later.

Let me know when you find it.

[Galileo]

Honestly, I have run out of time.

I can find no evidence to support either distance as of now. I will continue looking later.

Let me know when you find it.

Jim Hoffman says its 355 feet. He's the best source for 9/11 and never makes a mistake. That's good enough for me. From the videos, 355 feet looks about right.

[ChumpDumper]

Jim Hoffman says its 355 feet. He's the best source for 9/11 and never makes a mistake. That's good enough for me. From the videos, 355 feet looks about right.And? All the building surrounding the twin towers sustained major damage. The towers were over three times the largest distance mentioned and there is all manner of photographic and eyewitness evidence proving 7 WTC suffered major damage from north tower debris. There is no debate here.

[Dude]

iBHi9CbrNf4

"No video of a plane hitting the pentagon" debunked.

No luggage body parts seats or engine parts that match up to a large plane and you go by some painted logo on a some small parts carried off by one person?

who's the real sucker here? I guess i can run your ass over in a large van as long as I paint AA in red and blue you sue the airlines? :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

No luggage body parts seats or engine parts that match up to a large plane and you go by some painted logo on a some small parts carried off by one person?

who's the real sucker here? I guess i can run your ass over in a large van as long as I paint AA in red and blue you sue the airlines? :lmao

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/8/82/Pentagon_landing_gear.jpg

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/1/17/Pentagondebris4.jpg

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/0/08/Pntdebris-fema4414.jpg

Oops.

[ChumpDumper]

And several bodies were found. Pictures of them were shown in the Moussaoui trial.

They are very graphic; if you really want to see them, some are linked on this page:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon

[ChumpDumper]

Oh look, there's a video for the Pentagon debris and remains too. I've got this guy's channel bookmarked.

YTNRkb7AaQk

[Ignignokt]

No luggage body parts seats or engine parts that match up to a large plane and you go by some painted logo on a some small parts carried off by one person?

who's the real sucker here? I guess i can run your ass over in a large van as long as I paint AA in red and blue you sue the airlines? :lmao


people died that day asshole, wether you want to look at the evidence or not. all your evidence consist of is theories and not hard evidence.

so don't desecrate the names of people who died that day.


and make sure you know all the facts before you make such claims. you and i know you know jack shit about engineering and physics.

[RandomGuy]

Jim Hoffman says its 355 feet. He's the best source for 9/11 and never makes a mistake. That's good enough for me. From the videos, 355 feet looks about right.

Fair enough. We have what amounts to a typo.

[RandomGuy]

And? All the building surrounding the twin towers sustained major damage. The towers were over three times the largest distance mentioned and there is all manner of photographic and eyewitness evidence proving 7 WTC suffered major damage from north tower debris. There is no debate here.

But, but, but arguing over 55 feet worth of distance is so productive, because it distracts from the rest of the video that Galileo can't really explain away...

[RandomGuy]

my bad!

The firemen who checked the scene denied there was any molten metal.

They say the hot oven WEAKENED the steel, but did not MELT the steel!

:madrun

7YXzjAKJQOg

WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel

This is a good one. It shows the truth movement actively faking evidence.

[RandomGuy]

I'd like to see anyone that owns a building anywhere in the world turn off the fire alarms, then watch the building fall down a few hours later, then go on national TV and say "Pull it", and not be investigated for arson.

PULL IT!!

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027&q=pull+it&total=20339&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Except that he said "THEY" made the decision. Not "I made the decision" to pull it.

Let's look at everything the man said.


"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or was he saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

[RandomGuy]

Before we continue examining conspiracist misrepresentations about WTC 7, it's important that we understand what the official version of events is. Here's a summary, from the NIST report.

Essential Reading: NIST NCSTAR 1-8 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: The Emergency Response Operations. (PDF)

Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response.


• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on at least 16 floors]. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

That’s certainly straightforward. Building 7 was severely damaged and had severe, uncontrollable fires, and the FDNY withdrew its firefighters to protect their safety.

[RandomGuy]

But of course the firefighters were in on the whole thing, and despite hundreds of their coworkers getting killed, none of them have stepped forward to reveal this "coverup".

[RandomGuy]

At the beginning of this paper I introduced the group NY911truth, which some friends and I confront on Saturdays at Ground Zero. In my first appearance there, in June or July, 2006, the first thing the group’s leader Les Jamieson said to me was, “We should have a debate.” I’m sure he didn’t know then that I knew far more of the facts of 9/11 than he, although I had only been looking into the CT claims for three months and he had been doing so since November, 2001. We did have an impromptu mini-debate before the video camera of documentarian Fletcher Holmes. The subject was the collapse of WTC 7, which Jamieson believes is one of the best pieces of evidence in favor of the “inside job” theory.

I reminded Jamieson that the firefighters reported massive damage and raging, uncontrolled fires, and that the Chiefs, specifically Chief Nigro, gave the order to withdraw the firefighters from the area long before the building collapsed. He replied that perhaps they had been ordered to withdraw by someone higher up, such as Nicholas Scoppetta, the FDNY Commissioner, who presumably got his orders from someone who was in on the plot.

That made me very angry. It was the first time I had heard someone blame the FDNY for the collapse of WTC 7. Since then, I’ve heard at least three other members of Jamieson’s organization make the same claim while standing on the ground where so many heroes died.

Let’s keep in mind what it would mean (only as far as the FDNY’s involvement is concerned) if
Jamieson was correct:

1. The top people in the FDNY were so corrupt that they called off a search for hundreds of fallen firefighters in order to participate in a crime.

2. The FDNY Chiefs who claim to have made an agonizing decision to stop rescue operations in the area around WTC 7, in order to to keep rescuers from becoming victims, are lying.

3. All the people on the scene who reported massive damage and uncontrolled fires on many floors at building 7, and who said they were sure that the building would collapse (we’ll read their reports later), were coerced into inventing those stories in order to cover up the crime of deliberate demolition of a skyscraper.

4. The massive amount of smoke seen billowing from nearly every floor on WTC 7’s south side did not indicate massive fires.

5. None of the 16,000 uniformed or civilian members of the FDNY, or anyone else who was involved in this huge conspiracy, has come forward about these issues in the past 5 years.

Les Jamieson, leader of NY 911 Truth


Jamieson has appeared twice on the NYC-area television show Hardfire, where his arguments were eviscerated by host Ron Wieck. Watch it here part 1 and here part 2.



Firefighters’ Statements: “Of Course They’re Lies!”

Following is a transcription of an audio recording I made at Ground Zero on September 16, 2006. Bold type indicates shouting. The participants are me, Les Jamieson, and a particularly volatile and ignorant member of his organization named Jack, who is a regular on Saturdays.

Jack, member of NY 911 Truth



A substantial crowd had gathered. First, I read the Daniel Nigro quote above to Mr. Jamieson. Here it is again. It bears repeating:
“The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

Me, to Jamieson: Chief of Operations, right here, who gave the order to start clearing this area three hours beforehand. And you’re saying that Larry Silverstein gave that order? Why?

I pull out a sheaf of quotes from FDNY eyewitnesses that detail the fire, damage, and suspected collapse of building 7.

Me: I’ve got page after page corroborating that. Page after page corroborating the damage, page after page corroborating that he gave the order, page after page saying that they did pull the men out starting at about 3 o’clock. But you blame Larry Silverstein. Why?

Jack, interrupting: BECAUSE HE SAID “PULL THE BUILDING!”

Me: Oh, did he?

JACK: PULL is the operative word! You say “they” was the operative word? IT WAS PULL. P-U-L-L!
I hand him the printout of Silverstein’s statement.

Me: Here, read this to the people. Are you afraid to? Let’s see if you get it right. On 9/11, I gave this quote to four different people of your persuasion, and every single one of them said, when they were reading it, said “He” decided to pull. Now you read it. See what it says.

JACK: We went through this before. This is a reprise of a previous episode. [True: from about an hour earlier!] He asked me to read this paragraph. I’ll read the paragraph, and let’s see if it’s going to register as funny, okay? I read the whole paragraph, and he says to me “read the last sentence.” I say, Okay, ‘And they made that decision to pull.’

Me: And who was “they?”

JACK: No, wait a minute! Here’s the punch line. I say to him, “What’s the operative word here?” He says to me “They.” NO. IT’S PULL. P-U-L-L!

Me: Okay, I’ve got 15 different quotes here where fire department– (JACK starts to walk away) You gonna stand here and listen? –Where Fire Department people use the word “pull,” meaning pull their people out.

JACK: You don’t even understand English grammar! He said “IT!” “IT!”

Me: Yeah, the operations. The firefighting operations. I don’t understand English grammar?

Jamieson: People were pulled out at 11:30, weren’t they?

Me: No, sir, they weren’t. As you know – because I’m sure you’ve read the quotes – it started at about 2:30, the pullout. Before that they were trying to rescue their people who were under the rubble here.

Jamieson: I have 11:30. So even if it’s 2:30, why are they saying to pull it at 5:20?

Me: When did the conversation with Silverstein happen? Hours beforehand.

Jamieson: No.

Me: Yes, sir. You’re saying that Chief Daniel Nigro is lying? You’re saying the Fire Department is lying?

Jamieson: Silverstein is lying, maybe. Could that be?

Me: About what? His story corroborates perfectly with what the Fire Department says.

Jamieson: ‘Cause he says “We agreed to pull the building, then we watched it collapse.”

Reminder: Les Jamieson is the leader of one of the major 9/11 “Truth” organizations, and he claims to have been investigating these matters since 2001. Also, Jamieson was listening attentively 30 seconds earlier when Jack read “And they made that decision to pull.”

Me: No, sir. He says “They made that decision to pull.” Who’s “they?” He’s on the phone with the Fire Department.

Jamieson: Right.

Me: So you’re saying the Fire Department’s lying, when they’re saying that they made the decision?

Jamieson: How does the Fire Department have the ability to pull?

Me: To pull? To pull their men out. (I shake my sheaf of quotes) Fifteen different times they use the quote “pull,” meaning pull their men away from the building–

JACK:NO! THEY SAID PULL IT!

Me: –and thank God they did, because no one was killed when building 7 collapsed.

JACK: PULL IT!

Me: Was that a good decision or not?

Unidentified Truther:PULL IT!

Me: And they did that three hours before the building collapsed.

Jamieson: What about–

Me: I’m asking you a question. Is the Fire Department lying? You’re saying Larry Silverstein gave the order. I have page after page of quotes. Are they lying?

JACK: This is total obfuscation! Total obfuscation! What difference does it make if the time is plus or minus two hours? He said “PULL THE BUILDING! PULL THE BUILDING!”

Jamieson:PULL THE BUILDING! And it fell straight down! Not south!

JACK:PULL IT! I-T!

Me (reading from FDNY quotes): Fire Department Chief Daniel Nigro: “The biggest decision we had to make–“

JACK, to the crowd:HE’S OBFUSCATING! WITH TOTAL BULLSHIT!

Me:“–was to create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

How about this: “There had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.”

And this: “The building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.”

Here’s another: “They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. ... Finally they pulled us out.”

Here’s another: “Seven World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling, fully involved.“

Here’s another: “There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it.”

JACK: HAHAHA!

Me: Yeah, it’s a lie? These are all lies the Fire Department is telling? I’m recording this, by the way.

JACK: OF COURSE THEY’RE LIES! TOTAL FABRICATIONS! TOTAL FABRICATIONS!

Jack walks away, shaking his head. Jamieson makes no objection to his statements.

Please let Les Jamieson know what you think about what he and his organization’s members say at Ground Zero. His 9/11-related email address is [email protected]

[RandomGuy]

Jason Bermas of Loose Change Disparages the FDNY at Ground Zero

Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page


I have never encountered anyone in any sphere of endeavor as thoroughly misinformed as Jason Bermas, another “9/11 Truth Movement” leader, the most defiantly outspoken of Loose Change’s three creators, and its chief “researcher.” On the subject of 9/11, he seems to be completely incapable of getting anything right. Bermas has apparently spent a lot of time watching Alex Jones videos.

In my compilation Loose Change Creators Speak, Bermas mentions 18 conspiracy theories in a single interview, not because he’s reciting a list of them, but because that’s the way he talks. The following is a bit of an “aside,” but I think it’s important to show just how twisted the thinking of the leaders of the “9/11 Truth Movement” can be. Here is a sample of Bermas’ lunacy (pun intended):

“I contend that we may have been to the Moon, not with rocket technology, but with something else and it's secret. Definitely not the Apollo landings – they're a joke.”

“I really do feel like the evidence is there that these guys [U.S. political and religious leaders] are in the occult.”

On politician John Kerry: “This guy practices the occult. He had to in order to get into Skull & Bones [the not-so-secret Yale University club whose membership rolls were published by the school when Kerry was a member]. What ELSE is he capable of?”

Radio host: “And the 9/11 attack itself, is that the European group, or is that more the Americans, like Bush and Cheney?”

Bermas: “These guys in America are able to become billionaires, but they're not the multi-trillionaires that are in countries, basically with a free license to print money. So their power [the Americans' power] can only go so far.”

Host: “So you see it [The people behind the 9/11 attacks] as more of a European-type thing?”

Bermas: “Absolutely. I mean when you look at how bizarre some of these rituals are, and where these things come from...Helmut Schmidt, for instance, former German Chancellor, talks about all the things he used to do, all these Germanic death cults, and he talks about, you know, Bohemian Grove being a sex event and loving the rituals there, it's suspicious to me, man! I mean, I can see that with my own eyes. ...You look at things like the Montauk Project, and Boys' Town, and they definitely used, you know, drug addicts, sexual deviants. It's mind control! It's absolute mind control.”

“There was a report out in the past couple of days [on Alex Jones’ website, of course] that the government has been actually recruiting pastors and ministers to go around and say, you know, if something like the bird flu hits, it'll be good to go with, like, FEMA into camps and all these other federally-regulated areas, and they're actually being paid to say this stuff. And taking inoculations, and that is SCARY!”

“Unfortunately, in this country if there is another major event, and if it is incrementalized and larger than the last one, they could declare martial law at any moment, and have forced inocu-lations, and who's to say what they put in your body?”

“Believe it or not, TIVO was working on a brain chip, so that with your TIVO box there it would record what you want, when you want it, and it will base it on your brain patterns.”




http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/02301.jpg/02301-full.jpg
Prophetic logo according to Jason Bermas?


If Bermas and other 9/11 “Truth” leaders are so obviously divorced from reality, why am I spending my time doing this? Why not leave them alone to bark at the moon and be laughed at by sensible people?

Answer: because they have been effective at spreading their message. Millions and millions of people have viewed at least part of Loose Change, which is freely available on the internet. I get several emails a week thanking me for my Loose Change Viewer Guide (a major revision – with twice the information and better sourcing – is in the works), because for a time they had bought Loose Change’s propaganda. In August, that guide, which I don’t advertise, had a peak viewer ship of over 30,000 people in one day. That means many, many more people are out there with this stuff rattling around in their heads. Now I understand the meaning of “viral video.”

Even people who aren’t taken in by the more extreme claims of the 9/11 Denier Movement can find themselves thinking that there must be some evidence of US government involvement in the attacks, based on the sheer volume of conspiracist claims. I have yet to see any such evidence, and it’s not for lack of trying.


Back to Jason Bermas at Ground Zero.


As mentioned above, the purpose of the protest at Ground Zero on 9/11/06 was to get the attention of the mainstream media. Two days earlier, on 9/09/06, the Loose Change guys and Alex Jones visited Ground Zero. Their cameramen filmed the visit. You can watch it here. It begins with a preamble by Jason Bermas:

"You can just imagine just the flurry of people who are going to be here in memoriam of all those that died on September 11th. Really, we’re gearing up, we’re giving out 10,000 DVDs, we’ve got 1,100 shirts. We’re really gonna make our presence known. Finally the mainstream media is going to have to stop attacking us and start reporting on us fairly, and that’s really our goal."

Bermas then strolls past, and comments on, the large bronze relief of 9/11 firefighting operations, which is on the side of Firehouse 10, across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center.


Jason Bermas outside Firehouse 10. He forgot.




At 40:33 in the same video, speaking at Ground Zero on the same day, Bermas expresses his opinion of the low character of FDNY firefighters, in answer to a question by Abby Scott:


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/02402.jpg/02402-full.jpg
“The firefighters ARE paid off.”


Remember, this video is promoted by the creators of Loose Change. They’re proud of it


Months later, after I brought attention to his statement, Jason Bermas posted the following bizarre explanation on the Loose Change Blog:

[I]
I would just like to apologize for the comment I made to one Abby Scott on September 9th of this past year. I made the MISTAKE of saying that the firefighters were paid off, I did not mean this, and am convinced some sort of Jedi Mind trick was pulled on me.

I was discussing how if you have a government job and want to keep it, aka Controlled Demolition Inc. you keep your mouth shut. It then moved to the firefighters and some how I said "The firefighters are paid off", and then cited how many of them discussed the bombs in the days after. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FIREFIGHTERS WERE PAID OFF! I hold them as heroes in the highest regard, and I truly believe that they were threatened in the aftermath of the event that not only traumatized a country, but still affect their lives deeply to this very day. Many of these men have families, and would do anything to keep them safe. I also believe many of them do not, and can not think the worst of their country. I know it was very difficult for me.

So, Mr. Bermas believes, not that the firefighters were paid to keep quiet about what they know, but that they are being threatened to keep quiet. He does not present any evidence to back this absurd claim. He also seems to be implying that the respected firm Controlled Demolitions Inc. was somehow involved in this conspiracy.

Did the 9/11/06 Ground Zero protest achieve its goal of garnering massive media attention? Dylan Avery, writer and director of Loose Change:

"And shame on the mainstream media in general for participating in what can only be de-scribed as a media blackout. Those that did mention it marginalized it dramatically.

We are not conspiracy theorists by any stretch.

We are a growing body of concerned Americans who have both investigated the events and experienced them first-hand, and we are absolutely convinced that our government is hid-ing the truth from us, whatever the truth may be."

Dylan Avery, posting on the Loose Change blog, October 3, 2006: “I find it extremely telling that this article from Mexico gives us more coverage [of 9/11] than anything we experienced from American Mainstream Media combined.”

I believe Mr. Avery is complaining about the lack of positive mainstream media coverage, not about the lack of coverage such as that hilariously dished out by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone on Sept. 26, 2006:

"I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot – not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together – that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter."

You can watch a two-part debate between Bermas and Avery of Loose Change, versus myself and Ronald Wieck, on the TV show Hardfire. Part 1 Part 2.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Next: Alex Jones Vilifies the FDNY and Larry Silverstein at Ground Zero

[RandomGuy]

The Basics: Critical Thinking, Informal Logic, The Scientific Method (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thebasic%3Acriticalthinking%2Clogic%2Cscientif)

The Basics
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html)
Michael Shermer on the Scientific Method (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html)
A "theory" in science is like a guess or a hunch, right? (http://www.notjustatheory.com/)
Michael Shermer: Not all wrong theories are equal. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000)
Distinguishing science and pseudoscience (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)Bad Science: Dr. Ben Goldacre's excellent blog http://www.badscience.net/
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html)
Critical Thinking Mini Lessons (http://skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html)
A Guide to Logical Fallacies (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html)
A simple guide to common logical fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)
Fallacy Watch: How to Read a Poll (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/readpoll.html)
Denialism Blog: How to be a crank (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php)
Propaganda and debating techniques (Thanks, anticonspiracy911) (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html)
The Woo-Woo Credo (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)
7 Stupid Thinking Errors You Probably Make (identifying sources of bias) (http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/7-stupid-thinking-errors-you-probably-make.html)
Study: How Warnings about False Claims Become Recommendations (http://www.acrwebsite.org/topic.asp?artid=250)

[Yonivore]

C'mon RG, can't you do some basic formatting and editing for length? Put some effort into it.

[RandomGuy]

I think I was going to try and hyperlink all of that, and may at some point, but just click the first link to the original page with all the links.

[RandomGuy]

C'mon RG, can't you do some basic formatting and editing for length? Put some effort into it.

I know, I know. I did one big long thing, then got a "page expired" bit and lost it all. To avoid that I will do short edits and save the changes, so I don't spend a lot of time on something that vanishes instantly.

I have this bookmarked, and will do the edits as time permits. This way I will have a ready made broadside.

I also have the luxury of editing my first few posts in this thread on page one and two, and have added a few things. Look for the original post to get waaay longer. It is a great place to put reference stuff.

[smeagol]

Yep, these truthers are guys fully connected with reality :rolleyes

[Galileo]

Except that he said "THEY" made the decision. Not "I made the decision" to pull it.

Let's look at everything the man said.

So you're saying that Silverstein is accussing the fireman of being involved in the conspiracy?

[RandomGuy]

So you're saying that Silverstein is accussing the fireman of being involved in the conspiracy?

If by "conspiracy" you mean the conspiracy to evacuate personnel ahead of an obviously impending building collapse.


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."

...[continued later response]

...Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

[ChumpDumper]

One of the co-conspirators who was obviously ordered to lie to the media the afternoon of 9/11:

3HLDgjYuRHk

[mookie2001]

Funny how I was harassed when I posted videos now it seems to be all you guys can do.rofl

exactly
these chodes are just posting cooper marriotts debunking youtube#4

[ChumpDumper]

You mad?

At least our vids are short.

[Al Gore]

RandomGuy owns this forum! :tu

[Yonivore]

RandomGuy owns this forum! :tu
I thought that was Kori.

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy owns this forum! :tu

:oops

Aw shucks.

[smeagol]

Don’t sweat it mookster, I would also be mad if I found out the leaders of my cult believe that:

- 9/11 was concocted by Europeans
- Apollo did not land on the moon (but a secret rocket did)
- That politicians are in the occult
- Forced inoculations
- TIVO controls your mind

[Don Quixote]

I wouldn't go so far as to label Truthers as a cult. To cite a few examples, they lack strong centralized leadership that demands loyalty (e.g., The Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses). They don't really have a doctrine of salvation, and there doesn't appear to be any program designed to separate people from their families or dollars.

On the other hand, they do tend to require that we suspend critical thinking, accept questionable methodology and "proofs," and they have a strong shared belief that anyone outside of their "group" is not only wrong, but brainwashed/on the take/possessed. This is evident in many cult groups.

[ChumpDumper]

Software Engineers and Math Majors for Truth®

[RandomGuy]

Don’t sweat it mookster, I would also be mad if I found out the leaders of my cult believe that:

- 9/11 was concocted by Europeans
- Apollo did not land on the moon (but a secret rocket did)
- That politicians are in the occult
- Forced inoculations
- TIVO controls your mind

I actually know a guy on myspace that firmly believes that "they" are into numerology and sacred numbers, and further that "they" send messages to each other through internet news headlines.

He started a whold thread about it in the political forum there "Bizarre Pattern", and used a headline about a Spurs win "Duncan scores 22 in win over [Suns?]" to "prove" that they are sending messages regarding the number 22 and that an attack was imminent on Dec 22, 2007.

It didn't happen of course, and when I pointed out that if you searched the news for all different types of numbers, the number 22 fell pretty much in line with all the other numbers in terms of how often they were used in news headlines and stories, he just said he saw the pattern anyways.

He is fully obsessed with the numbers 9 and 11, and thinks that combinations and multiples, i.e. 22, have some meaning for the occult leaders of the evil global conspiracy/elite.

Smart guy overall, but the tone of his posts is generally hostile and insulting.

I honestly think the guy is a borderline schizophrenic.

[Nbadan]

Unfortunately for you, gravity is constantly accelerating objects towards the center of the earth.

So for each momentary deceleration offered by any given floor, you then get another 3.4 meters of acceleration by gravity.

At least you are finally trying to wrap your brain around it.

I see the problem, you don't understand physics.....when I multiplied the collapsing debris by a constant factor of 9.8 that is the effect of velocity of gravity on earth of anything with mass, your not gonna speed up or slow down gravity on earth by adding or taking away mass....

[ChumpDumper]

Does gravity not accelerate mass as it falls?

Is there no cumulative effect of that acceleration since the building never stopped falling?

[Nbadan]

Which is precisely about how long it took for the buildings to collapse.

qLShZOvxVe4


Your 'video proof' is amateurish and assumes that all the debris fell at free fall speed, that not what anyone said...also, I noticed that you have failed to address my video analysis of the WTC7 free fall speed (how convenient) , a building not hit by planes...let's watch that again...

Ml_n5gJgQ_U

[Nbadan]

Does gravity not accelerate mass as it falls?


Not unless you've discovered a new law of physics


In physics, gravitational acceleration is the acceleration of an object caused by the force of gravity from another object. In the absence of any other forces, any object will accelerate in a gravitational field at the same rate, regardless of the mass of the object. On the surface of the Earth, all objects fall with an acceleration of somewhere between 9.78 and 9.82 m/s² depending on latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s², (approx. 32.174 ft/s2).

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration)

[been there seen that]

The Basics: Critical Thinking, Informal Logic, The Scientific Method (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thebasic%3Acriticalthinking%2Clogic%2Cscientif)

The Basics
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html)
Michael Shermer on the Scientific Method (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html)
A "theory" in science is like a guess or a hunch, right? (http://www.notjustatheory.com/)
Michael Shermer: Not all wrong theories are equal. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000)
Distinguishing science and pseudoscience (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)Bad Science: Dr. Ben Goldacre's excellent blog http://www.badscience.net/
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html)
Critical Thinking Mini Lessons (http://skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html)
A Guide to Logical Fallacies (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html)
A simple guide to common logical fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)
Fallacy Watch: How to Read a Poll (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/readpoll.html)
Denialism Blog: How to be a crank (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php)
Propaganda and debating techniques (Thanks, anticonspiracy911) (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html)
The Woo-Woo Credo (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)
7 Stupid Thinking Errors You Probably Make (identifying sources of bias) (http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/7-stupid-thinking-errors-you-probably-make.html)
Study: How Warnings about False Claims Become Recommendations (http://www.acrwebsite.org/topic.asp?artid=250)

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Does gravity not accelerate mass as it falls?
On the surface of the Earth, all objects fall with an acceleration of somewhere between 9.78 and 9.82 m/s²

So the answer is yes - gravity accelerates mass as it falls.

What does that little 2 mean after the m/s?

[Nbadan]

So the answer is yes - gravity accelerates mass as it falls.

What does that little 2 mean after the m/s?


...an acceleration that RG seems to claim speeds up with more mass...I, on the other hand, used a 9.8 constant in my calculations....

...The metre (or meter) per second squared is the SI derived unit of acceleration. It is a measure of magnitude and can be a scalar measure or, when associated with a direction, a vector, for example by having sign positive or negative. The unit is written in symbols as m/s2, m·s−2, or m s−2. It may be better understood when phrased as "metre per second per second"—in other words, the increase in speed (in metres per second) that is achieved each second. Since the newton equals one kilogram metre per second squared, the metre per second squared is the same unit as the newton per kilogram...

[Nbadan]

I remember mouse or some other twoofer type making a big stink about the Citgo station tape's not being released. I did a quick Google and found it had actually been released a month before and showed very little -- and definitely wasn't the smoking gun it was claimed to be.

Please tell us what tapes you are now going on about.


The Citgo tape, which did not show any impact, was eventually release through a FOIA request after 3 years, but the gov'ment is still holding up to 85 other tapes of the pentagon attack..

http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec05.jpg

Flight77info (http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec05.jpg)

....after 7 years, any reasonable person would ask, why?

[Nbadan]

http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec06.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec07.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

...an acceleration that RG seems to claim speeds up with more mass...I, on the other hand, used a 9.8 constant in my calculations....

...The metre (or meter) per second squared is the SI derived unit of acceleration. It is a measure of magnitude and can be a scalar measure or, when associated with a direction, a vector, for example by having sign positive or negative. The unit is written in symbols as m/s2, m·s−2, or m s−2. It may be better understood when phrased as "metre per second per second"—in other words, the increase in speed (in metres per second) that is achieved each second. Since the newton equals one kilogram metre per second squared, the metre per second squared is the same unit as the newton per kilogram...So how fast would 30 acres of office building be falling after two seconds?

[ChumpDumper]

The Citgo tape, which did not show any impact, was eventually release through a FOIA request after 3 years, but the gov'ment is still holding up to 85 other tapes of the pentagon attack..

http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec05.jpg

Flight77info (http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec05.jpg)

....after 7 years, any reasonable person would ask, why?You aren't a no-planer, so why do you care?

[Nbadan]

So did a plane hit the pentagon?

Well, let's look at some of the physical evidence from the crash site...

Close up view of pentagon wreckage...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-02.jpg

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-03.jpg

Now a picture of Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200, model # N644aa taken about a month before 911

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/b757-main-wheel-04.jpg

the debris seems to match up perfectly...here's a close up

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/b757-main-wheel-02.jpg

I don't think there is any doubt that it was a 757-200 that struck the Pentagon...forget the videos...

[Nbadan]

You aren't a no-planer, so why do you care?

I'm just trying to prove to no-planers that they are fighting a losing battle....

[DarrinS]

I'm just trying to prove to no-planers that they are fighting a losing battle....


Unless they started putting flight data recorders (with cockpit voice recorders) on cruise missles.

:wakeup

[RandomGuy]

Does gravity not accelerate mass as it falls?

Not unless you've discovered a new law of physics

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

Oh that is a kodak moment.

In the rush to prove "controlled demolotion", gravity does not accelerate falling objects.

I'm addding that to my siggy.

[RandomGuy]

For the physics challenged I will break it down very very simply.

Consider the speed of a falling object accelerated by gravity. Ignore all other factors for this explanation.

At the instant it starts falling, its speed is zero. It has no kinetic energy, and no momentum.

Let it fall for one second, and the speed of that object is then 9.8 meters per second, as Dan's ill-understood expedition to wikipedia shows.

What is the speed of the object after two seconds?

The calculation is pretty simple. 9.8 times 2, or 19.6 meters per second.

The falling object was accelerated by gravity at a constant rate.

The object has fallen for two entire seconds, and we can determine the ending speed.

In each unit of time (or distance for that matter) we need to know the initial speed and the accleration, and we can find the ending speed.

Now for the part Dan can't wrap his mind around:

As the object picks up speed, the kinetic energy goes up by a squared factor.

That is, if you double the speed, you get FOUR TIMES the kinetic energy .

Triple the speed, you get NINE TIMES the kinetic energy .

Quadruple the speed, you get SIXTEEN TIMES the kinetic energy .

Now for a pop quiz for our budding physics hotshot.

Dan, how far did that object fall in two seconds?

[RandomGuy]

To help Dan finally understand how kinetic energy works, I have officially changed my avatar, for his ease of reference.

Note the variable term on the right side of the equation dan, the v for velocity.

If you double the velocity or v sub 1 is equal to 2*v sub 0

You can then get, by substitution, (2*v sub 0) times (2*v sub 0) or to simplify 4*v sub 0

Since the mass and the "1/2" term are constants, that means that the "KE" or Kinetic Energy term on the other side is highly sensitive to the velocity of the object, since that is the term that is squared.

Hope that helps.

[Nbadan]

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

Oh that is a kodak moment.

In the rush to prove "controlled demolotion", gravity does not accelerate falling objects.

Why are you taking this so personal RG? you know that I meant that gravity affects objects of any mass by a ~9.8 constant on earth, I've said that over and over and over again in this thread....but go ahead and be selective... it really undermines you to anyone who has read this thread....

[DarrinS]

In my world, gravity is about 32.2 feet/sec^2.

9.81 meters/sec^2 is for Canadians, Europeans, and students.

[Don Quixote]

it really undermines you to anyone who has read this thread....

I actually can follow RandomDude pretty well. And, based on his work here, I have gained a ton of respect for him.

[Nbadan]

I actually can follow RandomDude pretty well. And, based on his work here, I have gained a ton of respect for him.


Considering your thoughts on Muslims taking over Europe that's not saying a whole lot.....

[Nbadan]

At the instant it starts falling, its speed is zero. It has no kinetic energy, and no momentum or kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is a 8th grade topic, hey RG, since were doing energy calculations, what was the potential energy of the collapsing segment of tower?

[Nbadan]

What is the speed of the object after two seconds?

...by 'speed' I'm assuming you mean velocity? are we talking scalar or vector?

[Yonivore]

Q_OIXfkXEj0

[Yonivore]

...by 'speed' I'm assuming you mean velocity? are we talking scalar or vector?
What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[ClingingMars]

Q_OIXfkXEj0

watch and die laughing.

- Mars

[ClingingMars]

Q_OIXfkXEj0

dammit dammit dammit you beat me.

- Mars

[RandomGuy]

Why are you taking this so personal RG? you know that I meant that gravity affects objects of any mass by a ~9.8 constant on earth, I've said that over and over and over again in this thread....but go ahead and be selective... it really undermines you to anyone who has read this thread....

Alright I was being a bit mean and picky. I apologize completely, but even you gotta admit it was a bit funny.

As I have said over and over, I fully agree that gravity is a constant on the surface of the earth, minute variations aside.

[RandomGuy]

...by 'speed' I'm assuming you mean velocity? are we talking scalar or vector?

Wheeee, I see someone has been reading up. This makes me happy. This is the first time anybody who has been trying to actually "prove" controlled demolition has ever tried to learn anything about real physics in the year+ that I have been posting my calculations on various forums.

I did indeed mean velocity, although in the case of consideration of a falling object with only one vector the terms speed and velocity can be used pretty much interchangably.

I also asked the question: How far did that object fall in those two seconds?

[RandomGuy]

The Citgo tape, which did not show any impact, was eventually release through a FOIA request after 3 years, but the gov'ment is still holding up to 85 other tapes of the pentagon attack..

....after 7 years, any reasonable person would ask, why?

(shakes head)

Wrong.

http://flight77.info/85videos.html

The owner of the site did not state anywhere that the videos were not released.

Further, I am pretty sure all of the videos were released, as you can view quite a few of the 85 videos from this list on the main page. (http://flight77.info/)

A reasonable person would actually read through the website before making such a declarative statement... ;)

[RandomGuy]

Kinetic energy is a 8th grade topic, hey RG, since were doing energy calculations, what was the potential energy of the collapsing segment of tower?


By potential energy, I assume Dan is talking about gravitational potential energy. This is the total amount of possible “falling” energy if you drop something from any given height.

For the uninitiated/casual observer, the likely thrust of Dan’s question is to steer the conversation to the debunked “pulverized concrete” theory (http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!304.entry), as the idiot who put that abomination of science/logic out into the interwebs started with potential energy, and tried to prove that the towers fell “too quickly” by assuming that all the concrete in the twin towers was powdered.

PE=mgh
m= mass
g= gravity, i.e. gravitational acceleration or 9.8 m/s
h= height

G is a constant, 9.8 m/s/s
H is a height of 80 stories of 3.65 meters or almost exactly 292 meters. Remember we will assume that the top thirty stories of a 110 story building start falling. 110-30=80

So now that we have g and h, we can plug them in thusly:

PE=m(9.8)(292) or PE=m2861 (rounding decimal down)

This means that, any object, if dropped from 292 meters and ignoring air friction, will hit the ground with a force of roughly 2800 times the mass.

Here is an important point. What is mass? What is weight?

Weight is a force. It is the amount of force required to hold an object of a certain mass stationary against the pull of gravity. (see Newtons third law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion)) When you climb on a scale you are really measuring the amount of force required to hold you at equilibrium (motionless) against gravity.
Think about what this means. This means that an object falling from 292 meters will seem to strike the ground with a force or “weight” of 2800 times what it weighed when it was held stationary, 292 meters above the ground.

The ground will then absorb the falling energy and then hold the body at equilibrium again after that energy has been absorbed to hold that mass at equilibrium/rest.

[RandomGuy]

Let’s do a quickie, common sense thought experiment to help understand what the “controlled demolition” theory is trying to say.

The controlled demolition theory rests on the following assumption: “the building was too strong to have collapsed from simple gravity”

Put another way “the building could easily absorb the energy of the falling section and not fully collapse”

Does this pass the common sense muster?

Let’s take an average guy off the street. He can hold a 100 pound bag over his head for a few minutes. Say he is balancing it on his head to make things simple. In terms of physics this means he is providing a force equal to gravity in order to hold this bag motionless.

This is what the lower 80 stories did for the upper 30 stories for 30 years before 9-11.

Now, one story is about 12.32 feet. The thirty floors started falling through the damaged sections, and at least one damaged, weakened floor gave way.

Take that bag away from our average guy and hold it 12.32 feet over his head. Now drop it on his head. What happens?

Ouch is right.

Let’s see how many pounds of force will be applied by that bag to the guy’s head.

KE is measured in joules. KE= ½* mass * velocity *velocity
First let’s convert to metric for ease of calculation.
Mass=45.36 kg http://manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm
H = 12.32 feet = 3.65 meters http://www.saudia-online.com/conversion%20Table.htm
Ending velocity of bag= 8.45 meters/s http://tutor4physics.com/calculators.htm

KE= ½(45.36)(8.45)(8.45) = 1619 joules
Convert 1619 Joules back to food/pounds force a.k.a. weight = 598 http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm (http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm)

For the controlled demolition theory to be correct the guy’s head must be able to apply almost 598 foot/pounds of force to stop the bag after such a fall.

Is this reasonable? I think we can safely, and without the possibility of jail time for seriously injuring some poor test subject, conclude that it is not.

Maybe “Galileo” would like to put this theory’s primary assumption to the test with a 100 bag of bullshit?

The original Galileo was actually instrumental in noting that the rate of falling objects is not dependant on mass http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smass.htm . Perhaps our modern, more retarded, version of the real scientist can contribute something to science and prove that his head can hold, even for a split second, an eleven hundred pound object.

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along… ;)

[In plane sight]

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/8/82/Pentagon_landing_gear.jpg

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/1/17/Pentagondebris4.jpg

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/0/08/Pntdebris-fema4414.jpg




http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050825-F-0000N-002.jpg




Oops.

[In plane sight]

And several bodies were found. Pictures of them were shown in the Moussaoui trial.

They are very graphic; if you really want to see them, some are linked on this page:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon

Those Bodies were later Identified as construction workers in the area at the time of unmanned drone aircraft hits pentagon.



Oops.

[ChumpDumper]

Those Bodies were later Identified as construction workers in the area at the time of unmanned drone aircraft hits pentagon.Where's your link?

In case no one noticed, mouse just makes shit up

[ChumpDumper]

photograph of Global Hawk not even in service at the time of 9/11.Where is the list of eyewitnesses identifying this aircraft?

[Ignignokt]

Those Bodies were later Identified as construction workers in the area at the time of unmanned drone aircraft hits pentagon.



you're an idiot, unless contruction workers meant people that wore khakis and collared shirts with dress casual belts. Go fuck yourself for degrading these people.

show us where the missing people are, or STFU!

[Nbadan]

Alright I was being a bit mean and picky. I apologize completely, but even you gotta admit it was a bit funny.

As I have said over and over, I fully agree that gravity is a constant on the surface of the earth, minute variations aside.

It takes a big man to admit that, you've grown as a legit debater by leaps and bounds in the time you've been here RG and it will help you in your life endeavors....time well spent....

[In plane site]

Where's your link?

In case no one noticed, mouse just makes shit up

I post a Link you post another Link that says my Link is bogus then I post a Link that shows your link is full of shit etc....


I am hip to your game Chump. I am a long time lurker first time caller....I have seen your dog and pony show many times! It's like a foghat concert,(nothing new) your like that rubbery tomato in the bottom of the fridge that no one wants to really eat and is either to lazy or their Oprah Winfrey guilt trip minds to toss it out.

Your like that VHS tape of Big Top Pee Wee, no one really wants to play you we just want to keep you around.....you know eBay later.



Also! your lapdog RandomMethGuy? Look, just cuz he just discovered Google, and is going Link happy does not give him any Political status unless he can prove me, and others wrong.

You, and your double wide trailer trash posse's free ride is over......... it's time you asshats prove to us 9/11 was not planned..............

when it's all in plane sight!

http://www.911inplanesite.com/911synopsis.html

http://www.911inplanesite.com/images2004b/pent_wreck_engine.jpg

[In plane site]

Where is the Video?

http://www.911inplanesite.com/images2004b/pent_secutiry_cameras.jpg



Six months after the attacks, as many Americans began to stand up and ask questions concerning the official story of what happened at the heart of the nation’s military establishment, Pentagon officials responded by releasing five fuzzy frames of what they claimed was a 757 plowing into the side of the Pentagon. We were told that a surveillance camera located across from the heliport pad took these photos. However, these five frames seemed to raise more questions than they attempted to answer. First of all, why is the date code on the first frame dated September 12, 2001 (5:37 P.M.)? That’s one day and eights hours too late. Secondly, the resolution of the frames



was so incredibly low that they did not allow for a thorough analysis of the images that we were being shown. Thirdly, the one frame labeled “plane” did not show anything that could even remotely be interpreted as a Boeing 757. Are we truly expected to believe that there was only one security camera capable of capturing the most heinous attack ever carried out against the nucleus of U.S. national defense? Upon further examination of this area of the Pentagon, one can clearly count at least five additional security cameras, two of which were unmistakably aimed directly where the plane would have impacted with the Pentagon.

It is also worth mentioning that there was three privately owned security cameras all trained in the direction necessary to capture video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. One at a gas station across I-395, one on the rooftop of the Hilton International Hotel, and another located at the Virginia Department of Transportation, which would have captured the plane descending over Interstate 395. Literally, within only a few minutes after the attack, Federal officials arrived at all three locations and confiscated the videotapes. The contents have never been released to the public.


THE WORLD TRADE CENTER:

Summarizing similar discrepancies relating to the World Trade Center attacks, Marc Bernback, who was introduced on air as an employee of Fox News, stated on live television that the plane he saw crash into the South tower came down so low that he could make out the fact that the “commercial airliner” had no windows. This was repeated twice in the same interview. Even the Fox anchorperson asked, “Could these have been cargo planes?” Marc went on to describe a blue, circular logo located on the front of the plane. He also alluded to the fact that this plane “did not look like it was from around here;” speculating that the plane may have come from a military base - not a commercial airport. The producers of “In Plane Site” later interviewed Marc Bernback and he stands firmly behind his on-air account. “The plane had no windows…”

[Nbadan]

I am hip to your game Chump. I am a long time lurker first time caller....I have seen your dog and pony show many times! It's like a foghat concert,(nothing new) your like that rubbery tomato in the bottom of the fridge that no one wants to really eat and is either to lazy or their Oprah Winfrey guilt trip minds to toss it out.

That's some funny shit there mouse.....

[In plane site]

Also don't talk shit about mouse unless your Hanna Montana.com bookmark having , carrot waxing ass meets him in the Troll forum for a real smack off!

I don't think you have errrn'd that status just yet.

[smeagol]

A plane sighting of mouse . . .

[RandomGuy]

I post a Link you post another Link that says my Link is bogus then I post a Link that shows your link is full of shit etc....

Translation:
"I know my stuff has been thoroughly debunked, and that you will immediately post stuff that will make me look like an idiot if I post a link.

BTW, I am still waiting on you to test out your theory with that hundred pound bag of bullshit... :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Also! your lapdog RandomMethGuy? Look, just cuz he just discovered Google, and is going Link happy does not give him any Political status unless he can prove me, and others wrong.

Ah yes, the power of google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=in+plane+sight+debunked&btnG=Google+Search)means that I don't have to try very hard to prove you wrong...

If you click on the link above and look at the very top of the page you can see where even other conspiracy theorists think the "drone" theory is stupid.

It always gives me a warm glow when paranoid people turn on each other as somehow being part of the evil conspiracy because the "other" conspiracy theory is so stupid that it has to be part of an evil disinformation campaign. :rollin

[RandomGuy]

In Plane Site
Following the first 9/11 International Inquiry in San Francisco in 2004, a new video packaged as a sensational exposé of evidence that the 9/11 attack was an inside job burst on the scene. In Plane Site, a production of The Power Hour, features Dave Von Kleist sitting in front of a wall of computer monitors and pretending to expose shocking anomalies in footage from the day of the attack. The vast majority of Von Kleist's claims are nonsensical, debunked in the Parade of Errors (http://www.911review.com/errors/index.html) section.

Von Kleist's video functions to marginalize the case that the attack was an inside job by associating that idea with sensationalism and lack of critical thinking. The video got top billing in the Popular Mechanics attack (http://www.911review.com/pm/markup/index.html) piece, which used several of its ill-founded claims to smear the entire 9/11 Truth community.

http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html

[RandomGuy]

Some people in the 9/11 truth community have promoted In Plane Site even while acknowledging that promotes false claims, saying that it's beneficial because it "brings people into the movement". It's certainly true that IPS motivates some people to get involved. However, the claim that the video is beneficial to the movement overlooks three facts:


Many people are turned away by seeing a video such as IPS, especially people whose rational sensibilities are offended by the video's patently ludicrous claims and sensationalism.


As a tool for motivating involvement, IPS selects for people who tend to undervalue critical thinking skills and scientific evaluation of evidence. Such people will tend to promote IPS and other flawed materials, playing into the stereotype of 9/11 conspiracists as lunatics.


IPS is, by itself, a powerful tool for smearing the movement, as the Popular Mechanics piece illustrates. Any promotion reinforces the case of the movement's detractors.

One of the movement's greatest assets is a physics professor at Brigham Young University, Steven Jones, who persuasively articulates the case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 in a scientific paper. Because of Jones' credentials, he addresses the criticism that the demolition thesis lacks the support of experts. In a slide presentation Jones has shown to scores of academics, he states:


Watching the "In Plane Site" video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially -- until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.

[RandomGuy]

Either the conspiracy theorists are right about a massive organized evil conspiracy, or they are wrong.

If they are right about 9-11 being planned by an evil government conspiracy willing and capable of killing thousand of their own citizens, they would be just as motivated to keep that fact a secret.

An easy method of doing this is to do a disinformation campaign. All it takes is one or two paid evil guys willing to lie, a computer and some time.

The best way to do such a disinformation campaign is, as the conspiracy theorists themselves point out in my previous post is as follows:

Think of the stupidest shit possible
Present it in such a blatantly false and easily debunked manner that anybody with any common sense at all would recognize it immediately as stupid bullshit
This would then lead normal pepole to then associate all the real conspiracy evidence with this obvious quackery to discredit the whole movement to expose the grand evil conspiracy

IF there is a grand evil conspiracy, THEN at least SOME of the conspiracy "evidence" has been manufactured to be obviously stupid to put people off the trail.

THEREFORE:
IF the evil conpiracy exists AND you say you believe all of the conspiracy "evidence/theories" you MUST either:

1) Be one of those paid disinformation agents, and be lying and evil

or

2) Be too stupid to not recognize the obviously fake stuff that has been planted by the paid disinformation agents.
If there is no massive evil conspiracy then anybody who believes in ALL of the conspiracy theories is definitely too stupid to realize the conspiracy doesn't really exist.

Since no one can be part of something that doesn't exist, if you believe all the conspiracy theories/evidence, and the conspiracy doesn't exist you can't be lying and evil.

In either case it boils down to this:

If you say you believe in all of the conspiracy evidence, you MUST either be

1) A lying evil agent of the conspiracy

or

2) Too stupid to recognize obviously false information when you see it.

There are no other possibilities.

Which is it mouse/galileo/whoever?

Lying and evil, or stupid?

[Don Quixote]

A good question ...

What's there to gain by showing that there was a conspiracy on 9-11?

[RandomGuy]

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along… ;)

Ok, let me rephrase that:


Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along.

I even provided hotlinks to all the calculators I used, just to make it easier...

[Don Quixote]

the truth?

Yes, we all want truth. But what happens if/when a conspiracy is proven?

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, we all want truth. But what happens if/when a conspiracy is proven?

Then it becomes a program.

[RandomGuy]

A good question ...

What's there to gain by showing that there was a conspiracy on 9-11?

:greedy

How about this? (http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/infogear.html)

or this? (http://lc911.com/lc911/catalog/)

or this? (http://www.911truthstore.com/)

or this? (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/911_press_for_truth.html)

I am being a tad unfair here, of course. Running websites does take money, and that has to come from somewhere.

Certainly there are scammers out there willing to make bucks on this. I think our mouse may have been the victim of one of those scams to the tune of $1000+ bucks.

If there really is some grand conspiracy out there, I wish these people all the luck in the world, honest.

I have yet to see anything remotely compelling on these websites that can't be plausibly explained with much more mundane causes.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Don Quixote]

Like a TV program? I guess ...

But tell me about the Truthers. What is their agenda? Let's not pretend that no reasonable people have agendas -- everyone does. When I, for instance, argue for or against some ethical, biblical, or legal position, it's with the intent of moving somewhere. In short, small truths need to be put in the context of a large over-riding truth.

So, what (Big) Truth are the Truthers driving towards? They've spent alot of time googling things and coming up with this big theory. And if they're right, then what?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, we all want truth. But what happens if/when a conspiracy is proven?

We take it to trial of course.

Unfortunately at a trial, if you are asked a simple yes or no question 22 times, and you don't answer it, you get thrown out on your ear.

[RandomGuy]

Like a TV program? I guess ...

But tell me about the Truthers. What is their agenda? Let's not pretend that no reasonable people have agendas -- everyone does. When I, for instance, argue for or against some ethical, biblical, or legal position, it's with the intent of moving somewhere. In short, small truths need to be put in the context of a large over-riding truth.

So, what (Big) Truth are the Truthers driving towards? They've spent alot of time googling things and coming up with this big theory. And if they're right, then what?

I think most of them expect some kind of revolution, beit peaceful or not. Alex Jones certainly does (the radio host, not the ex-professor).

I have always wondered:

If they are right, why are they still alive?

If there is a grand evil conspiracy willing to kill thousands of people, why then are the people attempting to expose that conspiracy not killed off?

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, there would be a trial/tabloid scandal. I get that. But what would proving that there was a conspiracy, itself prove? That the Bush admin. is disingenuous, evil, and not to be trusted? Pardon me for saying, but that is the Truthers' presupposition going into the whole debate. And that is the common belief out there anyway. I'm just not sure how proving a 9-11 conspiracy gets us anywhere.

What are the political leanings of Truthers? Who would they support for President?

[Don Quixote]

people would be rung up for crimes against humanity

Yeah, I get that. So the Truthers are all about justice, then. And non-Truthers are not, I take it?

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, there would be a trial/tabloid scandal. I get that. But what would proving that there was a conspiracy, itself prove? That the Bush admin. is disingenuous, evil, and not to be trusted? Pardon me for saying, but that is the Truthers' presupposition going into the whole debate. And that is the common belief out there anyway. I'm just not sure how proving a 9-11 conspiracy gets us anywhere.

What are the political leanings of Truthers? Who would they support for President?

Ron Paul by an overwhelming majority.

Truthers tend to be Libertarians for the most part, and waaaay left for most of the rest.

Those on the waaaay left call the libertarians of the movement Libertardians.

Fascinating subculture. As are the debunkers...

Funny thing is that here, we all share one common denominator:

:flag::flag::flag::flag::flag::flag::flag::flag:

[Don Quixote]

Ron Paul by an overwhelming majority.

Truthers tend to be Libertarians for the most part, and waaaay left for most of the rest.

Those on the waaaay left call the libertarians of the movement Libertardians.

Fascinating subculture. As are the debunkers...

Funny thing is that here, we all share one common denominator:

:flag::flag::flag::flag::flag::flag::flag::flag:

Really. Ron Paul. I thought most of the Truthers were from the Left. Is Ron Paul a Truther? And do these guys have the potential to make some noise politically?

[RandomGuy]

Really. Ron Paul. I thought most of the Truthers were from the Left. Is Ron Paul a Truther? And do these guys have the potential to make some noise politically?



According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: “9/11 was an inside job” and “Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?” -- an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harrassed him as he took shelter in the ferry’s pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City.

“It was awful,” said Wyszynski, who supports Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination.“I was embarrassed to be a Republican. Never, ever, have I seen such a disgraceful performance.”
Source article (http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-paul-campaign-officials-deny.html)

Ron Paul had to very specifically distance himself (youtube link) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOZoKeJJuM4)from the Truthers during his campaign.

He attracted them after professing some mild sympathy (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/)for being paranoid about the government.

SW4DgZH8PJM

Transcript of the Truther-pandering exchange:


Student: …we’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account.

Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.

Libertarians are natually distrustful of any government, and that makes that ideology attractive for Truthers who, in general, believe the worst of those in power.

[Don Quixote]

The big question is, whose fans are the NBA equivalent of Truthers?

[TeyshaBlue]

The big question is, whose fans are the NBA equivalent of Truthers?

Suns fan. They have all but copyrighted the asterisk.:lol

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, I'd vote for fans of the Ringless Wonders from Phoenix, too. They're definitely Truthers.

I've heard Raptor Fan referred to as Truthers, too, but I think they're just zealous for their team. Which is good.

[GoGatos.]

Where is the Video?

http://www.911inplanesite.com/images2004b/pent_secutiry_cameras.jpg



You know better than to ask any question or RandonGuy will say your stupid!

[TeyshaBlue]

You know better than to ask any question or RandonGuy will say your stupid!

Nobody has to call you stupid when, you know....you post stupid shit like this.

A lot of videos are here:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65131&page=62

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/logo-w-boy-only-customsize_123197.jpg

[RandomGuy]

You know better than to ask any question or RandonGuy will say your stupid!

I might even say you're in desperate need of a spell checker... :toast

It is okay to ask honest questions. I will answer them respectfully and honestly.

Because if you are honestly asking a question, you will browse through a few debunking websites and give them the same fair reading as the conspiracy websites.

Start here:

http://www.flight77.info/

and go from there.

[The Club]

So not only do you have to ask questions only Chump and RandomGuy have to approve of first but you also have to make sure your an excellent speller?

Is there anything else needed before I attempt to reply any further? Would you like to run a credit check also?

[RandomGuy]

So not only do you have to ask questions only Chump and RandomGuy have to approve of first but you also have to make sure your an excellent speller?

Is there anything else needed before I attempt to reply any further? Would you like to run a credit check also?

Translation:

"wah" :baby

Ask away.

You have my word, I won't correct your spelling. I will even do a quid pro quo basis on questions.

You ask a question, I give an honest answer.

Then I get to ask a question, you have to give an honest answer.

We'll see how far that gets us towards finding some reasonable explanation for the events of 9-11.

[Don Quixote]

A reasonable approach!

Let's see how long this lasts.

[The other side]

Translation:

"wah" :baby

Ask away.

You have my word, I won't correct your spelling. I will even do a quid pro quo basis on questions.

You ask a question, I give an honest answer.

Then I get to ask a question, you have to give an honest answer.

We'll see how far that gets us towards finding some reasonable explanation for the events of 9-11.





Why did Bush just sit there reading a children's book after he heard of the attack?

[smeagol]

Why did Bush just sit there reading a children's book after he heard of the attack?

Because he was clearly part of the conspiracy . . .

[TeyshaBlue]

Why did Bush just sit there reading a children's book after he heard of the attack?

Well, some of those words were kinda hard. It took a while.:downspin:

[GoGatos.]

^ :lol


I guess Chump and RandomGuy are to busy looking for Google answers.

[RandomGuy]

Why did Bush just sit there reading a children's book after he heard of the attack?

Bush just sat there after being informed of the first plane. On that morning the first bit of news we heard was one plane hitting one building, everybody including myself, thought it was a terrible accident.

After being told of the second plane, everybody knew, including the president that it wasn't an accident, but rather it was an attack.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/60II/main521718.shtml


“I thought it was an accident,” says Mr. Bush. “I thought it was a pilot error. I thought that some foolish soul had gotten lost - and made a terrible mistake.”

Mr. Bush was told about the first plane just before sitting down with a class of second graders. He was watching a reading drill when, just after 9 a.m., United Flight 175 exploded into the second tower.

There was the sudden realization that what had seemed like a terrible mistake was a coordinated attack on the nation - live on TV.

Back in the Florida classroom, press secretary Ari Fleischer got the news on his pager. The president’s chief-of-staff, Andy Card, stepped in.

“A second plane hit the second tower; America is under attack,” Card told the president. What was Mr. Bush's reaction?

“I saw him coming to recognition of what I had said,” recalls Card. “I think he understood that he was going to have to take command as commander-in-chief, not just as president.”What was going through Bush’s mind when he heard the news?

“We’re at war and somebody has dared attack us and we’re going to do something about it,” recalls Mr. Bush. “I realized I was in a unique setting to receive a message that somebody attacked us, and I was looking at these little children and all of the sudden we were at war. I can remember noticing the press pool and the press corps beginning to get the calls and seeing the look on their face. And it became evident that we were, you know, that the world had changed.”

Mr. Bush walked into a classroom set up with a secure phone. He called the vice president, pulling the phone cord tight as he spun to see the attack on TV. Then he grabbed a legal pad and quickly wrote his first words to the nation.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is a difficult moment for America,” he said in the speech. “Today, we’ve had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country.”

It was 9:30 a.m. As he spoke, Mr. Bush didn’t know that two more hijacked jets were streaking toward Washington. Vice President Dick Cheney was in his office at the White House when a Secret Service agent ran in.

“He said to me, ‘Sir, we have to leave immediately’ and grabbed, put a hand on my belt, another hand on my shoulder and propelled me out the door of my office,” recalls Cheney. “I’m not sure how they do it, but they sort of levitate you down the hallway. You move very fast.”

[RandomGuy]

^ :lol


I guess Chump and RandomGuy are to busy looking for Google answers.

Pfft. Please don't confuse me actually spending some quality time with my family for me tirelessly trying to search for the answer to a conspiraquestion.

I spent all of 4 minutes on my answer, although I did read the whole article after I posted the excerpt. It was interesting.:toast

[word]

Let the flaming begin. :hungry:

Either the conspiracy theorists are right about a massive organized evil conspiracy, or they are wrong.



If it runs that deep it's pointless to discuss. May as well talk about UFO's.

[RandomGuy]

I ask yet again, for the 23rdnd time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES IN THE TWIN TOWERS?

We all know the answer, but only one side lacks the honesty to answer the question.

I have answered a simple, honest question, and now would like a simple honest answer.

[ClingingMars]

the very fact that people who believe this shit are alive is proof that it isn't true. why hasn't the gov't killed you yet, since you discovered their secret plot?

- Mars

[Agitator]

I ask yet again, for the 23rdnd time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES IN THE TWIN TOWERS?

We all know the answer, but only one side lacks the honesty to answer the question.

I have answered a simple, honest question, and now would like a simple honest answer.

Could you possibly make that text bigger, Mr. Math-equation?

I skimmed this thread and am amazed that it is one of the longest ones in this forum. :depressed

[mookie2001]

if theyre an eyewitness wouldnt they have to be visible?

[Galileo]

Another Air Traffic Controller Supports 9/11 Truth

Andrew Kornkven, an Air Traffic Controller from Minnesota for over 15 years, will come out of the woodwork tonight, and announce his support for 9/11 Truth on Dr. Kevin Barrett's radio show. Although Kornkven has written before on 9/11, he has never revealed to the public that he is an ATC.

Andy was my roommate in college during the 1980s at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and I was the best man at his wedding in 1999.

Dr. Barrett's radio show is tonight from 8 P.M. to 10 P.M. central time, April 22.

Listen live here, or look for archives:

http://www.wtprn.com/

Kornkven has already written several excellent essays regarding 9/11:

andrewkornkven's blog
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/253

"Mayday! Mayday!"-- What Really Happened in the Cockpit of United 93?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13376

David Ray Griffin Burrows Further Down the Rabbit Hole of No-Phone-Calls-From-the-Planes
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11860

Are the Hijackers-- the Real Ones-- Still Alive and With Us Today?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8961

Sex, Lies, and Phone Calls: The Ted and Barbara Story
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5679

Phone Calls From the Planes: Surprising New Evidence
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5583

Poll: Do you think the thirty or so calls made from the planes on 9/11 are real or faked?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5431

Phone Calls Analysis
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4190

The Elephant in the Room
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3355

My book review for "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11"-- rejected by Amazon.com!
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2479

Its interesting to note, that on September 11, 2001, Kornkven was not scheduled to work that day.

[RandomGuy]

Another Air Traffic Controller Supports 9/11 Truth



Did this guy see some visible explosive devices in the world trade center towers?

[RandomGuy]

Which is precisely about how long it took for the buildings to collapse.

qLShZOvxVe4

Maybe that air traffic controller can tell us how fast the buildings fell down

[RandomGuy]

Let’s do a quickie, common sense thought experiment to help understand what the “controlled demolition” theory is trying to say.

The controlled demolition theory rests on the following assumption: “the building was too strong to have collapsed from simple gravity”

Put another way “the building could easily absorb the energy of the falling section and not fully collapse”

Does this pass the common sense muster?

Let’s take an average guy off the street. He can hold a 100 pound bag over his head for a few minutes. Say he is balancing it on his head to make things simple. In terms of physics this means he is providing a force equal to gravity in order to hold this bag motionless.

This is what the lower 80 stories did for the upper 30 stories for 30 years before 9-11.

Now, one story is about 12.32 feet. The thirty floors started falling through the damaged sections, and at least one damaged, weakened floor gave way.

Take that bag away from our average guy and hold it 12.32 feet over his head. Now drop it on his head. What happens?

Ouch is right.

Let’s see how many pounds of force will be applied by that bag to the guy’s head.

KE is measured in joules. KE= ½* mass * velocity *velocity
First let’s convert to metric for ease of calculation.
Mass=45.36 kg http://manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm
H = 12.32 feet = 3.65 meters http://www.saudia-online.com/conversion%20Table.htm
Ending velocity of bag= 8.45 meters/s http://tutor4physics.com/calculators.htm

KE= ½(45.36)(8.45)(8.45) = 1619 joules
Convert 1619 Joules back to food/pounds force a.k.a. weight = 598 http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm (http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm)

For the controlled demolition theory to be correct the guy’s head must be able to apply almost 598 foot/pounds of force to stop the bag after such a fall.

Is this reasonable? I think we can safely, and without the possibility of jail time for seriously injuring some poor test subject, conclude that it is not.

Maybe “Galileo” would like to put this theory’s primary assumption to the test with a 100 bag of bullshit?

The original Galileo was actually instrumental in noting that the rate of falling objects is not dependant on mass http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smass.htm . Perhaps our modern, more retarded, version of the real scientist can contribute something to science and prove that his head can hold, even for a split second, an eleven hundred pound object.

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along… ;)

Maybe that air traffic controller did some math...

[RandomGuy]

Zs5jWvu4tR8

Meet the creators of "Loose Change".\

Maybe that air traffic controller met these guys

[RandomGuy]

4ikRc4ER2xY

Meet Alex "Armageddon is coming in april of 2008" Jones

Maybe that air traffic controller met Alex Jones...

[RandomGuy]

bMZ-nkYr46w

WTC fires were fully sufficient to cause the collapse.

Maybe he could explain how hot the fires really were...

[RandomGuy]

Maybe that controller speaks english better than "Galileo"


I'd like to see anyone that owns a building anywhere in the world turn off the fire alarms, then watch the building fall down a few hours later, then go on national TV and say "Pull it", and not be investigated for arson.

PULL IT!!

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027&q=pull+it&total=20339&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Except that he said "THEY" made the decision. Not "I made the decision" to pull it.

Let's look at everything the man said.


"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or was he saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

[RandomGuy]

One of the co-conspirators who was obviously ordered to lie to the media the afternoon of 9/11:

3HLDgjYuRHk

Maybe that air traffic controller met these co-conspirators and got them to confess...

[RandomGuy]

Jason Bermas of Loose Change Disparages the FDNY at Ground Zero

Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page


I have never encountered anyone in any sphere of endeavor as thoroughly misinformed as Jason Bermas, another “9/11 Truth Movement” leader, the most defiantly outspoken of Loose Change’s three creators, and its chief “researcher.” On the subject of 9/11, he seems to be completely incapable of getting anything right. Bermas has apparently spent a lot of time watching Alex Jones videos.

In my compilation Loose Change Creators Speak, Bermas mentions 18 conspiracy theories in a single interview, not because he’s reciting a list of them, but because that’s the way he talks. The following is a bit of an “aside,” but I think it’s important to show just how twisted the thinking of the leaders of the “9/11 Truth Movement” can be. Here is a sample of Bermas’ lunacy (pun intended):

“I contend that we may have been to the Moon, not with rocket technology, but with something else and it's secret. Definitely not the Apollo landings – they're a joke.”

“I really do feel like the evidence is there that these guys [U.S. political and religious leaders] are in the occult.”

On politician John Kerry: “This guy practices the occult. He had to in order to get into Skull & Bones [the not-so-secret Yale University club whose membership rolls were published by the school when Kerry was a member]. What ELSE is he capable of?”

Radio host: “And the 9/11 attack itself, is that the European group, or is that more the Americans, like Bush and Cheney?”

Bermas: “These guys in America are able to become billionaires, but they're not the multi-trillionaires that are in countries, basically with a free license to print money. So their power [the Americans' power] can only go so far.”

Host: “So you see it [The people behind the 9/11 attacks] as more of a European-type thing?”

Bermas: “Absolutely. I mean when you look at how bizarre some of these rituals are, and where these things come from...Helmut Schmidt, for instance, former German Chancellor, talks about all the things he used to do, all these Germanic death cults, and he talks about, you know, Bohemian Grove being a sex event and loving the rituals there, it's suspicious to me, man! I mean, I can see that with my own eyes. ...You look at things like the Montauk Project, and Boys' Town, and they definitely used, you know, drug addicts, sexual deviants. It's mind control! It's absolute mind control.”

“There was a report out in the past couple of days [on Alex Jones’ website, of course] that the government has been actually recruiting pastors and ministers to go around and say, you know, if something like the bird flu hits, it'll be good to go with, like, FEMA into camps and all these other federally-regulated areas, and they're actually being paid to say this stuff. And taking inoculations, and that is SCARY!”

“Unfortunately, in this country if there is another major event, and if it is incrementalized and larger than the last one, they could declare martial law at any moment, and have forced inocu-lations, and who's to say what they put in your body?”

“Believe it or not, TIVO was working on a brain chip, so that with your TIVO box there it would record what you want, when you want it, and it will base it on your brain patterns.”




http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/02301.jpg/02301-full.jpg
Prophetic logo according to Jason Bermas?


If Bermas and other 9/11 “Truth” leaders are so obviously divorced from reality, why am I spending my time doing this? Why not leave them alone to bark at the moon and be laughed at by sensible people?

Answer: because they have been effective at spreading their message. Millions and millions of people have viewed at least part of Loose Change, which is freely available on the internet. I get several emails a week thanking me for my Loose Change Viewer Guide (a major revision – with twice the information and better sourcing – is in the works), because for a time they had bought Loose Change’s propaganda. In August, that guide, which I don’t advertise, had a peak viewer ship of over 30,000 people in one day. That means many, many more people are out there with this stuff rattling around in their heads. Now I understand the meaning of “viral video.”

Even people who aren’t taken in by the more extreme claims of the 9/11 Denier Movement can find themselves thinking that there must be some evidence of US government involvement in the attacks, based on the sheer volume of conspiracist claims. I have yet to see any such evidence, and it’s not for lack of trying.


Back to Jason Bermas at Ground Zero.


As mentioned above, the purpose of the protest at Ground Zero on 9/11/06 was to get the attention of the mainstream media. Two days earlier, on 9/09/06, the Loose Change guys and Alex Jones visited Ground Zero. Their cameramen filmed the visit. You can watch it here. It begins with a preamble by Jason Bermas:

"You can just imagine just the flurry of people who are going to be here in memoriam of all those that died on September 11th. Really, we’re gearing up, we’re giving out 10,000 DVDs, we’ve got 1,100 shirts. We’re really gonna make our presence known. Finally the mainstream media is going to have to stop attacking us and start reporting on us fairly, and that’s really our goal."

Bermas then strolls past, and comments on, the large bronze relief of 9/11 firefighting operations, which is on the side of Firehouse 10, across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center.


Jason Bermas outside Firehouse 10. He forgot.




At 40:33 in the same video, speaking at Ground Zero on the same day, Bermas expresses his opinion of the low character of FDNY firefighters, in answer to a question by Abby Scott:


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/02402.jpg/02402-full.jpg
“The firefighters ARE paid off.”


Remember, this video is promoted by the creators of Loose Change. They’re proud of it


Months later, after I brought attention to his statement, Jason Bermas posted the following bizarre explanation on the Loose Change Blog:

[I]
I would just like to apologize for the comment I made to one Abby Scott on September 9th of this past year. I made the MISTAKE of saying that the firefighters were paid off, I did not mean this, and am convinced some sort of Jedi Mind trick was pulled on me.

I was discussing how if you have a government job and want to keep it, aka Controlled Demolition Inc. you keep your mouth shut. It then moved to the firefighters and some how I said "The firefighters are paid off", and then cited how many of them discussed the bombs in the days after. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FIREFIGHTERS WERE PAID OFF! I hold them as heroes in the highest regard, and I truly believe that they were threatened in the aftermath of the event that not only traumatized a country, but still affect their lives deeply to this very day. Many of these men have families, and would do anything to keep them safe. I also believe many of them do not, and can not think the worst of their country. I know it was very difficult for me.

So, Mr. Bermas believes, not that the firefighters were paid to keep quiet about what they know, but that they are being threatened to keep quiet. He does not present any evidence to back this absurd claim. He also seems to be implying that the respected firm Controlled Demolitions Inc. was somehow involved in this conspiracy.

Did the 9/11/06 Ground Zero protest achieve its goal of garnering massive media attention? Dylan Avery, writer and director of Loose Change:

"And shame on the mainstream media in general for participating in what can only be de-scribed as a media blackout. Those that did mention it marginalized it dramatically.

We are not conspiracy theorists by any stretch.

We are a growing body of concerned Americans who have both investigated the events and experienced them first-hand, and we are absolutely convinced that our government is hid-ing the truth from us, whatever the truth may be."

Dylan Avery, posting on the Loose Change blog, October 3, 2006: “I find it extremely telling that this article from Mexico gives us more coverage [of 9/11] than anything we experienced from American Mainstream Media combined.”

I believe Mr. Avery is complaining about the lack of positive mainstream media coverage, not about the lack of coverage such as that hilariously dished out by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone on Sept. 26, 2006:

"I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot – not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together – that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter."

You can watch a two-part debate between Bermas and Avery of Loose Change, versus myself and Ronald Wieck, on the TV show Hardfire. Part 1 Part 2.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Next: Alex Jones Vilifies the FDNY and Larry Silverstein at Ground Zero

Maybe he thinks the firefighters were paid off...

[RandomGuy]

Before we continue examining conspiracist misrepresentations about WTC 7, it's important that we understand what the official version of events is. Here's a summary, from the NIST report.

Essential Reading: NIST NCSTAR 1-8 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: The Emergency Response Operations. (PDF)

Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response.


• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on at least 16 floors]. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

That’s certainly straightforward. Building 7 was severely damaged and had severe, uncontrollable fires, and the FDNY withdrew its firefighters to protect their safety.

Maybe that air traffic controller, you know, talked to someone involved in the actual WTC decision making process...

[Galileo]

The Air Traffic controller will not be discussing the WTC, sorry. He will be sharing his expert knowledge of commercial aircraft and the FAA.

[Galileo]

If we allowed waterboarding, I bet we could get Cheney to admit he was complicit in 9/11.

[RandomGuy]

The Air Traffic controller will not be discussing the WTC, sorry. He will be sharing his expert knowledge of commercial aircraft and the FAA.

Maybe if I asked HIM a simple question a couple of dozen times, he could answer it. :toast

[wrench]

are There Any Eyewitness Accounts That Dinosaurs Existed?



are There Any Eyewitness Accounts That Oj Killed His Wife?






are There Any Eyewitness Accounts That Randomguy Has A Life?

[Don Quixote]

Umm ... no.

Paleontology is by its nature a science that is unable to directly observe and repeat its findings in a laboratory. It's not possible for there to be any eyewitnesses, as there were most likely no human witnesses to living dinosaurs. The same goes for almost all of the study of history. No, there are no longer any eyewitnesses available for the Pelopenesian war, the Resurrection, or the Battle of Tours. Sorry. We rely on historical documents to supply our information. But we're not historical skeptics, either -- we generally trust the writings of Tacitus, Livy, Paul, unless there is good reason not to.

Second, with a double-homicide case such as OJ, there is only one person alive who can tell with absolute certainty (whatever that means) whether or not OJ killed his wife in cold blood, and that's the murderer. Since he's not talking, we have to rely on forensics.

And third, the jury is still out on whether RandomDude has a life. A strike against him is his apparent support of Obama. I guess he believes in change, and in the future. But I'll go out on a limb and say that he does, indeed, have a life.

9-11 is a different matter altogether because there are tons of survivors. Not only that, but practically all of the events have been preserved, I guess for eternity, on videotape or digital media. So there are tons of potential eyewitnesses, both to attest to alleged explosives being planted in the towers, and to how the bad guys killed 3000 of our countrymen. But no one's talking. Therefore, your counterexamples do not meet the same criteria, and so they fail.

[xrayzebra]

Well all I can say is that some folks are taking exception to all these
folks who say we did it to ourselves. AQ is pissed at Iran for saying
Israel did the deed and taking their thunder away from them. Someone needs to get this straighten out immediately. It is causing too much confusion.

BBC NEWS
Al-Qaeda accuses Iran of 9/11 lie

Al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has blamed Iran for spreading the theory that Israel was behind the 11 September 2001 attacks.

In an audio tape posted on the internet, Zawahiri insisted al-Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the US.

He accused Iran, and its Hezbollah allies, of trying to discredit Osama Bin Laden's network.

Correspondents say the comments underline al-Qaeda's increasing public hostility towards Iran.

In a two-hour audiotape posted on an Islamist website, Osama Bin Laden's chief deputy responded to questions posted by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

In response to a question about persistent rumours in the Middle East that Israel was involved in the 9/11 attacks, Zawahiri said the rumour had begun on the Hezbollah television station, Al-Manar.

"The purpose of this lie is clear - [to suggest] that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no-one else did in history, he said.

"Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it."

Sunni fears

Zawahiri went on to criticise Iran for co-operating with the US in its 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, that helped to oust the Taleban.

"Iran's aim here is also clear - to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.

This is the second verbal attack on Iran, a predominantly Shia Muslim country.

Earlier this month, in an audiotape marking the fifth anniversary of the fall of Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein, the al-Qaeda deputy accused Iran of planning to annexe southern Iraq and the eastern part of the Arabian peninsula.

BBC security correspondent Rob Watson says such messages appear designed to play on Sunni fears throughout the region of growing Iranian influence, and to present al-Qaeda as the best bulwark against Tehran.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7361414.stm

Published: 2008/04/22 17:04:39 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

[RandomGuy]

Umm ... no.

Paleontology is by its nature a science that is unable to directly observe and repeat its findings in a laboratory. It's not possible for there to be any eyewitnesses, as there were most likely no human witnesses to living dinosaurs. The same goes for almost all of the study of history. No, there are no longer any eyewitnesses available for the Pelopenesian war, the Resurrection, or the Battle of Tours. Sorry. We rely on historical documents to supply our information. But we're not historical skeptics, either -- we generally trust the writings of Tacitus, Livy, Paul, unless there is good reason not to.

Second, with a double-homicide case such as OJ, there is only one person alive who can tell with absolute certainty (whatever that means) whether or not OJ killed his wife in cold blood, and that's the murderer. Since he's not talking, we have to rely on forensics.

And third, the jury is still out on whether RandomDude has a life. A strike against him is his apparent support of Obama. I guess he believes in change, and in the future. But I'll go out on a limb and say that he does, indeed, have a life.

9-11 is a different matter altogether because there are tons of survivors. Not only that, but practically all of the events have been preserved, I guess for eternity, on videotape or digital media. So there are tons of potential eyewitnesses, both to attest to alleged explosives being planted in the towers, and to how the bad guys killed 3000 of our countrymen. But no one's talking. Therefore, your counterexamples do not meet the same criteria, and so they fail.


Correct on all counts.

Jeez, it didn't take two dozen attempts to get a fair answer either.

[RandomGuy]

Well all I can say is that some folks are taking exception to all these
folks who say we did it to ourselves. AQ is pissed at Iran for saying
Israel did the deed and taking their thunder away from them. Someone needs to get this straighten out immediately. It is causing too much confusion.

BBC NEWS
Al-Qaeda accuses Iran of 9/11 lie

Al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has blamed Iran for spreading the theory that Israel was behind the 11 September 2001 attacks.

In an audio tape posted on the internet, Zawahiri insisted al-Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the US.

He accused Iran, and its Hezbollah allies, of trying to discredit Osama Bin Laden's network.

Correspondents say the comments underline al-Qaeda's increasing public hostility towards Iran.

In a two-hour audiotape posted on an Islamist website, Osama Bin Laden's chief deputy responded to questions posted by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

In response to a question about persistent rumours in the Middle East that Israel was involved in the 9/11 attacks, Zawahiri said the rumour had begun on the Hezbollah television station, Al-Manar.

"The purpose of this lie is clear - [to suggest] that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no-one else did in history, he said.

"Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it."

Sunni fears

Zawahiri went on to criticise Iran for co-operating with the US in its 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, that helped to oust the Taleban.

"Iran's aim here is also clear - to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.

This is the second verbal attack on Iran, a predominantly Shia Muslim country.

Earlier this month, in an audiotape marking the fifth anniversary of the fall of Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein, the al-Qaeda deputy accused Iran of planning to annexe southern Iraq and the eastern part of the Arabian peninsula.

BBC security correspondent Rob Watson says such messages appear designed to play on Sunni fears throughout the region of growing Iranian influence, and to present al-Qaeda as the best bulwark against Tehran.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7361414.stm

Published: 2008/04/22 17:04:39 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Yeah, I heard about that. Interesting bit, and could lead to some interesting stategic considerations.

[Galileo]

Listen to the Air Traffic Controller:

http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett/0804/20080422_Tue_Barrett2.mp3

[DarrinS]

Listen to the Air Traffic Controller:

http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett/0804/20080422_Tue_Barrett2.mp3


Had to stop listening after the whole "cell phones don't work in airplanes" bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Listen to the Air Traffic Controller:

http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett/0804/20080422_Tue_Barrett2.mp3

9/11 Debunked: Cell phone calls weren't faked.

Z96MZOZyilo

You f***ers aren't even trying very hard anymore.

Maybe you could watch this one and tell me where it is sloppy with the facts...:lmao

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

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

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Maybe that air traffic controller has read all of these links...

[RandomGuy]

Let the flaming begin. :hungry:

Either the conspiracy theorists are right about a massive organized evil conspiracy, or they are wrong.

If they are right about 9-11 being planned by an evil government conspiracy willing and capable of killing thousand of their own citizens, they would be just as motivated to keep that fact a secret.

An easy method of doing this is to do a disinformation campaign. All it takes is one or two paid evil guys willing to lie, a computer and some time.

The best way to do such a disinformation campaign is, as the conspiracy theorists themselves point out in my previous post is as follows:

Think of the stupidest shit possible
Present it in such a blatantly false and easily debunked manner that anybody with any common sense at all would recognize it immediately as stupid bullshit
This would then lead normal pepole to then associate all the real conspiracy evidence with this obvious quackery to discredit the whole movement to expose the grand evil conspiracy

IF there is a grand evil conspiracy, THEN at least SOME of the conspiracy "evidence" has been manufactured to be obviously stupid to put people off the trail.

THEREFORE:
IF the evil conpiracy exists AND you say you believe all of the conspiracy "evidence/theories" you MUST either:

1) Be one of those paid disinformation agents, and be lying and evil

or

2) Be too stupid to not recognize the obviously fake stuff that has been planted by the paid disinformation agents.

There are no other possibilities.


I wonder if the air traffic controller believes in all of the conspiracy bullshit?

[Galileo]

Had to stop listening after the whole "cell phones don't work in airplanes" bullshit.

The FBI says that no connected cell phone calls were made from the hijacked planes, dumbass.

[Agitator]

9/11 Debunked: Cell phone calls weren't faked.

Z96MZOZyilo

You f***ers aren't even trying very hard anymore.

Maybe you could watch this one and tell me where it is sloppy with the facts...:lmao

Dude, you are wasting your time with these "f***ers". The have their theories and are sticking to them like some cheap voodoo doll good luck charm.

You can't change their minds, because they can no more give up that part of them than the guys in Africa could give up their good luck charms that protect them from the "penis thieves".

[RandomGuy]

The FBI says that no connected cell phone calls were made from the hijacked planes, dumbass.

That's what this video says too.

Z96MZOZyilo

So why would the air traffic controller talk about "cell phone" calls when the "official account" doesn't say anything about cell phone calls?

Is it because the mental midget watched "Loose Change" and believed that the people behind Loose Change had any commitment to the truth? :nope

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Cause I can.

[Don Quixote]

Yes you can.

Doesn't mean you ought to, though.

[RandomGuy]

Yes you can.

Doesn't mean you ought to, though.

I figure if we are going to talk about 9-11, it should all be done in one thread, as opposed to the bazillion threads which 9-11 conspiracy nuts always spam every forum they can.

At least this one starts with a list of debunking websites.

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Every three to four weeks or so.

Maybe there are some conspirabuffs in LA... :lol

[ClingingMars]

65 pages of bullshit? what a waste of bandwidth.

- Mars

[RandomGuy]

65 pages of bullshit? what a waste of bandwidth.

- Mars

It isn't a waste.

The peddlers of the conspiracy bullshit suck the unsuspecting in with the occasional semi-reasonable ploy, and get them to believe stupid things.

It is little better than a destructive cult, and as such should be strongly countered to keep the gullible from falling for it.

This thread is a monument to how tenaciously the zealots of the "9-11 truth" movement cling to their bizarre beliefs in the face of science and reason.

Zealots like that should never go uncountered. Anything that shows people who might be tempted to beleive them just how insane they are is worthwhile.

[Don Quixote]

Not to bring my field into it again, but I find it necessarily to strongly counter those who make strange claims about the Bible (what it says, where it came from) and the church in general. This is because either the cults (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) or some book (e.g., da Vinci code) make some reasonable-appearing claims that suck in a lot of people. This is not a new phenomenon -- certain groups have done it since the beginning.

Anyway, RandomDude, you are at your best when taking on the 9-11 Truthers. You have done a fine job. :toast

[ClingingMars]

even still, 65 pages devoted to one cult? come on man.

- Mars

[Don Quixote]

Some cults are persistent.

[RandomGuy]

even still, 65 pages devoted to one cult? come on man.

- Mars

(shrugs)

Better 65 pages in one thread than 3 pages in 30 threads.

Conspiracy theorists are very insistant about this shit. Remember, it is akin to a core belief system for them, and when you question those basic dogmatic beliefs, you get a lot of push back.

One of the things that drives the length of these threads is that for both sides it is something like the formal Japanese theater, Kabuki, with stock charactors, and repeating plot themes.

The conspiracy theorists, for their part, copy and paste shit endlessly from their favorite sites, making it easy for them to go on and on.

For my part, I have been arguing against them for about as long as they have attempted to pass this stupidity off as "truth", and I have just as many ready-made answers that debunk every single point they copy and paste here.

I have changed a few minds here and there, and that makes it worth my while. At this point it is very easy for me to keep up, and so it goes on, as long as these people seek converts, there should be people who are ready to stand and deliver a healthy dose of critical thinking to innoculate people against this stupidity.

I wish it were otherwise.

Given the weight of that day, and the importance of it for understanding our world, it is worth the effort to get at the best possible explanation.

[Don Quixote]

I am the same way with Jehovah's Witnesses. I know all their arguments. I contend with them, however, not to make them look stupid or feel bad, but because I genuinely care about them. I know what they really are -- people created in God's image, but lost and needing his grace.

Not exactly the same thing as Truthers, but then again, you can say JW's are the Truthers of the Christian world.

[longcall911]

The conspiracy theorists, for their part, copy and paste shit endlessly from their favorite sites, making it easy for them to go on and on.
Most are more interested in spewing shit than in uncovering truth. Besides, if you blame the US government you also get to sit on the sidelines claiming "there's nothing anyone can do to combat secret factions within our own government" rather than take a stand to help destroy the evil crap that flew those planes into our buildings.

/*tom*/

[Don Quixote]

Yes! This is a key psychological factor in conspiracy movements -- the satisfaction of having figured it all out, but not actually having to take the responsibility of doing anything about it, since we're powerless anyway. Great point.

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Because Galileo has yet to answer my questions.

[ChumpDumper]

I tell you, truthers can be some dumb motherfuckers:

EUdsKTRj70I

These guys get a GOLDEN opportunity to educate themselves about Al Qaeda and the government's actions concerning that organization from the former head of Alec Station. This guy knows pretty much all there is to know about AQ and things like the alleged ties to Saddam Hussein, etc.

So what do they do? Waste everyone's time with saying a religion professor doesn't think it's Bin Laden on the video tapes and telling him the think Bin Laden worked for the joooooooooooooooooos.

Scheuer then gives a very valuable opinion about the 9/11 Commission (one I have given several times on this board) -- and what does the truther do? Asks him about WTC7.

Scheuer is a first-class dick and has some pretty strident views, I'm shocked he was as tolerant as he appeared to be.

[Nbadan]

What does Scheuner know that numerous former US military officials don't?

USA Military Officers Challenge Official Account of September 11


"Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically."

Link (http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3865-usa-military-officers-challenge-official-account-of-september-11.html)


“My research led me to a much more important and timely question: the mystery of what really did happen on 9/11. Everything that seemed real, turned out to be false. The US government and the news media, once again, were lying to the world about the real terrorists and the public murder of 2,972 innocents on 9/11.
“The ‘Patriot Act’ was actually written prior to 9/11 with the intention of destroying the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was passed by Congress, based upon the government's myth of 9/11, which was in reality a staged hoax. 9/11 was scripted and executed by rogue elements of the military, FAA, intelligence, and private contractors working for the US government.

“In addition to severely curtailing fundamental rights of Americans, the 9/11 crime was then used by this administration, the one I originally voted for and supported, to justify waging two preemptive wars (and most likely a third war), killing over 4,500 American soldiers, and killing over one million innocent Afghan and Iraqi people.

“It was all premeditated. Treason, a false flag military operation, and betrayal of the trust of the American people were committed on 9/11 by the highest levels of the US government and not one person responsible for the crimes, or the cover-up, has been held accountable for the last six years.

“After reading fifteen well-researched books, studying eight or nine DVD documentaries, and devoting months of personal research and investigation, I have arrived at one ultimate conclusion: The American government and the US Constitution have been hijacked and subverted by a group of criminals that today are the real terrorists. They are in control of the US government and they have all violated their oaths of office and committed treason against their own citizens.”

- Former U.S. Air Force pilot Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom

[Nbadan]

“As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.”
Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam, Capt. Davis also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.

Capt. Davis continued, “Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!

“Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is difficult for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled ‘terrorists’. Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State’

-- Capt. Daniel Davis is a former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director

[Nbadan]

“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”

Regarding the failure of NORAD to intercept the four hijacked planes on 9/11, Col. Bowman said, “I'm an old interceptor pilot. I know the drill. I've done it. I know how long it takes. I know the rules. … Critics of the government story on 9/11 have said: ‘Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing’. That's not true. If our government had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”


During his 22-year Air Force career, Col. Bowman also served as the Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. He also flew over 100 combat missions in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot.

-- Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD

[ChumpDumper]

What do they think really happened on 9/11?

And tell me dan -- do you get all your news from Pakistani articles with no bylines?

[ChumpDumper]

Nevermind. It was just ripped off from the patriotsquestion911.com site.

Why didn't you post this four months ago?

[mookie2001]

come on chump find the link to dr. marriotts youtube where he debunks patriot911questions.net

[ChumpDumper]

Why bother? These guys are all over the map. Get back to me when these guys agree on whether there were actually planes or not.

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Because galileo is trying to spread his stupidity like mold on bread...

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

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

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

ueber-bump

[RandomGuy]

Bump again. Galileo's thread shouldn't be above this one, where all that shit has already been debunked.

[cant w8 4 2012]

why did wtc 7 fall?All these intellectuals,someone please enlighten me.

[ChumpDumper]

An unfought fire affecting critical components of a unique structure built over an existing power substation brought down building 7.

You're welcome.

[Nbadan]

Bump again. Galileo's thread shouldn't be above this one, where all that shit has already been debunked.

:wtf

Did I miss something? Where did you prove conclusively how WTC7 collapsed?

[Nbadan]

An unfought fire affecting critical components of a unique structure built over an existing power substation brought down building 7.

Chumpy must have info that eludes NIST...

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

:wtf

Did I miss something? Where did you prove conclusively how WTC7 collapsed?
Where did you say what you think really happened on 9/11?

[ChumpDumper]

Chumpy must have info that eludes NIST...

:lolThat's pretty obviously NIST's working hypothesis.

What is yours?

[cant w8 4 2012]

Wow,How many other building caught fire and imploded onto themselves. There were some that were much closer to the actual site.

[Nbadan]

hat's pretty obviously NIST's working hypothesis.

A working hypothesis that they have yet to release officially for peer analysis...after 7 years almost...

[ChumpDumper]

Wow,How many other building caught fire and imploded onto themselves. There were some that were much closer to the actual site.None were constructed like WTC 7.

Building 5 experienced some serious collapses from fire too if you bothered to look.

But I'm sure you aren't serious.

[ChumpDumper]

A working hypothesis that they have yet to release officially for peer analysis...after 7 years almost...They haven't worked on 7 for seven years.

What is your theory again, dan?

[Nbadan]

Wow,How many other building caught fire and imploded onto themselves. There were some that were much closer to the actual site.

...that's easy....none...several building received catastrophic damage, but none collapsed onto themselves

[cant w8 4 2012]

A working hypothesis that they have yet to release officially for peer analysis...after 7 years almost...

.......

[ChumpDumper]

What do either of you think really happened to building 7?

Here's your chance.

Spit it out.

[Nbadan]

.......


....it's the same old story....inconclusive for now....

[ChumpDumper]

....it's the same old story....inconclusive for now....What is your story dan?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Nbadan]

What do either of you think really happened to building 7?

There are indications and eyewitness accounts that there were explosions in WTC7 before either WTC1 or WTC2 collapsed...

[ChumpDumper]

There are indications and eyewitness accounts that there were explosions in WTC7 before either WTC1 or WTC2 collapsed...Not my question.

What do you think really happened to building 7?

[cant w8 4 2012]

you're the debunking genius.I never said I knew what happened.But I know when I'm being deceived.You have to ask questions,and these questions are not being answered by the people who should know beforehand,let alone 8 years later.

[ChumpDumper]

you're the debunking genius.I never said I knew what happened.But I know when I'm being deceived.You have to ask questions,and these questions are not being answered by the people who should know beforehand,let alone 8 years later.I'm asking you a question.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

Give me something else to believe.

[cant w8 4 2012]

I also believe the people who were actually there,I know you heard the fire fighters tell their story.You saying these men risk they're lives and then come out making up stories of what they heard?

[ChumpDumper]

I also believe the people who were actually there,I know you heard the fire fighters tell their story.You saying these men risk they're lives and then come out making up stories of what they heard?Heard what?

Explosions?

Things explode and make noises like explosions when buildings burn and collapse.

Show me a FDNY firefighter who says explicitly 9/11 was something other than a terrorist attack.

I believe the firefighters interviewed in the BBC documentary about building 7.

Do you?

[ChumpDumper]

Dan?
What do you think really happened to building 7?

[cant w8 4 2012]

I believe that there are people out there who love playing x-box listening to korn driving they little sports car picking up rats to take home to stroke their ego and tell them nothing is wrong.have you seen the power this administration has given itself? we are literally a terrorists threat away from a police state,thanks to the events on 9/11.We can't let 3000plus in new york and 4000 plus in iraq die without us even asking how or why

[ChumpDumper]

I believe that there are people out there who love playing x-box listening to korn driving they little sports car picking up rats to take home to stroke their ego and tell them nothing is wrong.have you seen the power this administration has given itself? we are literally a terrorists threat away from a police state,thanks to the events on 9/11.We can't let 3000plus in new york and 4000 plus in iraq die without us even asking how or whyWhat do you think really happened on 9/11?

[cant w8 4 2012]

I never really asked myself that.too much has gone on since.only the ignorant stop asking questions.I was glad to see your opinion And lets just stick together as "regular" people.Peace

[ChumpDumper]

I never really asked myself that.So you don't even care about what really happened on 9/11.

Please don't participate in any further discussion on this topic. Leave it to the people who actually care.

Thanks.

[cant w8 4 2012]

why you gotta start actin like a bitch. you're white,cuz only white people will start talking shit after someone makes peace with them.faggot ass white boy bitch

[ChumpDumper]

why you gotta start actin like a bitch. you're white,cuz only white people will start talking shit after someone makes peace with them.faggot ass white boy bitchYou don't care about what really happened on 9/11, so there is no reason for you to be in this thread.

Thanks.

[cant w8 4 2012]

now i'm unpatriotic,silent weapons for quiet wars.

[ChumpDumper]

I never said you were unpatriotic.

You just don't care about what really happened on 9/11.

Many don't.

Nothing wrong with that.

This thread is for those who do.

[cant w8 4 2012]

fuck you for saying that,but thank you for your opinion.

[ChumpDumper]

For saying you aren't unpatriotic for not caring about what really happened on 9/11?

You're welcome.

[cant w8 4 2012]

you know you have not told me what you think happened.c'mon whats the official story.

[Nbadan]

why you gotta start actin like a bitch. you're white,cuz only white people will start talking shit after someone makes peace with them.faggot ass white boy bitch

:lol losing your cool always works

[ChumpDumper]

I generally agree with the story described in the several government reports that are readily available on the internets -- mainly those from the NIST.

Would you like a link so you can read them yourself? They are very long and detailed, but there are summaries that are more brief.

[cant w8 4 2012]

absolutly and thank you.

[Nbadan]

I generally agree with the story described in the several government reports that are readily available on the internets -- mainly those from the NIST.

Define: The 9/11 faith movement.....

[ChumpDumper]

Define: The 9/11 faith movement.....What do you believe really happened on 9/11?

[cant w8 4 2012]

Define: The 9/11 faith movement.....

uh oh:nope

[cant w8 4 2012]

where are my links?

[Nbadan]

What do you believe really happened on 9/11?

I'll wait to see what the official NIST report says.....

[ChumpDumper]

absolutly and thank you.http://wtc.nist.gov/

The links at the beginning of this thread are quite useful as well.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll wait to see what the official NIST report says.....Do you believe their final report about WTC 1 and 2?

Yes or no.

[cant w8 4 2012]

i thank you, 1 more question where was the wreckage from the pentagon attack? only one video camera was pointed at the worlds most secure building?

[cant w8 4 2012]

whoa bubba, i must read this info.i'm sure i'll catch you in here again.

[ChumpDumper]

i thank you, 1 more question where was the wreckage from the pentagon attack?Inside the Pentagon. There are several pictures that were released during the Moussaoui trial, and there is a new book about the firefighting effort there.

You can hear an interview with the authors here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90696597


only one video camera was pointed at the worlds most secure building?That part, yes. There are several eyewitness accounts corroborating the plane's crashing into the pentagon. There are some other private security cameras that caught bits of the flight, but nothing as good as the actual Pentagon camera.

[cant w8 4 2012]

this has not too much to do with 9/11 but what about the solid proof of enriched uranium? gotta answer 4 that too?

[ChumpDumper]

this has not too much to do with 9/11 but what about the solid proof of enriched uranium? gotta answer 4 that too?Enriched uranium where?

I have all kinds of problems with the run-up to the Iraq war, if that is what you are talking about. That's the subject of many other threads though.

[cant w8 4 2012]

last question and it has been fun.why did these things take so long to come out,yet war was going on within a year (might b mistaken,it's late)ith no solid proof on either country. yet still deal with pakistan,who i belive have admitted to trainng terrorist

[ChumpDumper]

last question and it has been fun.why did these things take so long to come out,yet war was going on within a year (might b mistaken,it's late)ith no solid proof on either country.There was all kinds of evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks, and the hijackers did nothing to hide their identities. Many of them had known connections to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. The Pentagon had no military plan for invading Afghanistan, so they went with a plan that the CIA had formulated late in the Clinton administration.

Iraq, again, is another story.


yet still deal with pakistan,who i belive have admitted to trainng terroristThat's definitely a sticking point in US foreign policy. It's very difficult since the ISI basically created the Taliban and the lawless border region of Pakistan is indeed home to many terrorists.

Right after 9/11, we gave Musharraf an ultimatum to work with us, and given the constraints of his own situation, he has cooperated. Iraq has been an enormous distraction from the festering problem of extremists in the border area of Pakistan.

[cant w8 4 2012]

8 years for a excuse?

[ChumpDumper]

8 years for a excuse?Excuse for what?

[RandomGuy]

you're the debunking genius.I never said I knew what happened.But I know when I'm being deceived.You have to ask questions,and these questions are not being answered by the people who should know beforehand,let alone 8 years later.

I ask a lot of questions of the conspiracy theorists, but don't get any answers, just crappy links to conspiracy websites.

What kind of questions do you have that aren't being answered?

[RandomGuy]

By the by, here is how the official report plays out the initial collapse, essentially the same for both buildings based on my reading of the NIST report. Feel free to read the thing and correct this with a better understanding if you so choose.

Airliner impacts building. Collision injects fire and initial fuel into an office environment filled with other fuel, such as plastic, paper, and furniture, in addition to literally knocking the thin coating of spray on insulation from the structural steel. Simultaineous fires start in multiple floors of the building in wide sections of those floors, in addition to weakening the structure.

In the damaged sections, you have the remaining load bearing structure taking up the extra load from the portions that were destroyed from the collision.

Add to this extra load stress per column (both inner and outer), additional lateral (sideways) stresses are placed from expanding trusses exposed to heat. With the additional load, and weakened by fire, the hottest columns start exhibiting "plasticity" and begin to sag, pulling on the connecting floor, and pulling the face of the building inwards at the floor/wall joints.

Eventually, some part of the buildng gives way, and this instantly places more stress on the remaining structure, itself nearing limits of load/stress capacity. This results in a rather rapid collapse of nearby sections and simple physics do the rest.

Did the structural steel melt? No. You don't have to even get close to melting point to get loss of strength. Medieval blacksmiths didn't have near the ability to melt iron or steel, but could get it hot enough to work with hammer and anvil into swords, armor, horseshoes, and all manner of things.
Steel loses about 20% of its load bearing capacity at 300C, and some portions of the fires were hotter than that.

Here's a good summation of 1 and 2, 7 happened slightly different, but still collapsed after a half-day's worth of uncontrolled fires.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

The link at the top gives the webpage with the Frequently Asked Questions. They scientifically address all of the main claims of conspiracy theorists.

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

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

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Other people have done some rather good, hard looks at the claims of the "grand evil conspiracy", and have put a lot of effort into it.

[RandomGuy]

The main thing that the government is at fault for in 9-11 is that there was probably enough collectively known by various field agents and others to have stopped the plot, IF those agents, and agencies had actually been coordinated and the agencies themselves took the threat a bit more seriously.

A lot of people tried to cover their asses by claiming they didn't quite know enough to conclusively run things up the chain of command and get some more action.

That is about it. The information was there and known in bits and pieces, but nobody really put 2 and 2 together to come up with 4 and act on it.

There were no controlled demolitions, fake planes, lasers, missles, remote controlled jetliners, vast evil conspiracies, just a sad lack of coordination and 19 or 20 guys who really weren't afraid to kill and die in the process.

Tragic? Yes.
Preventable? Possibly.
Directly orchestrated by the government? No.

That is as far as it goes.

[cant w8 4 2012]

go to youtube and type in "hidden from eyes" what about the cut shapes on the central beams? how can a terrorist on a plane with a boxcutter cut the steel beams at an angle?

[RandomGuy]

go to youtube and type in "hidden from eyes" what about the cut shapes on the central beams? how can a terrorist on a plane with a boxcutter cut the steel beams at an angle?

They can't.

The steelworkers cleaning up the site after the collapse could and did. This is the source of all the pictures that cause this mistaken impression.

This bit has been debunked already. I can provide links and youtube videos that show this.

Next question?

[cant w8 4 2012]

They can't.

The steelworkers cleaning up the site after the collapse could and did. This is the source of all the pictures that cause this mistaken impression.

This bit has been debunked already. I can provide links and youtube videos that show this.

Next question?

can i get those links?:toast

[cant w8 4 2012]

you could just tell me and i'll do the work,no prob

[RandomGuy]

can i get those links?:toast

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

There you go.

If you reaaaally want a youtube video or two, I can probably find one, but this should be sufficient.

(edit)

They have updated the link above since I last looked at it, and included youtube videos. No need to search.

[RandomGuy]

I will check back later for your next question. Take care.