After seeing Jack White's photo "studies" I'm convinced that Jack White is a moron. He has no concept of perspective. He believes that the moon landing was faked. I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.

Examples of bizarre "analysis" on that site:
http://911studies.com/911photostudies16.htm
Good fucking god, floating poles inserted by anonymous fakers as subtle hints?

He thinks the generator trailer was a construction office. On many pages, he displays inability to understand that physical objects can be moved in the real world. He complains that there are (a) not enough firemen (b) too many firemen. Then there's this: "I believe that the [Pentagon] fires were kept burning for three days so that photographs like these could be taken." what - the - shit...

Of course, he also blathers about an explosion at WTC 6.

I need to start a website dedicated to 9-11 idiocy... http://911myths.com is OK (mostly), but it's not enough, seeing as it's run by someone who subscribes to the official story.

I know it's pleasant to get all warm and fuzzy about "big tent" ideology but it's goddamn harmful to the movement, with sites such as 911studies being referenced as authoritative. (His website was recommended in several previous threads right here on 911blogger.)

_____-

On a brighter note, I'm listening now to the recent Griffin lecture, it's great.

I've posted a couple of messages under throwaway handles ('anonym.', '=A='), from now on I think I'll use this one.

911Blogger newcomers may find these FDNY quotes handy

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"

Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication

Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html

Note: On the "Michael Ruppert Weighs in on Recent Media Coverage" thread below, some interesting "Peak Oil" stuff is being debated. Please read it & add your comment.

Will do next time, dz.

Following relates to Michael C. Rupert, may be source of thread anonymous was referring too:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/033006_charlie_sheen.shtml

Well another 911-Truth thread locked at the Left Gatekeeper site, AIPAC-Whipped-Chimp. The admins there should just be honest and say, "The official 911 Myth is good for Israel, 911-Truth is BAD for Israel, therefore we don't permit 911-Truth discussion here. Now get out there and work hard to replace the Republicrats with the Demublicans- coz both are owned by AIPAC!" Instead their reasoning for locking the thread was characteristically thin:
http://smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=64278&forum=7

62 of 62. SmirkyChimpster New York, New York | Member 148, Joined Nov 20, 2000 | 1828 posts

________________________________________________________________________________
Posted: 2006-03-31 14:06

Quote:
________________________________________________________________________________
On 2006-03-30 20:10, badmaru wrote:
One more locked thread...

________________________________________________________________________________

Well of course.

Because the whole "did Charlie Sheen change anyone's mind?" question was a red herring, an excuse for everyone to trot out their pet CT twaddle.

Be happy I let this rot go on as long as I did.

ON EDIT: Would you like a 9/11 CT thread that doesn't get locked? It's easy, just follow these three rules:

1. Bring something new to the discussion, something we haven't all heard before,

2. Don't confuse speculation with fact, and

3. Don't make any snarky "oooooh, this thread will be locked!" comments.

But you all know you can't do it. You've had four-plus years to do it and you haven't yet.

[ This message was edited by: SmirkyChimpster on 2006-03-31 14:10 ]

This topic is locked; no new posts may be added |

Re: Doug
looks like his readers really let him have it with their comments.

This is what needs to be done, people not willing to be ignored and expected to swallow whatever is spoon fed to them in news papers, magazines, television, blogs, etc.

Maybe when these writers begin to understand their audience, they will write a more fair article.

Aren't you paying attention anonymous?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Don't be scared of the facts.

SS wrote:

"Wow just thought I'd chime in how this comments thread seems to be working a divide and concur strategy for those that may be getting wrapped up in debate with anonoymous posters."

I agree with SS. stop responding to this idiot. He's just trying to waste your time so you don't do something productive like spreading the truth.

Andy White

Shhh, I'm trying to observe the troll in his naturual enviroment. You might scare him away Andy. :+:

"Shhh, I'm trying to observe the troll in his naturual enviroment. You might scare him away Andy."

I've got a big smile on my face. Thank you.

Shill wrote:
"stallion4 ....

You just repeated impressions and gave us NO evidence of "controlled demolitions."

You'd better learn what qualifies as evidence. You won't get anywhere with this repetition of stuff that is not evidence."

LOL, that's how much you think you know. I tell people about this shit EVERY DAY - and not ONE person that I've shown those fire fighter statements and other witness statements to has ever said to me that they still believe the government's official story.

Same with WCT7. After I show them that shit they realize they've been lied to about 9-11 by their once beloved mainstream media and politicians in Washington D.C. .

The question now is will the rats go down with the ship? Doubt it. More people are going to start coming forward and the scum the did 9-11 will eventually be held accountable for their crime.

The simple fact is they fu-ked up! And once anyone with a brain in their skull looks at the evidence they can see exactly how bad the perps botched their 9-11 inside job. Fools!

Anyone see/tape Bill Maher? Seth Green, Erica Jong (both were on Showbiz talking about Charlie Sheen's statements and questions) and R Congressman Dana Rohrbarfer (i spell that right?) and the discussion came around to Bush's incompetence and Jong and Green brought up the ignored warnings and intelligence, Maher was taken aback and incredulous and turned to Rohr and basically changed the subject back to the level of Bush is clueless and incompent and not criminal. the 2 didn't go there again.

Now that we are seeing papers by physicists arguing about their equations, 'spreading the facts' about whether or not controlled demolition was at work beocomes a little more difficult. I'm reminded of debates about economics. There are a lot of reasons why 9/11 needs an aggressive and honest new investigation; the possibility of controlled demolition may be one of them, but how confident can non-expert people like me be in this area? WTC7 sure seems like a glaring anomaly, and even if there is a possible benign explanation for the collapse, the glaring omission of WTC7 from the 9/11 Commission final report probably represents the best single piece of evidence (from the controlled demolition angle alone) that a new investigation is needed.

Results 1 - 10 of about 92,200 for "charlie sheen 9/11". (0.31 seconds)

google.com

impressive...

@ anonymous shill: What's your intention to post here? To get us educated? Well, then come on with facts or shut up. And don't present government disinfos sites to prove that the government wasn't responsible, you must be joking if we should believe that crap, that was also for quite a long time debunked by thinking people.

The Proffessional stuttered:

"Don't be scared of the facts."

I just gave you the facts. Here they are again: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Scares you to death, eh?

stallion 4 wrote,

"LOL, that's how much you think you know. I tell people about this shit EVERY DAY - and not ONE person that I've shown those fire fighter statements and other witness statements to has ever said to me that they still believe the government's official story."

As if belief in the paranormal constitutes evidence.

Too bad that the real evidence doesn't support you.

bb wrote,

"Now that we are seeing papers by physicists arguing about their equations, 'spreading the facts' about whether or not controlled demolition was at work beocomes a little more difficult."

Who else is qualified to speak on how the towers fell other than physicists and structural engineers?

"There are a lot of reasons why 9/11 needs an aggressive and honest new investigation;"

On how the towers fell??? Who would do such an investigation other then qualified structural engineers and forensic scientists that did the first investigations, the majority of them who were not governmnet employees to begin with?

Should different structural engineers do the investigation?

"WTC7 sure seems like a glaring anomaly..."

Seems? Or even "looks like" controlled demolition? Aren't you raising the question that this board does not want to address, the physics of the collapses and why those qualified on the subject see nothing wrong with the conclusions of NIST?

"the glaring omission of WTC7 from the 9/11 Commission final report probably represents the best single piece of evidence (from the controlled demolition angle alone) that a new investigation is needed."

How do you come to that conclusion when the 9/11 Commission is was not even the operating investigator of the collapse of WTC 7? NIST is the operating agency and its final report is not even finished yet.

What is interesting is this board's myopic focus on the 9/11 Commission to the exclsuion of NIST and independent investgations which deal with the actual PHYSICS of the collapse. The focus on the 9/11 Commission here is a red herring when it comes to the actual science of the events of 9/11.

Sitting Bull, desperate to be educated, shows it by writing,

" anonymous shill: What's your intention to post here? To get us educated? Well, then come on with facts or shut up."

I have many times. You all ignore it. Now pay attention:

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

"And don't present government disinfos sites to prove that the government wasn't responsible, you must be joking if we should believe that crap, that was also for quite a long time debunked by thinking people."

I present the science, not "governmnet disinfo sites" as you should well know.

If you believe our governemnt was responsible for 9/11, YOU are going to have to prove it. So far, after 3.5 years, none of you have been able to.

And it shows.

I found a really interesting stop motion music video. Should this be added to the 9/11 related Music section? Not necessarily 9/11 related but it does have everyone blinded by some magic glasses while Bush is on a podium like Hitler raving like a lunatic with bombs blasting everywhere.

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

to anonymous: So you decide what is science and what is not, by only maintaining your point of view is the scientific one?

Go ahead. You are just boring. History will judge you.

Anonymous, how can you say the 9/11 Commission was not the operating investigator of WTC? The 9/11 Commission was created by a Federal Law, and charged by Federal Law to provide a full and complete accounting. By not mentioning building 7, not even the fact that an investigation has been continuing, they failed in this and many other respects to provide the complete accounting they advertised.

You seem to have a little too much faith in The Physics, and The Engineering, as if physicists and engineers never argue. I've seen a lot of fancy and manipulated math in my day, and don't believe the physical sciences are necessarily immune to it. Shit, look at the global warming debate. Is that politicized? Damn straight. I don't know which way to go on that one, and wish I knew which Doctorate to trust -- I don't mean which one has 'the facts,' I mean which ones are honest.

Who on this thread is bravest?

Wanna make a big difference in 911 skepticism and truth? Go analog once in a while. Have you ever handed someone a flyer that really questions the official story? Looked them in the eye while you did it? ItÂ’s hard and takes courage. I like to blog too but anything on a computer is virtual presence. More courage by all of us is really needed now.

bb wrote,

"Anonymous, how can you say the 9/11 Commission was not the operating investigator of WTC? The 9/11 Commission was created by a Federal Law, and charged by Federal Law to provide a full and complete accounting. By not mentioning building 7, not even the fact that an investigation has been continuing, they failed in this and many other respects to provide the complete accounting they advertised."

NIST is the agency in charge of the investigation of the collapses, it has not been completed for WTC 7. To criticize the 9/11 Commission for failure to deal with an investigation that has not even been completed, is both silly and irrational.

9/11 conspiracists must first demonstrate their claims about the science and physics of the collapses since that is which forms the basis of their claims. They haven't. Instead they are using the 9/11 Commission as a red herring to get around that obligation.

"You seem to have a little too much faith in The Physics, and The Engineering, as if physicists and engineers never argue."

But that's not what's happening here. What's going on with 9/11 conspiracists are assertions are being made on the science, physics and structural engineering, of the WTC collapses without any evidence to back up those claims from those qualified to comment on it.

It is indeed politicized to the extent that 9/11 conspiracists MUST politicize it to get anywhere at all. That is why Steven Jones and the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" is not a group of physicists, structural engineers, chemists, and foresnic scientists, but a group that is made up of "scholars" in every field that is irrelevant.

Why?

One look at their site and any rational person would question their motives straight off: the complete reliance on 9/11 conspiracy sites and politically-motivated groups. None of the so-called "scientific" papers back up claims, their not peer-reviewed, and they refuse to deal with scientific papers that question their assertions.

Science does not operate the way Jones wants it to - politically.

"I've seen a lot of fancy and manipulated math in my day, and don't believe the physical sciences are necessarily immune to it. Shit, look at the global warming debate. "

The final report of the NIST on the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers was issued on September 2005, over a year after the 'final' report of the 9/11 Commission, yet the 9/11 Commission chose to make a case for a non-explosive-induced collapse of Towers 1&2, did it not?