Thx a lot!

This article was written by Kevin Ryan, the former employee of Underwriter Lab. Unfortunately that's not that clear and only comprehensible out of context.

We should back him and thank him for his courage to speak out!

Doug, relax. Just sit back & "pull-it."

Doug, relax. Just sit back & "pull-it."
Anonymous | 03.30.06 - 11:52 am | #

HAHAHHAHAH!!!!!

off topic - I just obtained a copy of "9-11 on Trial--the World Center Collapse" By Victor Thorn of WINGTV.net

This is an extremely well-written, concise book! It's a very easy read & perfect for novice & intermediate truthers. It's styled like a prosecutor presenting 9/11 evidence in a jury trial. As such, it could also be presented as a play, a video, or a class syllabus or treatise.

The book is modestly priced and bulk discounts are offered.

"i dont believe in god but you wont find me at god sites telling them that theyre wrong... HAHAHHA!!!!"

Very good inside. You used an analogy.

How can something like this gone on for 5 years without someone screaming for what really happened.

"How can something like this gone on for 5 years without someone screaming for what really happened."

When John Ashcroft fights tooth and nail to make you the most gagged person in history, there's little doubt as to why.

Who did John Ashcroft gag??

A job ... why yes. 9-11 Truth happens to be time spent out of personal conviction.

However I don't spend my time trolling. Maybe that would be something I'd do if I were unemployed.

"Both!!"

Well... to prove we were lied to is easy.

The 9/11 Report completely omitted any information about Pakistan's involvement in 9/11 even though it was widely known they were involved.

The 9/11 Report completely omitted SEVERAL other things as well. Thereby not giving a "Full and complete accounting of the events of 9/11" as their mandate specified.

As far as proving complicity, answer me this one question if you would...

Why did Bush fight against the family members for the creation of an "independent" commission?

everyone!!! i cant help it if your friends are a bit slow... i live in the hub of truth, the bay area ca....

And how many friends do you have??

Or on the payola drinking the kool aid.

"Show me one thing that I can take to my friends and co-workers, and say " look at this, we have been lied to for 5 years now"."

Here you go.

Why did Bush fight against the family members for the creation of an "independent" commission?

Because we all knew what happened at the time.

"Because we all knew what happened at the time."

That's your answer?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

about the jobs thing, i work for myself and can post whenever i want...

do you have a job??? if you do im going to report you for "time theft".....

Why did Bush fight against the family members for the creation of an "independent" commission?

Because we all knew what happened at the time.
Anonymous | 03.30.06 - 1:13 pm | #

HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!

And how many friends do you have??
Anonymous | 03.30.06 - 1:11 pm | #

lots!!!! anymore lame questions???

We all knew how a plane managed to hit the Pentagon 34 minutes after the SECOND tower was struck? In a country with the most ADVANCED military apparatus in the world? In a country with NORAD constantly monitoring the skies? In a country where in the year prior there were 67 successful intercepts, and on 9/11, there wasn't one?

Tell me... how did you know why and how that happened on 9/11?

"Show me one thing that I can take to my friends and co-workers, and say " look at this, we have been lied to for 5 years now"."

Here you go.

So I show them stuff we all ready know. I don't get it. I'm trying to understand, but I don't. I just so happened to come across this stuff today while visiting rawstory.com. I got all kinds of question for you guys but no ones giving me answers.

"How can something like this gone on for 5 years without someone screaming for what really happened."

It can't.

9/11 conspiracists have a huge problem in making any kind of case that a "government conspiracy" of this scale could be pulled off without an enormous number of people that would have had to stay quiet before, during, and after the events.

Much less be able to hide the preparations.

Furthermore, 9/11 conspiracists never deal with the necessary fact of contingency planning that would be required. The governementt was supposed to be so utterly competent that they were able to pull off 9/11 with the aid of the media.

What's really hysterical is that 9/11 conspiracists are willfully blind to the fact that they can't come up with credible and knowledgable experts to support their case. Just witnessing the euphoria on this board when a two-bit actor says he doesn't believe the facts and evidence, but prefers to believe years-old debunked nonsense, is a sight to behold.

They are easily taken in by so-called "scholars" like Steven Jones and his group of blinkered experts on nothing to do with structural engineering, forensics, physics, or all the necessary requirements to even begin to address the NIST investigations. It's quite amazing how 9/11 conspiracists are the very "sheeple" they imagine everyone except them are.

Educating these people on the reality and necessity of supporting their case with scientific evidence that escapes them entirely is necessary to restore sanity, but their resistance to having to give up all the utter falsehoods they believe in so needily is a hard job.

They don't get it that THEY have to make a case and, after 3 1/2 years, they haven't even gotten to first base.

Oh yeah, IN THE MOST PROTECTED AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD?!?

Good site guys!

Anonymous, how about the following facts?

1) Months and months of warnings by the FBI, CIA, and other countries as well as by the former Administration

2) The fact that several top pentagon officials cancelled their travel plans on 9/10 for 9/11. Or that the San Fran Govenor was told not to fly that day

3) How about the fact that the same day exercises were being performed for the very thing that happened? How else can you confuse the mass FAA and military with fake plan blips on the radar if you don't hold these on the same day?

4) The fact that our military was forced to stand down? They were instructed in a memo in about June that ALL orders were to come from the Secretary of Defense. Despite the fact that there were 35 air bases throughout the flight path of the planes. And there was an Air craft carrier just off the long island cost.

5) That not one aircraft signaled either by voice or with the hijack signal that something was wrong.

6) How about the fact that the Secret Service forced the VP into a bunker, but did nothing with the president when he was being broadcast live and his location was known many days befor the event.

7) How about the fact that WTC 7 was demolished? Larry Silverstien stated that they "pulled" WTC 7, so if there were explosives in WTC 7 there were certainly explosives in the other towers.

8) How about the fact that they destroyed all the evidence and refused to do an investigation for over a year.

9) How about the fact that they have not released any of the videos of the pentagon? There is no National Security for something that the WHOLE WORLD knows about.

I could go on, but I think this should be enough to boggle your mind with.

WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 collapsed as near freefall speed

The concrete, office furniture, computers, carpeting, etc were mostly pulvarized in fine powder and horizonally ejected at an upward angle from the towers WHILE they were collapsing.

The South Tower block that broke off started to topple over. But instead of continuing to topple, it disintegrated into powder in mid air. And then, the lower portion of the tower collapsed.

There were pools of molten metal, pieces of orange/salmon/yellow hot metal, and partly evaporated steel under the towers and WTC 7. Those colors indicate temperatures higher than that could be generated from buring jet fuel, even under optimum (100% oxygen) conditions.

There were dozens and dozens and dozens of statements from fire dept personel and other people giving specific accounts of explosions, bombs, flashes, etc that they thought were controlled demolitions.

The government's version of the collapses (fire, airplane strikes,WTC 7 being hit by debris) defies physics.

ALL the abnormalities can be easily explained by controlled demolitions.

Anyone who can't see that either does not know that facts (Charlie Sheen knows the facts), or is it deep denial.

Next??

"How can something like this gone on for 5 years without someone screaming for what really happened."

It can't."

Doug... you're an idiot. I just showed you that one person has come forward, and you completely disregard it. What about Mary Schneider? What about Karen Kwiatkowski? What about Coleen Rawley?

"So I show them stuff we all ready know. I don't get it. I'm trying to understand, but I don't. I just so happened to come across this stuff today while visiting rawstory.com. I got all kinds of question for you guys but no ones giving me answers."

The 9/11 Report, itself, has become a piece of evidence in the case of the people of the United States vs. those in Government who lied to us, and killed 3000 of our people.

Anonymous, I'll be holding 9/11 classes online. If you're interested, go here, and sign up.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

can a for do this???

fire*

doug, there's been such terrible waste of time here today, why don't you just "pull it"?

Well Doug I'll join you back in the real world. Bye guys

"Well Doug I'll join you back in the real world. Bye guys"

Typical.

If you two had ANY comprehension of what the "real world" actually was, I have NO DOUBT that you would be shitting in your pants, and crying for mommy.

did anyone notice this from here:
http://www.bravocharlie911.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id...

On the 2nd video, a Google Video, it says it's been banned from google. They just have the audio, no video. But at the end of the clip are segments of WTC 7 collapsing

Have a look!

http://www.911research.com/wtc/ e...7_collapse2.mpg

can a for do this???
inside | 03.30.06 - 1:22 pm | #

fire*
inside | 03.30.06 - 1:24 pm | #

if it can, i don't know why people spend millions of dollars to rig buildings with explosives to knock them down....fires cost nothing, and seem to do the exact same thing.

if i believed fire was capable of doing what it did on 9-11, i'd never be able to step into a high rise again for fear a waste basket fire would bring down the whole thing.

for all the official conspiracy tin foil hatters- how can you walk into a building knowing it might fall with a tiny fire set in it?

you guys are brave!

or you are using common sense to determine that fires do not equal collapse.

so why do you persist with this line of thought when it becomes a political discussion?

I do Gold, I do.

I have a problem with people nit-picking certain questions and then dismissing everything else because of those few topics they choose not to agree with or have been proven false.

It also bothers me that 4.5 years later there has never been an independent investigation (besides the one going on throughout the internet), nor has there ever been the possibility of such a debate.

The reason for all this disagreement is because the matters are never addressed. Why can't we just get them addressed? That's the problem I have. This is America. Anna Nicole Smith can go to the Supreme court to get millions of dollars from her dead husband and that makes the news for days straight. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants can march in the streets to be pardoned for their CRIME, and they are getting what they want.

Doesn't this just seem wrong to everyone? Is anyone paying attention anymore?

Well Doug I'll join you back in the real world. Bye guys
Anonymous | 03.30.06 - 1:28 pm | #

proof that these two are coordinated responses?

Here's a thought:

How about from now on, instead of fueling this childish nonsense, we simply ignore them?

Then, if they want to ask an honest, seriously open-minded question, we can provide our opinions and direct them to resources that support those assertions?

"I do Gold, I do."

That's an impossibility. Your comments, and questions prove that.

Jon Gold wrote...

"Doug... you're an idiot. I just showed you that one person has come forward, and you completely disregard it."

I'm talking about the thousands of pieces of evidence that you all have failed to address since 9/11 and your abject failure to take your blinders off.

That makes you the blatant idiot you ALL choose to be.

The trolls have successfully wasted so much time that its hard to find the good info on these threads.

Any ideas?

dz should automatically ban any troll that's a troll. Simple. No time to fuck around.

The following are ten quotes from the WTC Task Force Interviews "Oral Histories" as published in the New York Times.

See here for many more quotes, and links to the Times website
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

FDNY CAPTAIN:
"Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping
sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the
building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides
as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were
getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

FDNY BATTALION CHIEF:
"It looked like it was a timed explosion"

FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came
down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire
was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish
a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's
what I thought I saw"

FDNY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER:
"We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw
was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people
thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember
seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the
building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse
like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My
initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they
show you those implosions on TV."

FDNY FIRE MARSHAL:
"I thought it was exploding, actually. ThatÂ’s what I thought for hours
afterwards, that it had exploded or the plane or there had been some
device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower
had shot out far over our heads"

FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that
the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the
building."

"As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the
building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive"

FDNY CHIEF:
"You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like
a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one
and a half floors pop out. It looked almost like an explosion. The whole
top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was
falling off."

FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed
like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction,
then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a
pancake."

Q. "where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started
collapsing?"

A. "It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the
impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on
television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a
rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact. The reason
why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far
distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the
smoke was up above it."

FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on
television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all
the way around like a belt, all these explosions"

FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of
Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial
Center." ... "the south tower from our perspective exploded from about
midway up the building." ... "At that point a debate began to rage
because the perception was that the building looked like it had been
taken out with charges"

DBLS:
I thought it was molten metal under the towers, not 7?

DBLS:
I thought it was molten metal under the towers, not 7?
DHS | Homepage | 03.30.06 - 2:52 pm | #

there were quotes that molten metal was found under all 3 buildings

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

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
4 or 5 paragraphs down.

Take a look at this:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-...

and this:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/thermal-images-and-molten-m...

@ George W.

Excellent list! I just safe it to my hard drive.

May I add one: Cherry-picking: Pick just one weak issue and lay all your efforts to dismiss it, by lying or the appeal to scientific serfdom.
Then claim you haven't the time to spent your life long with going trough all issues.

and

Besides molten steel, the rubble reportedly contained some partially evaporated steel. The New York Times quoted Dr. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, as saying that fire in WTC-7:

would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.

http://nogw.com/documents/0927200307NYTimes7WTCwhy_page.htm

Obviously, there are many structural engineers that are aware of the questions about the trade center collapses. But as Paul Craig Roberts said in his interview (can't find the link) any one that comes out against the official theory will risk losing any federal funding for them or their institution which many receive. In the current climate, they will also be put on a very public and contraversal position. ' Just doing their job" won't cut it. You will be labeled as 'radical structural engineer', 'contraversal structural engineer', structural engineer that 'supports conspiracy theorists of 911", ect.

Just look at what happened to Steven Jones. If you followed his trajectory into the 911 movement by his first scientific paper, you can see that he was not really planning to join the whole movement or be any kind of leader. Once his paper came out he was forced to make a choice. Either openly defend his research and its implications or crawl back into academia oblivion. His paper made that second option almost impossible. I praise him for educating himself on other aspects of 911 and confronting the critics and evidence head on.

To Doug or swamprat or whatever you are calling youeself...I thought I told you to get the hell off this page. We don't want you here. Take a hint asshole.

DHS, I only got two responses, and one was a request to remove his email from my list. The other was from someone who recommened I get a forensic engineer, towards the end of his/her career.

I'm out the door now, but will check any responses later

Ed Asner was on A. JOnes radio today

^Wicked guys thanks!!!!

"Ed Asner was on A. JOnes radio today"

Can someone find the archive of that and post it whenever you get the chance? Spank you.

DRG Lecture tonight.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060330034632861

Douggy,

Can you tell us why John Ashcroft ignored the phone calls of attorney David Schippers (a guy who prosecuted Bill Clinton, not a left lacky), whose FBI clients retained him to warn the government about impending attacks when their own warnings were being ignored?

Class Is Now In Session

First class, tomorrow night (3/31/2006) at 8pm.

The teacher for this class:

Jon Gold

The topic for this class:

American History And How It Relates To 9/11.

Be there, or be square.

"C'mon, Jon, quit dodging. Show us the scientific evidence you've addressed and why you can't bring evidence of explosive demolitions to the table.

Let's see your refutation of NIST. Let's see you bring qualified scientists to the table instead of flabby actors and "experts" whoi are cluless about the relevant subjects.

How many more years to we have to wait for you bozos to back up your claims?

Sheesh.
Doug Jansen | 03.30.06 - 2:15 pm | #"

The very idea that this guy is even here at this blog right now tells me he's either a)a paid government disinfo agent or b) an honest misinformed person who subconsciouly is seeking the truth but his conscious self can't handle it so he trolls and denies and attacks.

He obviously doesn't realize how BADLY we ALL want this shit to not be true, but we all have to face facts and reality eventually. And yes, its difficult and yes, it sucks, to put it mildly. But its where we're at now. Deal with it.

Think about it. Does anyone here spend time at websites of people they disagree with? NO. Like that other poster pointed out, I don't believe in the whole Jesus thing word for word either, but do I spend my time at websites of those who do? I don't believe Michael Jackson killed Lacy Pederson, so why would I spend time posting constantly on a website that did?

The very fact that this guy is here is very telling. If he's not a government shill, he's one of US. He just doesn't know it yet and his conscious mind can't handle it because its too horrifying.

Welcome to hell, Doug.

alex jones radio show archive -

http://nw0.info/index.php?dir=Radio/Alex%20Jones%20Radio%20Archive/2006/...

Sibel Edmonds Wins Free Speech Award:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2710

Whats really revealing is how few structural engineers, as far as I am aware, have come out to strongly support the government version of the collapse. If eventually proven wrong, and blatantly so, that would also be quite a stigma on their career.

Better to remain silent until the climate changes and it becomes acceptable to question the government verision of 911.

My point being... changing the climate of acceptable debate should be our central focus at this time. And only fair coverage in the major media and more celebrities and profesionals coming forward publicly with their doubts, not necessarily even answers, will make this happen.

Let's see your refutation of NIST. Let's see you bring qualified scientists to the table instead of flabby actors and "experts" whoi are cluless about the relevant subjects

DOUG

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

http://www.st911.org
scroll down to view steven jones's

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

READ ALL OF IT. and if any confuses you ask me to explain

Saudi secretly working with Pak experts

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=65139

doesn't surprise me.

Somewhere in the world there must be a ruggedly constructed steel-frame building that is due to come down.

Instead of carefuuly rigging it with explosives, it ought to be flooded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and set ablaze.

Bets, of course, would be placed. Would it fall, or not? How would you bet?

Incompetence:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/03/incompetence.html

Nice one GW.

Bets, of course, would be placed. Would it fall, or not? How would you bet?
Carl Nelson | 03.30.06 - 4:21 pm | #

hey Carl, good idea.

you know, you can even suggest an idea to buy and sell options at http://www.Tradesports.com here...
http://www.tradesports.com/aav2/suggestAContract.jsp

so you can make your own market, see if other people are willing to trade against you, then make money off it.

maybe we can get tweedle dee and tweedle dumb to pony up their cash....you know put your money where your mouth is.

dz should start releasing some IP's :+:

On a personal note:

No comments on my court analogy in the 'Bravo Charlie' thread?

I'm working on an article for a local paper which will express the current atmosphere in which those questioning 911 find themselves, in a creative, non-confrontational way ( i.e publishable)

I would greatly appreciate any feedback.

Doug, I admire you for keeping to post and argue with us, at least you're not COMPLETELY close-minded. Just the act of you sticking around shows you have at least some concern or doubts. However, I do take issue with a few things. Specificaly, your post @ 2:05 PM is absolutely ludicrous.

You attempt to debunk our statements, but don't provide any substance to your arguement. Such as the following: (your quotes are in ****'s)

***"WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 collapsed as near freefall speed"

Irrelevant. They fell slower than free-fall and would be expected to so naturally. Explosive demoilitions unproven.***

They fell FRACTIONALLY shorter than free-fall speed. It was a few tenths of a second off....sheesh!! This statement is just full of ignorance - your reply is just "who cares!" What kind of rational arguement is that?

Furthermore, how do you expect buildings to "naturally fall at free-fall speeds" as you stated? Thats just impossible. NOTHING with resistance under it falls at free-fall speed. I can do the physics calculations for you if you like, but it would probably just make your head spin.

NEXT

***"There were pools of molten metal, pieces of orange/salmon/yellow hot metal, and partly evaporated steel under the towers and WTC 7. Those colors indicate temperatures higher than that could be generated from buring jet fuel, even under optimum (100% oxygen) conditions."

Whatever "molten metal" there was does NOT demonstrate "explosive demolitions" were used. Duh.***

Now look at your response to this one; this is just PURELY your ignorant, uneducated opinion. Please do tell me, without the use of high-temperature explosives, do pools of molten metal form? I don't know where you guys live, but I live in Jersey. After 9/11, the rest of the country just received major news updates. However, here in Jersey we had nightly updates on the cleaning up of ground zero. They were constantly finding massive smoldering pits of metal DEEP under the rubble FOR ONE WEEK AFTER THE ATTACKS. This is where no oxygen can easily get down there. This can only be explained by high-grade explosives.

I wish I could state a few more points, but work ends in 15 minutes. Catch you later

P.S. I promise not to post any revisions to the comment threads, unless it is published.

My guess is that Doug is experienceing great distress.

Whenever the NIST is questioned these people (disturbed doug) pop up. It's like they've prayed to authority for their complete lives and even questioning the NIST is not possible.

I often wonder how anyone could take any level of internet-assisted interest in 911 and still preserve their own mass media induced worldview. Which means he could be faking it. But the rate at which he posts (+ the message) looks genuinely frantic. His approach seems too clumsy and foolish to be calculated. I am for banning reapeat offenders though.

Q: "How can something like this gone on for 5 years without someone screaming for what really happened."

A: We were, we are and we're not going to stop.

Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation???

Truth crusaders Walter and Rodriguez to appear on Hugo Chavez's weekly TV broadcast

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm

So this is the Doug thread now? 911dougger.com?

Cmon guys, this guy's eyes will still be covered in mayonaise even after Cheney and the lot have eventually been convicted. He's been ignoring everyone's comments that he cannot handle, and just moves on to another senseless 'prove it to me' schtick. I'm not suggesting a ban though, banning is sooo neoconservative :)

Ohw and by the way, those Anonymists ARE getting a bit pesky. If I were to address 'Anonymous' in this thread I got the feeling I'm addressing 10 different people.

switch to a REQUIRED LOGIN style?????

as for the NIST report, i personally could rant about it for an hour. but to keep it short, here is the main reason why i take issue with it:

they did not analyze any part of the collapse past the point of 'global collapse'. in other words they tried to explain how the collapse may have started, but didnt analyze at all any detail of the 'global collapse' itself.

quite simply, they didnt create any type of testable model for the collapses.. most likely because there is no way that a super structured steel frame building that is 80%+ structurally intact could collapse in near freefall speeds without removing the remaining core superstructure as to remove all resistance that would have slowed the speed of the collapse.

(oh, and dont forget that in their own documented fire research they couldnt cause a tiny steel building they built to fail even when they exagerated the temperatures and increased the time of the fire)

to the new ppl here that are interested in the subject of 9/11, welcome, have some patience, start reading some books, but please dont flood the threads with 10 posts in 5 minutes with 1 line questions and then be pissed noone answered your question within the said 5 minutes.

nobody spoon fed me my 2 years of research, and i dont expect anyone new to 9/11 research to know much at all in the begining. thats why you need to read a book, watch a movie, and research anything and everything related to 9/11. there is a listing of terms in the banner here that could provide enough search terms to keep anyone busy for months, so get started.

Great. Chavez. THAT'S what the movement needed, a socialist thug.

and now they are saying that the people on the airplanes wrent talking to family members but they were staged calls with CIA agents.

see the problem with you guys eventing a conspiracy of this vast size is it is forced to expand and expand due to allthe loose ends and as it spreads out you have to come up with more and more ridiculous claims.

air controllers are in on it,demolition experts,patsy pilots, patsys who are meant to be taken down by the government to provide a cover story,Bush, clinton is a part of it as he was instructed not to accept bin laden when he was president....

its understandable why you guys when you get any coverage only stick to the wackier version of the story and focus on the WTC collapse cause if you guys start in with any of this other nonsense like the people on the planes were talking to CIA agents or the brainwashing angle......

oh brother.you gusy obviously sugar coat what you say as even you know how bad it sounds.

the Sheen comments really opened the floodgates. i see people discussing the unanswered questions in places like the San Francisco 49ers forums. great!!!

DHS wrote,

"I'm going to email these people and polite request their views on the subject of WTC 1,2,7. I will ask them to review Professor Jones' page and Jane Doe's Billiard Balls page."

That will be fun since Jones's paper didn't provide any evidence to back up his claims.

Jane's paper has already been debunked.

Others have already pointed you to:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
and
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

None of you have dared touch them. Neither has Prof. Jones.

Better get to work, guys.

a gradual internal failure 10-20 seconds before the collapse would in no way cause the type of concussion sound waves heard on the sinatra peir that morning, nor explain the white smoke rising from the bottom of the building..

it was in '9/11 eyewitness', great raw video footage.

also, you will find 911myth's website in the references in jones' most recent release of his paper.. he has addressed some of their claims, this happened about 3 weeks ago.

Loud Studios, who I debunked so easily yesterday, wrote.

"Doug, or whichever one of the apologizers sees this first....please see Jimmy Walters to claim your million dollar prize."

That's the funniest line you've written yet, Loud Studios.

Did you know that Walters doesn't have the money? Ask him, you gullible soul.

Ask him to tell you the the details of the escrow account in which this supposed prize money is to be held.

anonymous,

have you watched the 9/11 Revisited film at the top of this site and have you listened to Griffin's presentation from last night?

Radical Pragmitist wrote,

"Just look at what happened to Steven Jones. If you followed his trajectory into the 911 movement by his first scientific paper,..."

Jones's paer was not a "scientific" paper by any standards scientists use. You should know that.

It is a speculative paper with no actual evidence. This why BYU, Jones's university, PUBLICLY chastised him for claiming it's peer-reviewed scientific paper.

"The very fact that this guy is here is very telling. If he's not a government shill, he's one of US. He just doesn't know it yet and his conscious mind can't handle it because its too horrifying."

Somewhere in one of his posts Doug said he was here to educate you.

From the responses he's gotten so far, it looks like he's absolutely correct to do so.

Radical Pragmatist wrote...

"Whats really revealing is how few structural engineers, as far as I am aware, have come out to strongly support the government version of the collapse. If eventually proven wrong, and blatantly so, that would also be quite a stigma on their career."

I think its just the opposite. There are so many structural engineers in the rest of the world who have nothing to lose by questionning the conclusions that there should have been an uproar if there were anything wrong.

Yizzo wrote,

"scroll down to view steven jones's

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

"READ ALL OF IT. and if any confuses you ask me to explain"

I read this non-scientific paper when it first came out and just addressed the fact that it is not a scientific paper.

However, here's one for you to address, the one Jones hasn't been able to refute:

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

anonymous,

i mentioned above that Jones has in fact commented on the report on 911myths.com in his most recent version, have you looked at his counter arguements?

Tony wrote,

"They fell FRACTIONALLY shorter than free-fall speed. It was a few tenths of a second off....sheesh!! This statement is just full of ignorance - your reply is just "who cares!" What kind of rational arguement is that?"

How is 13+ seconds "fractionally" greater than 9 seconds?

A "free-fall" collapse of 13 seconds means the building would have to be 2,704 feet tall.

"NOTHING with resistance under it falls at free-fall speed."

13+ seconds was not free-fall speed for WTC 1 or 2.

"Now look at your response to this one; this is just PURELY your ignorant, uneducated opinion. Please do tell me, without the use of high-temperature explosives, do pools of molten metal form? I don't know where you guys live, but I live in Jersey. After 9/11, the rest of the country just received major news updates. However, here in Jersey we had nightly updates on the cleaning up of ground zero. They were constantly finding massive smoldering pits of metal DEEP under the rubble FOR ONE WEEK AFTER THE ATTACKS. This is where no oxygen can easily get down there. This can only be explained by high-grade explosives."

Doug is absolutely correct. You can not use the evidence of molten steel to declare that ONLY explosive demolitions occurred.

In fact, fires continued to burn into December as docunmeted by thermal imaging. You are welcome to tell us how that was possible without oxygen for 3 months.

"I wish I could state a few more points, but work ends in 15 minutes."

I wish you would research your "facts" on your own and quit taking 9/11 conspiracy sites at their word.

Manhantanite wrote a dumb thing,

"Whenever the NIST is questioned these people (disturbed doug) pop up. It's like they've prayed to authority for their complete lives and even questioning the NIST is not possible."

Where does Doug say you shouldn't question NIST????

What he is saying is that you haven't refuted NIST with scientific evidence. And so far, you're proving him correct.

Sure anonymous,

The towers were designed to allow the domino effect to collapse them like a succession of falling pancakes!!! You bet.

DZ wrote,

"they did not analyze any part of the collapse past the point of 'global collapse'. in other words they tried to explain how the collapse may have started, but didnt analyze at all any detail of the 'global collapse' itself."

It's a purely rational position for NIST to take. Once you understand the cause of the collapse there is no compelling reason to go beyond.

This isn't a mystery to physicists or structural engineers. Once global collapse starts, there is no force in the world to prevent it.

Your argument has always been a red herring for 9/11 conspiracists to avoid having to deal with the fact that the collapses of at least WTC 1 and 2 are perfectly explainable without explosives. Since no evidence has ever been found for explosives in all the independent dust and NIST studies, 9/11 conspiracists are looking for something to justify pushing a conspiracy.

DHS wrote,

"These are some odd things that people are curious about."

Even after they've been shown not to be "odd."

DHS wrote,

" 1) Why haven't the unclaimed profits from UA and AA stock (among others) days before and the day of 9/11 been investigated thoroughly?"

Because there's nothing to investigate.

You would have known this had you bothered to do any research:

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

"a gradual internal failure 10-20 seconds before the collapse would in no way cause the type of concussion sound waves heard on the sinatra peir that morning, nor explain the white smoke rising from the bottom of the building.."

According to whom? You? Let's see the evidence.

"it was in '9/11 eyewitness', great raw video footage."

"also, you will find 911myth's website in the references in jones' most recent release of his paper.. he has addressed some of their claims, this happened about 3 weeks ago."

Jones has not addressed the Greening paper I linked to.

DZ wrote,

"i mentioned above that Jones has in fact commented on the report on 911myths.com in his most recent version, have you looked at his counter arguements?"

Jones addressed a hypothesis about Thermite. Jones has been asked to address Greening's first paper:

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

but hasn't. The collapse doesn't depend on Thermite.

Anonymous wrote,

"The towers were designed to allow the domino effect to collapse them like a succession of falling pancakes!!! You bet."

Buildings are not designed to collapse.

Anonymous,

I believe you are being incredibly dishonest in your statements that there is no evidence of explosions.. obviously that is your personal opinion, but I find it a rather brash statement in light of some of the following material:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg

http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/911eyewitness_wtc1.wmv

http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

a few of my picks from the last link:
As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Commissioner Stephen Gregory, NYPD – October 3, 2001: “You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.”

to suggest there is no evidence of explosions is in my opinion is a completely dishonest statement. we can disagree, but i would appreciate it if you could try to curb the need for derogatory comments in the future.

btw, have you watched the 9/11 Revisited movie linked at the top of this site? (3rd time asking)

and i noticed that you didnt bother quoting my statements on the resistance which would have been provided by the 80+ floors which were structurally intact. this lack of resistance from the lower level of the building is precisely the thorn in the official story, and to suggest that there is no reason why anyone would analyze anything but how a collapse might start is completely ludacris. when a steel super structure collapses through itself via the path of most resistance in just a fraction more than freefall in open air there is more than enough reason to analyze how that happened, and how localized damage at the top of the building could demolish it all the way to the bottom floor..

dz wrote,

" believe you are being incredibly dishonest in your statements that there is no evidence of explosions.."

No, I am stating a known fact. NO evidence of explosive demolitions has ever been found, either in the NIST investigations or the many independent NYC investigations of the dust.

"obviously that is your personal opinion,"

Sorry, it's a statement of fact.

"but I find it a rather brash statement in light of some of the following material:

"http://www.whatreallyhappened.co...om/ wtcshake.mpg"

This video of WTC 1 collapsing contains just what evidence of explosive demolitions?

"http://www.911blogger.com/files/ ...itness_wtc1.wmv"

This is an old one. Already addressed. This is a perfect example of claiming something is "evidence" to the exclusion of all else when there are alternatives. The sounds provide NO evidence of explosive demolition - and that's assuming the soundtrack is accurate to begin with. What sounds like "explosions" from two miles away does not mean the sounds are explosive demolitions since there is another rational source - the internal collapses going on before the collapse.

Therefore, you must provide OTHER evidence that explosive demolitions were used. And so far, none has ever been found.

"http://forums.bluelemur.com/view...opic.php? t=4820"

Jones letter was a faux pas since he had already claimed the physics proved that "only" controlled demolition could explain the collapses.

So, after making the claim, he then seeks the expertise to instruct him on structural engineering.

"a few of my picks from the last link:
As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."

It's easy to see that WTC 2 was giving way BEFORE it collapsed:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=wtc&pl=true

9/11 conspiracists hate that video since they can't explain rationally how "explosive demolitions" caused the progessive bowing inward of the outside wall before the collapse. And there's no sounds of explosions.

"Commissioner Stephen Gregory, NYPD – October 3, 2001: “You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.”

"You know like when.....?" C'mon, DZ, you don't expect anyone to accept that statement as EVIDENCE of explosive demolitions, do you?

"to suggest there is no evidence of explosions is in my opinion is a completely dishonest statement."

What you have given me in this post caliming it's evidence of explosive demolitions only serves to illustrate my point exactly. You have given us nothing that anyone would accept as credible scientific evidence of "explosive demolitions."

"we can disagree, but i would appreciate it if you could try to curb the need for derogatory comments in the future."

I would appreciate it if your members would stop doing exactly that when they deal with someone that disagrees with them factually.

"btw, have you watched the 9/11 Revisited movie linked at the top of this site? (3rd time asking)"

No, I haven't. But given that Griffin's history of talking on subjects of which he has no expertise, making unsupported claims, I am not rushing to yawn all over again.

But I'll look at it when there's time.

"and i noticed that you didnt bother quoting my statements on the resistance which would have been provided by the 80+ floors which were structurally intact. this lack of resistance from the lower level of the building is precisely the thorn in the official story,..."

Yes, I have addressed it already in one of these threads and I pointed you to the paper in which it is addressed: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

I note that you have yet to address that paper.

"and to suggest that there is no reason why anyone would analyze anything but how a collapse might start is completely ludacris."

Sorry, not to physicists and structural engineers. And no more so then when a plane explodes in mid air and crashes do they analyze the performance of the plane debris from the moment of explosion till it hits the ground.

There is nothing mysterious in physics in the fact that ONCE a huge block of building started to fall that all that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and crashes down on a structure never designed to withstand the ENORMOUS forces fall on it.

" when a steel super structure collapses through itself via the path of most resistance in just a fraction more than freefall..."

I've already debunked the "fraction of free-fall" nonsense. 13+ secoinds for the collapse of WTC is NOT the value of 9+ seconds of free fall for that structure.

It is profoundly irritating when these statements like yours that have been PROVEN false long ago are repeated ad infinitum as if they never have surfaced before. Please do your research first.

Now, download this video of WTC 2 collapsing:

http://911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html

Play it over and over and watch the timing of the collapse. (I couldn't get it to play right streaming - only after downloading it.)

The last frame that shows the tower collapsing is at 12+ seconds yet it hasn't completely collapsed.

Ask yourself how that could possibly be anything near freefall speed.

"...in open air there is more than enough reason to analyze how that happened, and how localized damage at the top of the building could demolish it all the way to the bottom floor.."

As you've now seen, your presumptions were erroneous. The question then is twofold:

1) Why did you accept innacurate information so readily?

2) Why do you presume to know more than the world's qualified scientists and structural engineers?

Think of that as you respond to Dr. Frank Greening's paper I've gibven you the link to several times.