Michael from 911myths.com responded.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?p=57973#postid=57973

So am I.

"clear evidence"?

Clear to whom? The hundreds of actual experts who viewed the evidence or "internet researchers" with an ax to grind?

Regarding 911myths.com

The site is, by its own admission, not offering conclusive proof of the falsity of any particular theories, it takes reports and quotes that 9/11 truthers often use and covers the surrounding articles and reports more extensively, often to the effect of saying that the gloss put on it by 9/11 truthers has been overemphasised.

What we need to do, therefore, is work through each and every one of its 'rebuttals' (though as I say, they don't really deserve this title) and explain exactly why the gloss put on it is not overemphasis.

Jon, seeing as he has refused your online debate, how about just taking one of the sections that he has covered and work through it in this way? I would do it myself, but I am a student in the middle of exams (though when they are over I am going to go about this as methodically as I can)

Please someone try to find a picture of torched steel... thanks.
Jon

There is a great thread / debate on this in the liberty forum which was linked in one of the threads below but I can't seem to find it.
It includes pictures and a very intelligent debate about the "evidence" of thermite vs. various metal cutting techniques in these pictures.
I'll keep looking. Post it it if you find it first.

"Jon, seeing as he has refused your online debate, how about just taking one of the sections that he has covered and work through it in this way? I would do it myself, but I am a student in the middle of exams (though when they are over I am going to go about this as methodically as I can)"

Because I don't have the time, or the inclination to do that.

The purpose of a debate is to take two, three, four, people with opinions, generally opinions that have either been written in the form of a book, article, or website, and let those people argue their opinions, and let whomever is judging the debate decare a winner or a loser.

I want to debate him.

We apologize for the removal of the message boards - due to technical difficulties all previous threads have been inadvertantly deleted. We invite you to renew your dialog and discuss your thoughts on the film.

http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/index.php?c=11

I have a huge problem with Robert De Niro (formally my favorite actor) fawning all over the new "Flight 93" fiction movie. (De Niro is a very smart man, and he starred in "Wag the Dog" for God's sake.)

I think many multi-millionaires like De Niro know the truth, but they won't go anywhere near it! They lead extremely comfortable & privileged lives. They find it far easier to go the cowardÂ’s route, and completely ignore 9/11 truth!!! These self-serving liars wonÂ’t even suggest that UA93 may have been shot down, let alone the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was entirely an inside job!

I wish there were some truther (a close friend, relative, associate) who would confront De Niro about his disgusting cowardice.

Working for the Federal government has its perks.

RE: The Professional

Thats exactly what I want to do, and will commence doing so as soon as my exams are finished mid may. I just thought that Jon mught want to begin, and also because I am sure that he knows alot more about 9/11 overall than I do.

Jon, I respect your opion of course, but I think that if you want to put a stop to the repeated citation of 9/11myths.com the only way to do so would be to go through the claims the site makes one by one, and offer a thorough response.

be sure to check out the ongoing discussion of this picture here:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=294...

good shit there.

You guys don't understand... there really is no debate. Go look at www.911myths.com and look for what he DOESN'T talk about, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

"As United 93 Opens
At Tribeca Festival,
Shock, Pain, Culture"

http://www.observer.com/20060501/20060501_Choire_Sicha_culture_newsstory...

Mentions Dylan Avery and the 9/11 truth movement, although not in positive terms..

Matthew I agree with you, i will also try to go through point by point. Some of the stuff is good, and a lot of it is just mumbo-jumbo, for instance he trys to convince you that fires can reach high tempertatures in a standard office fire, but he fells to mention the good conductivity of steel,
things like this we will have to use our heads on to debunk. but im all for it. lets make a site called 9llmythsmyths.com or 911mythsdebunk.com
i dunno. just throwing some ideas out there

also Jon,
I went to Drexel University for two years and they have a plethora of Engineers, do you think it would be a good idea to try to get some of them to talk?

Couldn't hurt.

What was it that DeNiro said about Flight 93?

Yes, anonymous2. That beam was melted in a very effusive way, clearly by an incendiary agent like thermite!

I haven't seen this brought up here yet but I just read a ver interesting post on the 9/11 DU forum. I hope the OP doesnt mind me posting it here:
=====================================

The NIST had found themselves in quite a pickle after the NIST's Metallurgical Results had attested to temps of less than 250c in Oct of 2004. The reason: the findings had contradicted their initial findings that the steel was adequate (representative) for the needs of the investigation (whole technical investigation), and more importantly, at the same time the findings had contradicted their "Fire Weakening" hypothesis.

So what did the NIST do?

Magic.

They, with a slight of hand, had changed their "adequate steel sample" from being adequate for the investigation (whole), to it only being adequate in determining the quality of the steel (final report).

The NIST did this even though in June 2004, before the "Steel temperature results" the NIST had clearly stipulated..

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter2.pdf

The collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of NISTÂ’s investigation (i.e., chemical, metallurgical, and mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination) to examine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the impact of the aircraft and ensuing fires.

As you can clearly see above, the NIST clearly states, the collection of steel was adequate for the needs of the investigation (whole) - Chemical, Metallurgical,and Mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination.

Moreover, the NIST details exactly what the Metallurgical Investigation consists of in other papers describing their investigation..

http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2002/wtcplan.html

Collection and Analysis of Forensic Evidence: structural steel, material specimens and other forensic evidence to the extent they have been collected or are otherwise available; metallurgical and mechanical analysis of steel to evaluate quality and estimate maximum temperatures; analysis of fire and elevator control panels.

Hence, "The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of the investigation above"

Just in case more evidence is needed to ascertain the details of the investigation...

http://www.aws.org/conferences/abstracts/2004/papers/2A...

NIST is implementing its technical plan to address these issues (see http://wtc.nist.gov /). A primary objective of the investigation is to determine why and how the towers collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft. As part of this investigation, the Materials Reliability and Metallurgy Divisions in MSEL are studying more than 200 structural steel pieces from the WTC site. Progress in this study is outlined here..............

.......Task 3: Property data to support studies of structure performance and airplane impact modeling. Fourteen grades of steel were specified in the design of the WTC towers. All grades have been characterized for room-temperature mechanical properties, and initial high-temperature test results are complete. Testing at high strain rate is underway to determine the effects of strain rate on the mechanical properties of the outer columns, the inner columns and the spandrels. Chemical composition and metallographic examinations have been completed on the majority of the steels. Creep, or time-temperature-dependent behavior of some steels will be studied after the high temperature properties are developed.........

Task 5: Metallographic analysis of steel to estimate temperature extremes. Microscopic, macroscopic and metallographic analyses are under way to determine the maximum temperature excursions seen by the steel.

Hence as was stated before regarding task's 3 and 5...

---The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of the investigation above"---

So, as you can clearly see, the Metallurgical aspect of the investigation which the steel was adequate for, had consisted both of determining quality, and determining steel temperatures.

Last but not least, lets turn to the NAIL in the coffin.
The "Nail in the coffin" is evidence of the fact that the NIST had actually discussed changing their initial findings from the steel being adequate for the investigation to it being adequate to only part of the investigation (determining quality).

Note, this discussion had taken place on the very same day the results of the steel being less than 250c had been presented - Oct 19th 2004.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncstmin_oct19-20.htm

C: As John Barsom said, the statement is not accurate. The validity of the model question from yesterday speaks to this issue. I do not believe that we have enough forensic evidence. It may be okay to establish steel quality. There was no effort by the Building Performance Study team to systematically look at the steel.

C: The use of the term “adequate” needs to be revisited. There is no core column test to support the hypothesis. The floors came down, the slabs were pulverized. This was unprecedented. Exterior columns and core remained. The floors group will attack this finding.

In summary, the NIST had only focused on one, and only one conclusion throughout its entire investigation, and that one conclusion being the assumption that fires were the cause of the two buildings collapsing.

That is the sole reason the NIST had ignored the metallurgical analysis results of the WTC structural steel . Over and over again, the wtc steel indicated temps of less than 250c, which inturn naturally indicated fires not being the cause for the collapses, yet the NIST kept on with their assumptions and computer generated simulations via their assumptions, that the steel had attained temps of 550c, even though there was not one piece of metallurgical evidence in support thereof..even going so far as tweaking their initial findings of the steel being adequate to it being inadequate in the final report, thus bolstering their POS, lying computer generated garbage.

=================================

quick question guys. Can anyone get access to this site? http://finheaven.com/
I was there a little bit ago "discussing" 9-11. Now I can't get back in. So I was just wondering is it my computer or is it them?

doesnt work for me..

500 Internal Server Error

An internal server error occurred. Please try again later.

"Terrence... If this guy, "crushes you folks", then why won't he have a simple debate?"

Perhaps he has a job and a life and doesn't have the time? Not everyone can sit on this forum all day...

If there is something on his blog that is untrue, post it here, on your own blog or you can even send it to me and I'll post it.

I went to 9-11myths.com for the first time. Looked at one thing, how the Towers collapsed. He gives 2 examples of the pancake theory. One is of a building DURING construction. It's what they call "lift slap" consturtion, where they lift the slap of concrete for a floor up the steel columns and hold it in place with a small wedge underneath the slap.The wedge is then welded to the steel columns. Well I guess what happen is one or more of these wedges gave way, and the floors pancaked on themselves. With the building not even being finished, and the fact it was built way different the WTC, I could see why it collapsed.

Now the other example is a partial collapse. It looks like an apartment building and one of the outside walls gives way. Might even be outside balconies.

Thats why I never looked at of the other things he has. Can anybody show me where a pancake collapse happen to a building,fully constructed, and not demoed? (outside of 9-11)

thanks Inside

I didnt think it was my computer.

I seen the first example I gave on the History chanel.

"Perhaps he has a job and a life and doesn't have the time? Not everyone can sit on this forum all day..."

Who says the debate has to happen on a school night? Who says I wouldn't be willing to debate him at based on HIS convenience.

Terrence, you're an idiot.

Excellent post, boast!

If we want to create a 'counter 911 myths" site, a think very effective and simple (especially in terms of the effort and time involved) would be to post the questions at 911 myths with a rebutal using the appropriate existing links or full articles that are currently available on the web. (such as boast's post above)

Anyone could suggest a article for rebutal but obviously we would need one or two people to be quality control and decide which articles to include. Someone with a large understanding of the issues and knowledge of many credible sources.

I personally don't have the time.

Any volunteers?

Hey look guys I'm a big Insane Clown Posse fan (13 years), can't help it they make me laugh. But over at http://faygoluvers.net/ ( #1 site for all Psychopathic Records news) They put up Immortal Techniques Bin Laden song on there home page. I've sent them an e-mail a couple days ago asking to start a dialog on there site about 9-11. Well I gave them a link to 9-11bloggers music page. Cool to see them host his song on there front page.

Just doing what I can to spread the word.

I went to 9-11myths.com for the first time. Looked at one thing, how the Towers collapsed. He gives 2 examples of the pancake theory. One is of a building DURING construction.

He doesnt say that you can still see full concrete slabs that look like floors.

(heres all you need for a rebuttal)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/lambiance.html

none of the floors pulverized to fine dust, as what happened in the wtc.

That to Yizzo, good point.

You guys don't understand... there really is no debate. Go look at www.911myths.com and look for what he DOESN'T talk about, and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Jon Gold

Okay.
Jons in charge of the section listing what 91myths "DOESN'T talk about.

Maybe Terrence could provide a link that shows us the progressive collapse on a fully constructed building.

Is it money? Is that what he dosn't talk about, who got paid? I don't know Jon I don't like to spend alot of time on his site cuz I can find falt in alot of it.

Sorry....that was my post above.
Jon, in your mind their is no debate because you are very famliar with all of the 911 questions and the information and facts that support them, but most people obviously are not. 911 myths gives them an opportunity to sound and feel educated on 911, a safe haven you might say, from some very disturbing conclusions.
For anyone just starting to look into 911, there is a very fine and tense line between not wanting to be a manipulated fool by believing the falsehoods of the official version and the fear (i.e personal/social consequences) of accepting the validity of our questions and the conclusions to which they clearly point. 911myths solves that that dilema and thats why we should offer an honest and factual rebutal.

Sibel Edmonds, 9/11 Commission, Norman Mineta, Motive, PNAC, etc... etc...

FAMILY MEMBERS who went to EVERY GOD DAMNED Commission Hearing, who KNOW what the hell they're talking about have declared it a "HOLLOW FAILURE", and don't forget those who have come forward to say that it was ORCHESTRATED...

911myths.com has got NOTHING.

I stand correct regarding the PNAC. It appears as though they've added something.

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

I don't even have to look at that page to know it's a joke.

The title of it is... "Neo-con think tank predicted a New Pearl Harbour"

That's a misleading title wouldn't you say? They "Predicted" it? It's more like they CALLED for it.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

What this says is... our way, a way that will probably bring a revolutionary change, will take an unreasonably long amount of time unless something like Pearl Harbor takes place.

Funny how terrance knows so much about 9-11. Hey Terrance why don't you take that million dollar reward for proving the government story to be correct.
http://reopen911.org/

Jimmy... are you Jimmy Walter, or just someone who likes reopen911.org?

The cut steel beam is _the_ Smoking Gun! How are they going to explain that away?

Maybe that's the column Rudy Giuliani raised the ever-present post-9/11 American flag on.

if that is Jimmy Walter, let me say thanks. thanks Jimmy! keep up the good work.

How is the thermite detonated? When the planes hit the building, would they have detonated any thermite in the columns on those floors?

juby i'll e-mail you if you're not already on the brigade list.

Another Rieger photo caption:

New York, NY, September 20, 2001 -- This building was damaged by the explosions caused by terrorist attacks near the World Trade Center site. Photo by Mike Rieger / FEMA News Photo

You can find it using the search page I pointed to before at FEMA.

This is it:

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_search.do

That's interesting stuff, Bronco. So how much does a loaded 767 weigh?

Here's how to access Fema's Library... Goto Homepage...
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp

Click Search Photographs which will bring you to this page...

Here is the actual page...
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/ph...tion=Clear+Form

Plug in the dates you want to search...

Search through until you find one you are looking for...This will bring up a number of thumbnails.

Thats where I found...
'Amazing Flying Columns' at Bankers Trust...id- 3988

(If you know the number you can just plug that into the search form), and it will take you direct to that page...

Here is the direct page for this particular one...
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/ph...ails.do?id=3988

click on > Download original photo... (Don't try this at home if you are 'bandwidth-impaired' - the photo is 2,967.4 KB (1578 x 2229)

Here is the direct page for the meg-sized pic...
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/ph...iginal/3988.jpg

The WFC 3 pic ... (small version) is here...

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/ph...ails.do?id=3942

With reference to the Finnish site mentioned earlier in this thread, here is a page I use constantly to provoke a reaction from doubters. As far as I know he (the un-named military expert) is the only expert to suggest a mini-nuke was used. The comparisons do look very interesting, but I presume we can rule this one straight out?

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

With reference to the Finnish site mentioned earlier in this thread, here is a page I use constantly to provoke a reaction from doubters. As far as I know he (the un-named military expert) is the only expert to suggest a mini-nuke was used. The comparisons do look very interesting, but I presume we can rule this one straight out?

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

Carn, a B-767 weighs probably half of that amazing flying steel assembly:

New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=3942

Bronco, for what it's worth, I read "somewhere" that it was resolved that this was a typo and supposed to be "sixty"-thousand pounds. Either way, it'd be interesting to see that equation!

9/11 fireman: "Bomb in the building, start clearing out."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928

Frank, of course you can only see part of that assembly as most of it is buried inside the building.

The 600 thousand figure is the official story and it has stood there for years as you can see at the FEMA site. They're sticking to this figure for years now as you can see. Of course some people don´t want this but the fact remains that this still stands there uncorrected after YEARS.

The steel was flying all over the place.

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/uoc...% 20Shot_jpg.jpg

You can also see very well the deep explosion crater in the top of ruined WTC-6 – U.S. customs building -that was never hit by a plane but blew up just after the south tower was hit.

More flying steel:

The terrorist attack against the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center that killed an estimated 5,000 [todayÂ’s number: 3,066 plus hundreds of helpers such as firemen] people also destroyed the tiny St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, located about 500 feet from ground zero.
On Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001, Fr. John Romas, pastor, attempted to go to his church but was turned back by police. Wednesday, he was permitted to visit the site to view what was left of the church. „It would break your heart,“ he said of the devastation he witnessed. „It’s one thing to see it on TV, and another thing to see it in person. St. Nicholas is buried under debris. It is the worst thing.“ He described steel girders and concrete from the towers burying the building.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/churches/st_nicholas/ default.htm

Wow, if that's all a 600,000 pound beam did to WTC-3, that shows you how massive/solid the WTC buildings were, including WTC-7, which supposedly imploded due to some debris + burning office furniture!

Bronco, http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/uoc...% 20Shot_jpg.jpg link above--doesn't work.

Sorry, this should work:

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/uoc/event/911/images/Aerial%20Shot_jpg.jpg

Anonymous not WTC-3 but 3 WFC, the Am. Express building.

On 3 WFC

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wfc/...wfc/ default.htm

http://www.cgaux1sr.org/photo/ WT...P00Web04837.jpg

http://www.cgaux1sr.org/photo/ WT...0Web6004836.jpg

Those blasted links again ...

Try this

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wfc/3wfc/default.htm

http://www.cgaux1sr.org/photo/WTC/P00Web04837.jpg

http://www.cgaux1sr.org/photo/WTC/P000Web6004836.jpg

Sorry about that.

"Anonymous not WTC-3 but 3 WFC, the Am. Express building."

Thanks. Similar enough to WTC-7 for good comparisons.

Of course these were and are incredibly strong and massively overengineered buildings be they 3 WFC, WTC-7 or the towers although some exceedingly gullible people believe the opposite.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wfc/images/3wfc_damage.jpg

This is another pic of the 3 WFC damage.

Also note the damage from flying steel to the before mentioned Winter Garden beside 3 WFC. This was even further from the towers than 3 WFC which was located around 400 feet from the closer tower.

Jet Lag posted an interesting Raw Story article in the UP flight 93 forums, check it.
http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=627#627

I used to think Terrance should be banned, but now I look for his posts. Laughing is good for the health

Oh man, S King is trying to compare peopel questioning 9/11(which would include hudnreds of 9/11 families mind you) to holocaust deniers?

Here's the difference:

Holocaust deniers ARE racist, nazi sympathizing bastards who dont have a leg to stand on.

Were trying to EXPOSE the racism and nazi like conduct of the government.
Were saying the Bush regime has sought to label all Arabs and Muslims as the enemey and boogeyman.

Now S King, Terrence: Do they really believe weve been told the whole truth on 9/11?

Here is just a small smattering of MAINSTREAM links that paint a very, very different picture of what lead up to 9/11:

CIA met with Osama two months before 9/11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

MSNBC: OSama former CIA asset:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp

CIA sister intelligencia, Pakistani ISI funded 9/11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html

MSNBC(archive) Hijackers trained at secret US bases:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html

CBS: Hijackers lived with FBI informant:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/09/attack/main521223.shtml

FBI told to back off from hijackers and al Qaeda, as the CIA followed the hijackers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

TIME.COM: 9/11 An Inside Job and boxcutters were PREPLANTED:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175953,00.html

MSNBC Slate.com: Boxcutter story a myth:
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/

USATODAY: Norad drills eerily like 9/11
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

CBS: Bush forced the EPA to lie about 9/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/09/national/main567489.shtml

You want to still tell me we've been told the truth?
Hey, but dont take my word for it.
Take the word of Bush' own Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta as he testifies that Cheney allowed Flight 77 to hit the pentagon and gave out standdown orders:(CSPAN footage)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&search=mineta

Here you can see from two weeks ago, journalist Alex Jones brilliantly articulated on CNN how the US was in on 9/11, and past examples of state sponsored terrorism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhtlzpqaNUY&search=alex%20jones%20cnn

And here is Alex Jones on July 25th 2001, thats a month and a half before 9/11, WARNING people that elements in the US gov were going to stage a deadly attack on the WTC in New York and blame it on CIA asset bin Laden. http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/august2004/082604alexwarned.htm

more proof intelligence is providing safe haven for the top 9/11 masterminds and al Qaeda planners:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,300609,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017,751102,00.html

US allowed top al Qaeda and Taliban flee to safety:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,636763,00.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid...

And of course the US made a deal with Pakistan to have these top al Qaeda flown out in late 2001 to safety:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp

CIA used al Qaeda to attack Serbs in Bosnia:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,688310,00.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?f=/stories/20020315/34...

The American people think these goons are being tortured and held in secret prisons, but they are really being kept safe and safeguarded.
No, only Zacharius "nutjob patsy" Moussaoui goes on trial.

Again, here are mainstream links. Why are people trying to propigate crap like the pentagon theory or that soemhow flight 93 was 'shot down' when we have this stuff?

Oh and S King and Terrence, again here is a big list of top officials, millitary, etc who call 9/11 a coverup or inside job:

4 Star General Wesley Clark(ALLOWED)
chief clinton prosecutor David Chippers(ALLOWED)
Former Bush Dubya chief Economist Morgan Reynolds(INSIDE JOB)
Former Reagan Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts(INSIDE JOB)
Former Head of Regan Advanced Space Programs Robert Bowman(INSIDE JOB)
FBI top translator Sibel Edmonds(ALLOWED)
Top FBI agent John Oneil(who died in the WTC towers)(ALLOWED)
Top CIA analyst Ray Mcgovern(INSIDE JOB)
Marine Corps Intel founder Robert David Steele(ALLOWED)
Republican house rep Curt Weldon(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
Democratic house rep Dennis Kucinich(ALLOWED)
Democratic house rep Cynthia Mckinney(INSIDE JOB)
U.S. Senator Mark Dayton(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
US senator Max Cleeland(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
investigative journalist Greg Palast(ALLOWED)
Assistant Secretary of Housing For Pres. Bush, Catherine Austin Fitts(COVERUP)
bob Dole's chief of staff and veteran layer Stanley Hilton(ALLOWED)
FBI Chicago-based special agent Robert Wright(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
Col. Donn de Grand-Pre (INSIDE JOB)
Former German defense minister Andreas von Bülow(INSIDE JOB)
Former Blair UK minister of enviroment Michael Meacher(INSIDE JOB)
FBI agent Coleen Rowley(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
FBI agent Harry Samit(GROSS NEGLIGENT COVERUP)
Naval Officer Lt. Delmart Edward Vreeland

Regarding Thermite:

The other day I found this article at Prisonplanet.com. It shows videotaped evidence of what Prof. Steven Jones believes is thermite dripping from one corner of the South Tower shortly before it fell. To see it, click on the link in parentheses that says "click here to watch." The article then links to a thermite experiment conducted for a British TV show.

Can you see any similarities? I must admit that they look pretty similar to me.

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=294...

is down..

Jon Gold wrote,

"S. King, 1) He was the one to create a site "debunking" 9/11 "myths", not me."

You are the one who wants the debate, not him.

"2) Then why are you here?"

As I've already made clear, to educate 9/11 Deniers on the nature of factual reality and critical thinking.

Take away ANYONE'S ability to link to his site [911myths].

I hope you're being sarcastic, Jon.

I wonder why this single image is posted everywhere as being hard evidence for controlled demolition. It might be an interesting lead, but to claim it as indisputable evidence seems a little premature to say the least. I wonder what the effect will be if this turns out to be something other than what is being claimed.

Jon Gold wrote,

"Go look at www.911myths.com and look for what he DOESN'T talk about, and you'll see exactly what I mean."

Nice dodge, Jon, but your dodges are getting old, REAL old.

Now go to 911myths.com and take his site point by point, and come back here to debunk them and show why he's wrong. If you cannot do that, then explain why.

You are the one who believes in a "government conspiracy theory." You are the one that believes that "controlled demolition" is a necessary part of that conspiracy. You know full well that unless you can prove "controlled demolition" by the government, the rest of your conspiracy theory turns into dust.

And that is why you want a debate - so that you can have an opportunity to avoid having to talk about "controlled demolition", but instead about what "he DOESN'T talk about."

Of course, you can redeem yourself here and now by declaring in front of all that you believe that it is both entirely possible and plausible for the destruction wraught on 9/11 to have happened as what you like to call the "official story", but in reality the scientific investigations, have determined.

But since you've already revealed your REAL motives for wanting a "debate", I'm confident that you won't.

Bronco wrote,

"Maybe someone can explain how it's supposed to be possible for a Boeing 757 to zoom at 530 miles per hour virtually hugging the ground before supposedly hitting the Pentagon at virtually ground level."

Don't worry, it didn't virtually hug the ground.

pockybot wrote,

Oh man, S King is trying to compare peopel questioning 9/11(which would include hudnreds of 9/11 families mind you) to holocaust deniers?

A) You are not questionning - you are accussing;

B) The practice of "denial" is what you and Holocaust Deniers do.

Here's the difference:

Holocaust deniers ARE racist, nazi sympathizing bastards who dont have a leg to stand on.

No one said you are racist, Nazi sympathizing bastards. I said quite clearly that denial is what 9/11 deniers and Holocaust deniers practice. The methodology is the same.

Were trying to EXPOSE the racism and nazi like conduct of the government.

Go for it. But so far, you haven't been able to demonstrate that the government was behind 9/11 and are more than happy to deny the evidence against you. Pure denial.

Were saying the Bush regime has sought to label all Arabs and Muslims as the enemey and boogeyman.

They have actually done the opposite declaring Bin Laden & Co. don't represent Muslims nor Islam.

Now S King, Terrence: Do they really believe weve been told the whole truth on 9/11?

Certainly not by The 9/11 Denial Movement.

Jon Gold,

"Greening's report hosted at, you guessed it! 911myths.com"

Which is why I want to end this once and for all.

Explain in your own words, Jon, why?

Nice post pockybot! Mind if I add some gravy?

9/11 fireman: "Bomb in the building, start clearing out."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928

Greg Palast is a believer of the big lie. i talked to his assistant online, and she said-"Greg thinks Bin Laden did 9/11, he agrees with Chomskys views on 9/11" as if Chomsky the gatekeeper is to be trusted. remember, Chomsky still thinks Oswald acted alone. if that doesnt scream gatekeeper, i dont know what does.

You are the one who believes in a "government conspiracy theory." You are the one that believes that "controlled demolition" is a necessary part of that conspiracy. You know full well that unless you can prove "controlled demolition" by the government, the rest of your conspiracy theory turns into dust.

this is complete and under bullshit. there are hundreds of questions that remained to be answered about 9/11, and there is an easily provable coverup and involvement without the need to discuss controlled demolition. in fact, many researchers were hesetant to even mention C.D. desepite the evidence of prior explosions (which i will link again below). there are still those that refuse to even look at the C.D. arguement because they don't need it at all to prove a viable case of government involvement and coverup.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_split.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.ann.thompson.cars.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.2.demoltion.west.below.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_street_level_smoke.wmv

Q. How did you know that it [the south tower] was coming down?

A. That noise. It was noise.

Q. What did you hear? What did you see?

A. It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was - do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "pop, pop, pop, pop, popÂ’? ThatÂ’s exactly what - because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, thatÂ’s when I saw the building coming down." (Oral history of Daniel Rivera, 9)

s. king is the one in denial. his 'there is no evidence' is complete B.S. - he just refuses to look at it, much like he blames those that do question 9/11 of doing.