"I'm confident that they'll find the cause of this," said Gene Corley, a private engineer who has investigated numerous disasters including the World Trade Center collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-05-minnesotabridge_N.htm

"We normally don't like to get involved unless we have assurances that we are given a free hand to really perform a thorough and totally unbiased investigation..." Velivasakis says.

His firm, Thornton Tomasetti, specializes in stabilizing disaster sites and determining why structures collapse.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/22/investigator/

I couldn't figure out how to display this image in the blog, but here's the link:

Look familiar?

These are characteristic features indicating the use of explosives:
1) Outward arching dust plumes
2) Formation of debris cloud that is symmetrical around the vertical axis of the structure
3) Heavier material is propelled out ahead of the dust

See "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" pgs 46-47
http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey
(See below for his criticism of my statements, cited by David Ray Griffin in Debunking 9/11 Debunking)

This response is posted at http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

Why Have So Many Been Taken for a Ride?

One of the problems we have with the fraudulent claims that are made regarding the existence of self-crushing steel frame buildings is the fact that many people lack an intuitive sense of the strength and resilience of these structures. They have allowed themselves to become convinced by an alleged scenario that is physically impossible. My Erector Set illustration is intended to address this problem.

The not-so-Plausible Impossible

I can still remember, as a kid, listening to Walt Disney explain the concept of the "Plausible Impossible". When a cartoon character runs off the edge of a cliff, for example, into mid-air, if he turns around and scrambles back fast enough he can save himself from falling. This is impossible of course in "real life", but a skilled animator can nonetheless make it seem quite plausible.

http://www.truememes.com/blog1/

The authors of this film, in spite of their sophistication about many important issues, unfortunately seem to be totally clueless as to the nature and purpose of religion. If one were to take their argument in Part 1 and apply it to science, it would be like saying that science should be shunned because the scientific method is part of a conspiracy by scientists to create ways to blow things up and control people with fear. Should we ban science because it is used to make bombs? Science has done good things AND bad things. The same is true of religion.

They leap from their critique of organized religion to an attack on theism itself. This will turn off a lot of people and cause others (like myself) to be embarrassed by the know-it-all attitude of the narrator. Parts 2 and 3 include a lot of important material and I want to recommend this film, but Part 1 makes me cringe.

There’s THEIR kind of collapse and there’s OUR kind of collapse.

In the past, I have argued that we should completely stop using the word “collapse” when referring to the destruction of the WTC Towers.
http://www.truememes.com/semantics.html

My main points have been that 1) the word “collapse”, as a global descriptor, does not properly convey the explosive character of many of the dynamic features of the destruction and that 2) the government and media have exploited this fact in their relentless use of the word as a way to minimize citizen awareness of the explosive features.

Both of these factors work against us in our efforts to get the truth out, and in fact suggest that whenever we use the word “collapse” in this context, we are, to some degree, unwittingly endorsing government/media propaganda — in spite of whatever else we may be saying.

Here are my impressions of "A Mighty Heart", a film that could have offered important insights into 9/11, but didn't...

“A Mighty Heart” is a fully-funded attempt at creating myths and martyrs, a slick but tiresome propaganda package that quickly loses credibility due to its obvious bias and unrelenting exploitation of tear-jerking flashback memories and heart-rending emotional outbursts from a “vulnerable but tough” Mariane Pearl (Angelina Jolie), who is also very pregnant. Her stunning good looks were apparently enlisted to shore up the questionable content of the film. Any words that emerge from close-up shots of those voluptuous lips MUST be true, after all. Thankfully, the theater was nearly empty on a Friday night.