What's the Truth - Full Length Video Download

A few months back we posted a preview of a video by Dem Bruce Lee Styles. A bit after that I got my first glance at the current full length version, and even had my fiance proofread it. Shortly after that I got word that he had decided to abandon the idea of doing a quick ~30 minute video and had instead decided to take the time to do it right, and make a full length movie. What's the Truth - How Indeed Did the Twin Towers Collapse was definitely worth the wait.

Focused almost entirely on the 'collapses' of the twin towers and building 7, Dem Bruce Lee Styles has made what will be my top pick movie regarding controlled demolition, and has included very short and pointed mentions of other 9/11 related subjects that hit at the crux of the issue without straying from the main focus of the movie.

A very big thanks and congratulations to Dem Bruce Lee Styles. You can find the video downloads via the link above, and I am very hopeful that others will find it a great addition to their 9/11 media collections as well.

"I'm not going to hold a

"I'm not going to hold a grudge. I was seconding his comment to ignore you since you avoided my question."

Unfortunately you made two errors. You did not recognized that I answered your question specifically twice and you agreed with a totally outrageous comment by another poster.

That tells me you have anything but a desire to be honest. I could be wrong but I suggest you examine your own statements and thinking far more carefully.

''truthout" , you should

''truthout" , you should know honorably withdraw from this thread as you have totally failed to answer any of my questions.

That joke about wct7 falling in 13 seconds - did you get it from a party cracker?

I suspect someone is pulling a few puppet strings somewhere.

I mean. was thaat really John Albanese - saying
controlled demolition was a dead duck?

Come on!

I recommend this link for a

I recommend this link for a thorough analysis:

http://home.exetel.com.au/mikec/#nist

truthout, what are your

truthout,

what are your scientific qualifications?

Where has it been proven that wtc7 did not fall in 6 seconds?

You did not answer the question about the molten steel, or the 'hotspots' on the satellite, or the earthquake type blasts on the seismograph , or the upwward ejection of heavy metal beams, or the trail of golden molten metal streaming out of the South Tower.

Why, in your opinion, was the debris shipped of to China?

It would be interesring to answer ALL these questions. I will do the same.

"Where has it been proven

"Where has it been proven that wtc7 did not fall in 6 seconds?"

In the widely dispersed CBS video. It is 13 seconds, not 6 seconds.

"You did not answer the question about the molten steel, or the 'hotspots' on the satellite, or the earthquake type blasts on the seismograph , or the upwward ejection of heavy metal beams, or the trail of golden molten metal streaming out of the South Tower."

Are you sure you have your facts correct?

"Why, in your opinion, was the debris shipped of to China?"

Not until after it had been examined.

FrankV, DHS, thanks a lot

FrankV, DHS, thanks a lot you guys for pointing those things out, I'm correcting a few things now, I can't change the structure, but I'm definitely going to sort out those stray apostrophes. Frank “The family members of fire fighter Manny Torres” segment sounds fine to me, but is anyone else getting the same problem there?

"Where has it been proven

"Where has it been proven that wtc7 did not fall in 6 seconds?"

truthout:"In the widely dispersed CBS video. It is 13 seconds, not 6 seconds."

^ What LOL? GETOUTTA HERE, that's longer then it took for the 110 story Towers collapse, building 7 was 47 stories, it fell in 6.5 seconds, time it for yourself.

kickass

kickass

About gov

Wow thanks Dem Bruce Lee

Wow thanks Dem Bruce Lee Styles!! I'll try to get you some feedback this weekend.

I'm really looking forward

I'm really looking forward to watching when I've got time (working late tonight). Congratulations.

this is solid bro I really

this is solid bro I really enjoyed the thermite section, even though I'm on the fence re: controlled demolition.

OT: Last week my friend and

OT:

Last week my friend and I hit a local bar while I was in my hometown area, and during the end of his karaoke he started talking about 911 saying it was an inside job and the guy cut his mic, so he took the other one and continued... LOL he actually got thrown out of the place after both microphones were shut off on him and he dropped one in disgust. People were cheering him.

So if any of you hit up karaoke night, it's a great place to plug a website or a piece of info...

Wow. Watching this one as I

Wow. Watching this one as I type. Powerful. Might be the best one yet.

Im downloading it right now.

Im downloading it right now. Very glad its wmv file and not quicktime.

Andy, wmv file, Amen to

Andy,

wmv file, Amen to that!

DHS, I'm just curious why

DHS,

I'm just curious why you are on the fence with controlled demolition. Initially, this is what woke me up back in 2003. I saw one of the news clips of the towers collapsing and saw the "squibs" 20-30 floors below the collapse zone and thought, "that looks odd". Thats when I started researching how contolled demo works, ironically at the website Howstuffworks.com,like in this video. It seems pretty rock solid to me. Just curious.

T-Bone: The only reason I am

T-Bone:

The only reason I am on the fence is because it is difficult to prove. Trust me, I am almost falling off the fence into the backyard of the Controlled Demolition family, but I refuse to promote a speculative issue without concrete proof (pun intended!)

That doesn't stop me from telling people about the contents of Building 7 and reminding them that it fell later that day, and the speed at which they fell, the sweeping up of the materials, etc...

DHS, Gotcha. What arguments

DHS,

Gotcha. What arguments do you use?

T: I typically say something

T:

I typically say something like "If we've been lied to about Iraq, about spying, about CIA leaks, etc. is it unfathomable that we could be lied to about the official version of 911, especially with so many unanswered questions, such as....
(in no particular order)

$100,000 wire
norman mineta testimony
sibel edmonds
warnings from about a dozen countries
w199i
put options (not just AA/UA)
WTC 7
PNAC
Reichstag
the Venice flight school

those are some. It depends on who I am talking to (their view, intelligence, prior knowledge, etc)

Great points. I tend to

Great points. I tend to focus on the lieing too and ask "how far should we look back?"

PNAC has always been a big

PNAC has always been a big one for me too. I gave a copy of "Rebuilding Americas Defences" to my dad and asked him if he thought it looked like a blueprint for what is happening.

A good one for wtc7---is the

A good one for wtc7---is the timing issue of the pull it statement in relation to the collapse

when he said -pullit
that sucker fell
__________-
plus all the standard footage,testimony of tons of witnesses including firefighters that were saying the were going to pull the building,journalists that were told to move back cause they were going to pull the building on and on

About half way thru and

About half way thru and agree that it's very well put together. I have one major problem though..the first 5 minutes should be cut. It takes 5 minutes for the film to even start, and during this time nothing is shown or said that's going to change anyone's mind. The end result is that I believe a lot of people who might have learned the Truth of what happened on 9/11 from this film alone, might not get past the first 5 minutes to give it a chance. Let the film speak for itself..you don't have to give it 5 minutes of sensationalism beforehand.

This is incredibly powerful

This is incredibly powerful -- even though there aren't the fancy graphics (which I love in Loose Change 2). Dem Bruce Lee Styles, you've gone to amazing depths with your editing and especially the sequencing of the various reports and videos. It's so damn convincing, and even MORE powerful to me without a soundtrack. Please don't anyone sway your thinking in that regard. I just watched the 1964 film "Failsafe" and the striking thing about it was no soundtrack. Everything was more REAL and INTENSE without cool music to make the viewer feel more comfortable.

That said, I absolutely love the opening music -- very intense and commanding... much better than some hip modern music with a beat (I love that too, but your choice works better -- it has a militancy, an urgency). Sorry, I digressed. And, I'm only part way into the video. Cheers!

I was at the premiere in

I was at the premiere in London last night - ok tonight - of Rick Siegel's new edition of 911eyewitness (Hoboken). Having not yet seen the first 911eyewitness I was really blown away by some of the footage. Rick introduced the movie himself and I had a chance to talk to him afterwards.

What this film does is concentrate on the explosions - massive explosions - which his camera picks up across the water. A lot of those street level videos are so drowned by car horns and people screaming that the great BOOM -BOOM sounds get lost. The blasts happen In each case a good 9 seconds BEFORE the towers fall.

There are other things in the film that I hadn't seen before like at least 9 seperate choppers circling the towers prior to the fall of WCT2, and close-ups of bright flashes that could only be demolition charges. He argues that if the 'pancake theory' were true the central core columns would not have collapsed but been left standing, and that the black smoke from the North Tower showed that the fire was nearly out when the collapse occured. Except that it's not a collapse. Seen from the river, which no news footage showed, the North Tower BLOWS UP. I mean UP. Like a mini-nuke was planted in the basement. That could explain those massive beams being blown two football pitches away from the building, and also the strange debris that came down of fine dust and paper, Apparently paper has some physical property that made it survive what could have been a thermonuclear blast.

Someone asked him about levels of radioactivity at Ground Zero and he said it had not been measured one way or the other - I think.

It would be very hard for anyone sitting in that cinema to come away thinking they had seen anything other than three towers expertly and efficiently demolished. It's not hard fact maybe, but it's sheer common sense.

WOW! great film. this is

WOW! great film. this is one of the best. and i agree...the no soundtrack is very powerful.

"Like a mini-nuke was

"Like a mini-nuke was planted in the basement."

That's the opinion of an anonymous Finnish military expert:

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

What is the size of that

What is the size of that movie, in megabytes?

anonymous, the video is

anonymous,

the video is 250mb.. if you click the link it takes you to 911podcasts where it lists the filesize..

an mp4 will be up tonight more than likely - it will be about the same size as well.

btw, we have sent out over a terrabyte so far this month - mostly due to the release of 'everybodys gotta learn sometime'.. we are going to be running ads soon, so once the fund raising jar is empty again i hope everyone will pitch in!

"T-Bone: The only reason I

"T-Bone:
The only reason I am on the fence is because it is difficult to prove. Trust me, I am almost falling off the fence into the backyard of the Controlled Demolition family, but I refuse to promote a speculative issue without concrete proof (pun intended!)
That doesn't stop me from telling people about the contents of Building 7 and reminding them that it fell later that day, and the speed at which they fell, the sweeping up of the materials, etc..."

Where is there any proof of pancake? Obviously Controlled Demo isn't yet proven. But it certainly has alot more evidence to back it up. Does the pancake theory have any evidence to back it up? At the end of Judy Wood's paper she posted a picture of a building that pancaked in India or Pakistan. The WTC debris looked nothing like it what so ever. Steven E. Jones updated paper also has a picture of a building that pancaked, and it too looks completely different from the WTC debris pile.

Has anyone posted this here

Has anyone posted this here yet? WTC Eyewitness video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3Wc0rULr8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbulletin%2E...

That short eyewitness video

That short eyewitness video is great.

" "Like a mini-nuke was

" "Like a mini-nuke was planted in the basement."

That's the opinion of an anonymous Finnish military expert:

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

Very, very fascinating. Only problem is, this guy doesn't think it's that simple:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier2.htm

On that page he proposes that 10,000 cutting charges were planted IN ADDITION to this mini nuke. That makes no sense, whatsoever. It's either one or the other. If this really were a mini nuke at work here, then you have to ask, what was this device tested on before?? I mean, just think what would've happened if mini nukes were planted and they didn't detonate properly, or caused a much wider EMP than anticipated, or caused more (or less) damage than the planners figured? A million things could've gone wrong, despite the countless simulations that would have been run on powerful supercomputers beforehand. So, what could it have been tested on? Certainly not on another WTC-like structure and certainly not with a smaller mini nuclear device. After all, if mini nukes really exist in the shadows of the military's arsenal somewhere, there's only so small- and weak- that they can be made. Point is, it HAD to be tested on something in the real world beforehand, otherwise the operation would have posed way too many unknowns in order for a successful demolition to take place. Then again, I'm speculating on a speculation, which is not a good place to be in a discussion. Like I've said countless times, WE JUST DON'T KNOW! That's what an independent, serious, scientific investigation is supposed to determine- you know, sort of like the one that was never allowed to take place.

So, while I appreciate you posting this link for us at 9/11 Blogger to check out, I strongly suggest that you keep it in house. The general public can only stomach so much speculation. As always, I suggest just sticking to the known scientific facts.

That O'donolly speaking at

That O'donolly speaking at the 9/11/2005 truth thing in NY is gutwrenching. If ONLY the public knew how many 9/11 families have spoken out.

When you strip even LIHOP and MIHOP away, you're still left shaken and angered. Because it's proven 1000% that they knewm they had specific details. NSA, CIA, etc. And David Schippers can attest to that.

I wouldn tnot be shocked if a higher up in the DOD or CIA or somewhere came forward in the mainstream press and gave strong credence to LIHOP. If just LIHOP is proven, it will blow everyone claling us 'tinfoil' kooks away.

Amen Baraka

Amen Baraka

DEPLETED URANIUM

DEPLETED URANIUM CHARGES----

THERE ARE OVER 15000 PEOPLE MYSTERIOUSLY ILL FROM GROUND ZERO

THE CORE STAYED MOLTEN FOR WEEKS

THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT WOULD DO THIS----MINI NUKES

Randkiller, There are other

Randkiller,

There are other plausible factors that could be making people ill from ground zero. The building were pulverized. Thinking in absolutes like that can come back to bite you. The fact is, we don't know.

you can think whatever you

you can think whatever you want...

occams razor says "mini nukes"

eventually people are going to come out of their confinement on this issue

Actually Occam's Razor says

Actually Occam's Razor says you should make as few assumptions as possible. Mini nukes is a large leap for me just by looking at dust color and shape.

Mini nukes also doesn't

Mini nukes also doesn't explain the possible thermite/thermate reaction, yet thermite could explain the molten metal.

"occams razor says "mini

"occams razor says "mini nukes""

C'mon. It's late, but don't let the tequila make you say stuff like that.

Hope you're all right.

S.

BTW, I'm drinking some

BTW, I'm drinking some too!

(Gotta finish cutting sounds on a bad movie)

THE ULTIMATE ATTACK WAS DONE

THE ULTIMATE ATTACK WAS DONE WITH THE ULTIMATE WEAPONS---
this whole thing is totally upside down from anything mankind has ever experienced

break thru the illusions

do you know what dust looks like from a depleted uranium bunker buster charge?

Bunker buster charge? What

Bunker buster charge? What bunker was there to bust? It is late. Time for bed.

Someone asked him about

Someone asked him about levels of radioactivity at Ground Zero and he said it had not been measured one way or the other - I think.>>

Read FEMA report, they mentioned higher radioactivity levels but no numbers are given as to determine is it just from the pulverized electronics and stuff or something more heavier..

The toxins released when

The toxins released when those buildings collapsed was enormous. The WTC illness is not mysterious. I wrote a paper for school about the WTC dust you guys might find interesting.

Andy White
Professor Hoffman
English 101
April 26, 2005

The World Trade Center Dust

The immediate damage brought on by the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings both in property damage and the death of nearly three thousand people is a reality most people are aware of. However the attacks of September 11th were in effect a two tiered attack, a two headed snake if you will. Currently, the majority of the victims died on that fateful morning when the twin towers collapsed. But recently, first responders and construction workers who spent time at ground zero have begun to report illnesses related to the toxic dust that was World Trade Center One, Two, and Seven. The disintegration of the three World Trade Center buildings released an enormous amount of highly toxic dust which has caused health complications, birth defects, and death among the first responders, construction workers, inhabitants of New York City, and to babies whose mothers were exposed to the dust while pregnant.

When the Twin Towers collapsed they literally disintegrated. Just about everything inside the buildings was obliterated and turned into dust, humans included (particles of human bones have been found in the lungs of some firefighters). “Hundreds of thousands of pounds of lead, mercury, benzene, and dioxin were released into the air at levels above federal safety standards,”(Rayman. Firefighters said they didn’t find big chunks of concrete, human remains, furniture, office equipment, nothing, just dust, 30 foot sections of steel, and small pieces of rubble. The concrete was turned into very fine particles of dust along with all the computers, furniture, paint, fiber-glass insulation, glass, metal, paper, office materials etc. “A grim list includes lead from 50,000 computers, asbestos from the twin towers’ structures and dangerously high levels of alkalinity from the concrete,”(Shukman). This large quantity of poisonous dust quickly spread beyond the collapse zone and engulfed Manhattan in less than a minute. All of this matter was suspended in the atmosphere in the form of extremely poisonous dust, and was ingested involuntarily by thousands of people. “John Howard, director of the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, told the British broadcaster 30,000-50,000 people may have been exposed to WTC dust,”(Benton). People exposed to other individuals covered with this dust were also adversely affected. “A woman who cleaned the dust-contaminated shoes of office workers has asthma, glaucoma and spots on her body,”(Rayman). Samples taken from articles of clothing worn by individuals covered in the dust revealed extraordinary levels of toxins.

“The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment.”(USGS report) The amount of highly toxic materials is astonishing and was recorded as being 65 times normal level, the highest levels ever recorded. Rubble under Ground Zero burned for months straight, molten steel was reported under the wreckage of buildings 1, 2, & 7. This persistent fire continued to release poisonous toxins into the environment for months after the initial attacks. “The combination of high toxin levels with the heat from the fire created all the necessary ingredients to generate an unprecedented amount of carcinogens,”(Rayman). In this next quote we see clear evidence that the majority of these people suffered illnesses caused by breathing in the dust and other toxins. “About 75% of workers treated report persistent upper-respiratory ailments, such as sinus infections; 44% have lung complaints; and 40% have problems with mental health,”(Szabo). The Environmental Protection Agency, New York City, and companies that supervised the clean-up said the air was safe to breathe which subsequently led many people working at ground zero to decide against wearing a respirator. “A good number of New York firefighters didn’t wear protection. Jack Ginty said, workers would have taken more precautions had they known the dangers. People were asking, ‘Is this safe?’ … and we had the EPA saying, ‘Oh, yeah, it’s fine’, he said,”(Ruelas). Exposure to crystalline silica dust, such as concrete dust, can produce silicosis, a dust disease of the lung. Inhalation of dusts that contain crystalline silica has also been associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis, tuberculosis, and lung cancer. “I wonder if in 10-15 years from now, am I going to be another victim?” (Benton). The fate of most of these people has yet to be decided and asbestos causes Mesothelioma, a cancer, which does not appear in its victims for as long as, or longer than a decade.

“The number of people with medical problems linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York has risen to at least 15,000, the BBC reported. That includes people suffering so-called “World Trade Center cough” from breathing Ground Zero dust,”(Benton). Rescue and construction workers continue to experience severe health problems, most notably what has come to be called the World Trade Center cough. Some of these workers were so damaged they could not return to work and had to retire. “Jeff Endean used to be the macho leader of a police Swat firearms team. Now, he has trouble breathing and survives on the cocktail of drugs he takes every day. Kelly Colangelo, an IT specialist, used to have good health but now endures a range of problems including allergies and sinus pain. Both are victims of what used to be called “World Trade Center cough”, an innocuous sounding condition that many thought would pass once the dust that rose from the attacks of 9/11 had blown away.”(Shukman) The World Trade Center cough may very well turn out to be a bigger killer than those who perpetrated the attacks.

When the construction started asbestos was used in roughly the first one third of the buildings, but was stopped from being used in the rest of the construction because of new regulations against it. All of this asbestos was of course still in the buildings when they collapsed (note that building seven was built in the 80’s and did not contain any asbestos). “Pleural Mesothelioma is an asbestos-related cancer with a median survival of 8 to 18 months,”(The New England Journal of Medicine, 2). Containment of asbestos is regarded as critically important and necessary in most industrialized countries, as it is recognized to cause cancer. “Unfortunately, among the millions exposed occupationally in the past who remain at high risk and the millions of those with less exposure who remain at finite but smaller risk, mesothelioma - with its decades-long latency - still looms as a dread possibility,”(The New England Journal of Medicine, 1). It is significant to note that hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars would be required to remove the asbestos from these buildings had they not been destroyed.

A whole range of birth defects among babies born to women exposed to the World Trade Center toxins while pregnant has been observed. “Air pollution from the World Trade Center attacks may have resulted in smaller babies among pregnant mothers who were in or near the collapsing towers, preliminary research suggests. Exposed pregnant women in the study faced double the risk of delivering babies who were up to about a half-pound smaller than babies born to non-exposed women,”(Associated Press). Five years have passed since the attacks and as these children grow older I suspect more illnesses will reveal themselves.

The attacks of September 11th were devastating in many different ways. Health problems among the volunteers working at Ground Zero surfaced soon after 9/11 and have begun to end those individuals lives. It is extremely important we as Americans research and fully understand the events of 9/11. Health problems and deaths related to September 11th continue to increase every day. This fact is under reported and understated. It is my belief that our government needs to be held up to scrutiny in regards to that world altering day and be held accountable for its actions and inactions.

Works Cited

Associated Press. “Smaller babies post WTC attack?” Associated Press Chicago Aug. 2003. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/05/health/main566807.shtml
Benton, Charmain. “WTC dust blamed for illnesses, death.” United Press International April 2006. http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060412-032508-4118r.htm
Cullen, Mark R. “Serum Osteopontin Levels - is it time to screen asbestos-exposed workers for pleural mesothelioma?” The New England Journal of Medicine. 353. 2005: 1617-1618. Proquest. San Diego Mesa College Library. April 27 2006. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb.
Pass, Harvey. “Asbestos exposure, pleural mesothelioma, and serum osteopontin levels.” The New England Journal of Medi

i have heard reports of

i have heard reports of higher radiation

also the seismic data supports this

also the sicknesses as of lately

just a few mini nukes would guarantee the job would be done----

molten core

another good reason that they hauled the evidence to china

thermite charges a possible overly complicated disinfo ploy

It cut off my works cite for

It cut off my works cite for some reason. heres the rest of it.

Pass, Harvey. “Asbestos exposure, pleural mesothelioma, and serum osteopontin levels.” The New England Journal of Medicine. 353. 2005: 1564-1574. Proquest. San Diego Mesa College Library. April 27 2006. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb

Rayman, Graham. “Ground zero workers sue over toxic exposure.” Newsday. Sept. 2004. http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/newyork/nyc-nytoxi143967139sep1...

Shukman, David. “Problems mount from 9/11 fallout.” BBC News. 27 April 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4904188.stm

Szabo, Liz. “WTC dust is cleared of one danger.” USA Today. 27 April 2006. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-07-26-wtc-dust_x.htm

USGS. “World Trade Center USGS bulk chemistry results.” U.S. Geological Survey Dec. 2005: 1-6. U.S. Department of the Interior. 27 April 2006 http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html

ANDY WHITE A TRULY

ANDY WHITE A TRULY RESPECTABLE NON SHILL----SALUTE!!
_______________

all the illnesses you are saying could also be attributed to radiation sickness

the same people that were lying about the air being okay to breathe are the same ones publishing the info on the poison dust cloud, basically

i have heard reports of

i have heard reports of higher radiation

also the seismic data supports this

also the sicknesses as of lately

just a few mini nukes would guarantee the job would be done----

molten core

another good reason that they hauled the evidence to china

thermite charges a possible overly complicated disinfo ploy

_______________---

Dude, stop the madness.

What's bizarre about NYC is that there are lots of civilians with geiger counters, believe it or not. The city is home to some of the most paranoid people on the planet. What they don't have, are the particulate measurement equipment to determine whether the air is safe to breath from contaminants other than radiation. The EPA lied through their teeth after 9/11, and few were truly prepared to challenge their statement with scientific proof (beyond the obvious fact that the air was full of horrible crap).

The mini-nuke thing is a dead end. Don't waste your time with this one. If you're into a new angle, get into how thermite can be molded into a girder-cutting paste or tape strip that can be applied easily by a layman.

That's a mystery that needs an energetic brain, for real.

S.

NEW YORK CITY WAS NUKED BY

NEW YORK CITY WAS NUKED BY PEOPLE IN IT'S OWN GOVERNMENT

SPREAD IT TO THE HILLS

Check out this link. It

Check out this link. It goes into great detail about what was in the dust. Lead, asbestos, mercury, concrete, lead, titanium, copper, etc. Breathing in all of that shit in the form of micro fine particles is going to make you sick.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/index.html#Contents

NEW YORK CITY WAS NUKED BY

NEW YORK CITY WAS NUKED BY PEOPLE IN IT'S OWN GOVERNMENT

SPREAD IT TO THE HILLS

__________---

I didn't know NYC had it's own government.

But IT MAKES SENSE... I should have KNOWN! Damned Visitors!

P.S. Anybody old enough to remember the show "V"? It's so similar to our current situation it's fuckin' scary... Rent it today!

Randkiller: "thermite

Randkiller:

"thermite charges a possible overly complicated disinfo ploy"

you talk about occam's razor, but that clearly is a stretch. They probably thought they could use it and hide the signs/residue from the public.

The thermite came into the public eye in two ways:

1. the video of it leaking out the side

2. the columns that appear to be cut by a thermite reaction.

They disposed of all the evidence right away, so it was probably a fluke that an analyzable photo like that made it out.

Also, I think i saw it leak from two different areas. That's not a lot considering how many beams and columns there are in the building. One area it was coming from was directly below the impact zone which may have meant the facade of the building was exposed and the thermite reaction was visible.

I think they thought that it wouldn't spew molten iron all over the place and it only leaked in a few spots. I think it's more likely that thermite could slice the load bearing columns easily, making the demolition smoother. Remember, unlike a traditional demolition they had military grade explosives to aid in the demolition.

My last point leads me to consider the "mini-nukes". It would easily explain the collapse of the basement core. Though, honestly it could just be a big bomb. Regardless, we know that they had to significantly weaken, melt or explode the very central basement core, housing the base of the steel columns keeping the building up to bring it down in such a fashion.

Anyway, I think thermite and mini-nukes can coalesce.

This is America, people can focus on what they choose. We are all working for the broader purpose, if we all do research and ask questions, when that final day in court comes, we can ask the hardest questions imaginable. We'll demand accountability on all fronts.

I also want to say that no lines of discussion should ever be discontinued. Spamming the board is bullshit, but if a well-reasoned dialogue can occur on a topic, I say let it stand. I for one am tired of get shushed, troll-rated and banned from various alternative news/blog outlets. If we all just keep our tones in check and don't spam... we can sit back sip brandy and talk about mini-nukes for a few minutes, or you can just ignore the comments and move on.

There are a few things that

There are a few things that I don't like about this video. But overall, it is great 9/11 truth piece.

Congratulations to whoever made it. And a big thanks to 911blogger for hosting/posting it.

ITS CALLED THE UNITED STATES

ITS CALLED THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT----IT WAS BETRAYED BY IT'S BEAURACRATIC BRANCH
_________________________
AFTER THE PNAC/COLLABORATORS GO DOWN THE CONSTITUTION WILL MEET THE COMPUTER AGE IN A FURTHER EXAMPLE OF THE GREATNESS OF LIBERTY FOR ALL MANKIND TO MARVEL

Can anyone verify that the

Can anyone verify that the photo at the bottom of this page is authentic and not faked?

http://www.rense.com/general70/southt.htm

if youre talking about those

if youre talking about those semi ground level columns that were cut with a diagonal line with lots of slag

that could just have easily been done by the ground crews just cutting down columns
____________________----

from the demon's point of view

this job had to be done right---they had to insure it would happen

nukes

This thread has gone to

This thread has gone to night mode...

go ahead and waste your days

go ahead and waste your days thinking about false conditional scenarios

deceiving

Hey RANDKILLER999, Would you

Hey RANDKILLER999,

Would you please approach this link with an open mind? Seriously, as a comrade in all of this.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/macgregor/macgregor4.html

Thanks for posting the Bruce

Thanks for posting the Bruce Lee Styles video anthology. No footage I hadnt already seen, but its good to be refreshed. I'd like to see a compilation of all the families who have spoken out, just to shut up people who are all "think about the families with your theories!!!"

And while I do push "LIHOP" on mainstream forums, it's easier to get people to accept that the incompetence theory is bunk than saying it was an inside job.

I'm glad the 9/11 research continues.
I think Jone's hypothesis of thermite is a lot more plausible than simply bombs. Because thermite isnt a bomb.
The building HAD TO LOOK like a pancake, where the building starts collapse where the impact holes are.

you are the one that is

you are the one that is motivated by fear---

they didnt use freaking TAPE

they used depleted uranium nukes just like they used in gulf war 1

this whole journey of the revelation of the 911hoax has been going through doors where you had to take what is believable to the next level

and you my friend have one more door to go through

i'll talk more about this with yall tomorrow

you are the one that is

you are the one that is motivated by fear---

they didnt use freaking TAPE

they used depleted uranium nukes just like they used in gulf war 1

this whole journey of the revelation of the 911hoax has been going through doors where you had to take what is believable to the next level

and you my friend have one more door to go through

i'll talk more about this with yall tomorrow

_____----

I hope the hangover clears your head, because you're talking some serious bullshit tonight.

Check out that link. It really helped me.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/macgregor/macgregor4.html

Actually, all of us should keep this essay close to our vest. It's a really good reality check.

As always, just my opinion.
S.

I am SO tempted to go to

I am SO tempted to go to this, if only because it's not too far from the anime/comic convention Im going to next week:
http://www.conspiracycon.com

Plus, it has all the well known conspiracy old timers, and a focus on 9/11. But yeah, I'd rather go to the Alex Jones thing.

@Stuart: I HIGHLY disagree.

@Stuart:

I HIGHLY disagree. I actually feel more free knowing what I know and have researched, like taking some sort of red pill. I appreciated reading the article, and I realize a lot of conspiracy theories are bunk.

But there can be no doubt that the basic kernel of some fundamentals are in some ways correct. Powerful men behind the scenes in bed with both government, corporations, millitary, and finances. Factor in globalization, lies that get us into wars, coverups, etc. and what else would you call it?

The world of the fringe paranoid doomsday Christian conspiracy theorist are long over. Now days, the government-CIA-illuminati-nwo "theme" has been slickly packaged for the MTV and myspace crowd, and has finally slipped into the activist crowd. No longer is it people like Anthony Hilder or Jordan Maxwell on public access fringe shows, but it's young activists with giant signs that say "stop the new world order's blood for oil" with an eye of the pyramid on it.
To me it's a natural progression from the ultra anti corporate/consumer hype of the late 1990's online.

Yes ,htere will always be those middle age guys who obsess over black helicopers, CFT/trilatteral, freemasons and crap like that...but in the modern era I see a merging of the traditional "fringe" conspiracy view and modern day anti war activism. I say a lot of it is due to Alex Jones, who for the first time I feel brought all these fringe issues into the light and gave mainstream proven credence to them(Martial Law 9/11 for instance weaves it all together, and somehow it makes sense)

Pockybot, Nice post. I must

Pockybot,

Nice post. I must take issue, however, with the fact that all of the issues you bring up are not dismissed by that article. What you're talking about is a general mindset, not a reaction to a crime or even a perceived crime. The article, to me, is a gentle reminder that there are finer points in our short lives that need to be held as the constants upon which we regard potential intrusions such as conspiracies or assaults upon our liberties. It is in no way, as I feel as though you've taken it, as a dismissal of the reality of conspiracy or treasonous behavior.

Far too often, people interpret a call for quiet recollection as an emasculated backing down. This is not that. I was in a conversation with someone who believes that mini-nukes were used in the downing of the World Trad Center towers. The fact that you latched onto my posting of a call for rational discussion, an article that neither dismisses nor ridicules any conspiratorial viewpoint, says quite a lot. It says just what it was meant to say when I posted it.

That just because we're in a Constitutional crisis here, doesn't mean that the Scientific Method and rationality are suddenly ambigious concepts, it means that their conceptuality is that much more important.

For a person that has had such thoughtful posts, I'm quite surprised at your reaction.

I know that the movement's inertia is great right now, but keep in mind that it's really easy to steer an aircraft carrier into a coral reef if you're not paying careful attention.

And be careful of Alex Jones, if you knew his stand on a lot of issues besides 9/11 and Waco you might want to research your alliances.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, Mr. Pockybot, despite what those with their own agendas or disorders might claim. This is not the time to make alliances of convenience, for those "friendships" will constitute your downfall when we finally are in the spotlight.

Remember that.

My opinion, of course,

S.

I am sorry that my report on

I am sorry that my report on the film I saw last night has started a pointless flame war on the subject of mini-nukes. I only reported what was in the film, which i for one found plausible. I am not of course qualified to make a judgement, but as a citizen of the US's main ally in the wretched Iraq war I have a passionate interest in the truth, whatever that may be, coming to light. No subject, however 'outlandish' must be beyond discussion. We just need a healthy dose of skepticism with our anger.

I agree that thermate looks

I agree that thermate looks like a very good culprit, but I have a couple of problems with it...

1 - massive application. I don't know how its applied to the columns, and how it remains there until the detonation/ignition sequence.

2. timing. the buildings came down in near free-fall speed. that is typically seen with standard controlled demolition, yes. But...is that possible with thermate? The reaction times of the various thermate - I hate to use the word, charges - doesnt seem, by casual observer and gut feeling, capable of causing the free-fall and symmetrical telescoping we all witnessed in Towers 1-2.

Perhaps its a combination, but that is even more critical for the timing sequences of both conventional charges as well as the thermate cocktails.

does that follow?

The MP4 version is up and

The MP4 version is up and running.

DBLS... I haven't had a

DBLS... I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but I will tonight. I'm sure it's good...

Mini-Nukes are NOT the

Mini-Nukes are NOT the reason for people suffering. How about breathing pulverized concrete? How about breathing asbestos? How about breathing metal and glass? You shouldn't trivialize what these people are going through with theories that make absolutely no sense, and would serve absolutely no purpose when the time comes to hold people accountable. I have studies available from Jenna Orkin's website that shows exactly what was being breathed by people at Ground Zero, and surrounding areas, and there is absolutely NO mention of "mini-nukes".

I just read this article in

I just read this article in New York Newsday regarding Larry Silverstein's complaints that the WTC redevelopment is being hindered by the fact that the insurance companies are holding back payment. The article specifically mentioned Swiss Re as one of the companies. I know there was an effort by someone to file a fraud complaint to the board of directors of one of the German insurance companies. Does anyone think this article could mean that some of them are taking a second look at what went down on 9/11?

The link: http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/newyork/ny-nywtc194747270may19,...

"Where is there any proof of

"Where is there any proof of pancake? Obviously Controlled Demo isn't yet proven. But it certainly has alot more evidence to back it up. Does the pancake theory have any evidence to back it up? At the end of Judy Wood's paper she posted a picture of a building that pancaked in India or Pakistan. The WTC debris looked nothing like it what so ever. Steven E. Jones updated paper also has a picture of a building that pancaked, and it too looks completely different from the WTC debris pile."

1) You cannnot compare different buildings of different constructions that had completely different circumstances. This is one point where Woods and Jones should have known better than to use something demonstrably wrong.

2) The construction of WTC 1 & 2 was such that when the upper part of the building started to collapse, the floors could not support the extrordinary mass falling on them. Thus the "pancaking" of the floors. Since the floor trusses connected to the core and outer walls to provide the buildings rigidity, when they were destroyed, the core and outer walls had no way to remain standing.

This is straightforward to structural engineers.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/fo

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59884#post59884

If you can honestly look at the photos I just posted from www.pentagonresearch.com and tell me that these parts were "planted", then I would have to ask when did they plant them? Before the Pentagon was hit, or after while everyone was watching?

dz Wrote: "btw, we have sent

dz Wrote:
"btw, we have sent out over a terrabyte so far this month - mostly due to the release of 'everybodys gotta learn sometime'.. we are going to be running ads soon, so once the fund raising jar is empty again i hope everyone will pitch in!"

How about making torrents also?..It's such a good way of distributing media. Makes all people downloading helping each other. Last couple of months I have been seeding terrabytes of 911truth media from my 10/10 line at home :)
Makes you feel part of something big helping out like this....

Here is a far more acccurate

Here is a far more acccurate depiction of the scale of the 757 in relation to the Pentagon than the much oversized 757 in the Prisonplanet animation:

9/11 Models, Renderings, and Animations

i love the music in this

i love the music in this movie. im a sucker for bagpipes and Irish music.anybody know what the song is called?

If you want to know the

If you want to know the top-secret bomb which
Randi you are right about the nuclear-like yield.

It is called an electrohydrodynamic device, or a barometric bomb.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

Evidence planted or photo

Evidence planted or photo editing.
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies65.htm

"Evidence planted or photo

"Evidence planted or photo editing."

Do you believe that? Why?

Follow the link and you tell

Follow the link and you tell me.

"the core and outer walls

"the core and outer walls had no way to remain standing."

Probably one of the most rediculous statements I have read!!!!

The cores could not remain standing because the floors fell????

The cores are what was the main load bearing parts of the buildings. If they fell because the floors fell, then that building was so poorly built it should have fell many years ago.

"Follow the link and you

"Follow the link and you tell me."

Do you believe that? Why?

Jon, we could say that Hani

Jon, we could say that Hani Hanjour planted them as he "Top Gunned" AA77 into the ground floor.

That aluminum skin is very clean & minty looking. Those few pieces are in such fine shape for photographing, etc. I wonder what happened to the 200+ seats, luggage, passengers, etc.???

Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 10:35

Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 10:35 am | #

Sorry this was me....

"The cores are what was the

"The cores are what was the main load bearing parts of the buildings. If they fell because the floors fell, then that building was so poorly built it should have fell many years ago."

I guess you have no idea how WTC 1 and 2 were built.

Neither the core nor the outer walls could stand on their own. The floor trusses tied everything together so the buildings could stand and provide rigidity to the structures. Neither the core nor the outer walls could stand on their own.

Why does that fact confuse you?

"I wonder what happened to

"I wonder what happened to the 200+ seats, luggage, passengers, etc.???"

They were inside the Pentagon.

"Neither the core nor the

"Neither the core nor the outer walls could stand on their own."

That statement makes absolutely no sense at all! PERIOD!

Those don't look like towers

Those don't look like towers "pancaking" to me.

I see & hear builings erupting & exploding, most likely due to an incendiary agent like thermite for cutting + conventional explosives for destabilizing the cut beams.

"Neither the core nor the

"Neither the core nor the outer walls could stand on their own."

But the core was built before the walls & floors were laid!

"That statement makes

"That statement makes absolutely no sense at all! PERIOD!"

Then you should take the time to learn about the construction of the twin towers. It's no mystery.

Nice discussion indeed. Very

Nice discussion indeed.

Very informative as usual.

Keep up the good work guys.

Regards,

"Those don't look like

"Those don't look like towers "pancaking" to me."

Towers don't pancake. Floors pancake. That is the definition of 'pancaking.'

"They were inside the

"They were inside the Pentagon."

Yeah, and I just visited Santa Clause at the north pole.

Let me ask you this really very simple question.

The plane could go through multiple rings of the pentagon and make a nice punch out hole, yet the plane could not make it through a 90% air building?????

The plane that hit the WTC's then should have came out the other side in very large chunks and fell all over the ground below.

That did not happen!!!!! Only a few parts managed to make it out of an almost all air building, yet you want us to believe that a similar plane could pound its way through multiple walls????

Do you not see anything wrong with that???? Please provide the physics for your statement if you say yes to the above question.

"But the core was built

"But the core was built before the walls & floors were laid!"

No, they were all built at the same time. The core could precede in height the floors and outer walls only a certain amount before they would become unstable.

truthout is the most

truthout is the most hilarious poster in months. hes funnier than Terrence for sure.

"The plane that hit the

"The plane that hit the WTC's then should have came out the other side in very large chunks and fell all over the ground below."

Please provide a structural engineer's proof of that since you are unqualified to state what "should" have happened.

RANDKILLER999: Please be

RANDKILLER999: Please be careful with your mini-nuke stuff.

"Mini-nuke" is a buzz word that can sound foolish to the media & to newcomers.

"truthout is the most

"truthout is the most hilarious poster in months. hes funnier than Terrence for sure."

Every time I post things you can't deal with, you get very nervous Chris. You haven't contributed anything here.

I think truthout may be

I think truthout may be Terrence's supervisor in the basement of some Federal building in Texas.

Odd, very odd. Notice the

Odd, very odd. Notice the object located at 10 o'clock at 2:30 in the video. It appears to move to just between the sunspot and smoke at 2:38.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8&feature=Discussed&page=1&t=t&f=b
Did you see it move? It's about 10 feet off the ground moving horizontally. Seems to travel 10 feet off the ground from left to right directly between the sunspot and the smoke.

IHOP pancakes!

IHOP pancakes!

Don't you people see that no

Don't you people see that no matter how serious and scholarly any film is, someone like Nico will switch the topic of the comments board to some absurdist theory like 'fake planes' or 'mini nukes'?

Its clearly a disinformation tactic.

Unfortunately i do not know what the solution to this problem is. I guess i would just suggest not engaging these people since they in all probability are not even REAL people.

John, I watched your movie

John, I watched your movie again last night! BRAVO!!!

"Please provide a structural

"Please provide a structural engineer's proof of that since you are unqualified to state what "should" have happened.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 10:50 am | # "

A structural engineer?????

It's COMMON SENSE! A plane can go through multiple walls of a solid bulding, but can't through a 90% air building.

As requested previously, provide scientific proof to what you say.

If I drive a semi truck through a tent, and then drive it through a cement wall, I can bet that the results will be very different.

Yet you want very educated people to believe that a plane can't travel through a 90% air building, but can travel through multiple concrete walls.

Every time I post things you

Every time I post things you can't deal with, you get very nervous Chris. You haven't contributed anything here.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 10:51 am | #
really? cause all you do is shill for the official story. lets take an informal poll. who adds more? truthout or Chris? all i see you adding is cover for the powers that be.

"Jon, we could say that Hani

"Jon, we could say that Hani Hanjour planted them as he "Top Gunned" AA77 into the ground floor."

That's a myth. The Pentagon had five floors... two underground, and 3 above ground... Anywho... Hani Hanjour did not fly that plane.

"A structural

"A structural engineer?????"

You seem awfully surprised.

You must have credible sources for your claim of what was observed is not possible.

I'm not trying to get into a

I'm not trying to get into a "Pentagon Debate". Just pointing out the ridiculousness of "planted" plane parts...

Someone here mentioned

Someone here mentioned 911Eyewitness.

The sounds of "explosions" seem compelling - but unfortunately if you review the same video tape this person took from much later in the day - after the collapse of WTC 7 - you STILL hear these mysterious sounds.

in fact, these sounds appear throughout the entire tape of the entire day.

so - simply showing the portion of the tape immediately preceding the collapse (with these sounds) is somewhat misleading and intellectually dishonest.

I am unsure what the source of these sounds are, and I do not care to speculate, but, it is important to note that the sounds showcased in this video appear throughout the tape - and not just immediately preceeding the collapse.

"You must have credible

"You must have credible sources for your claim of what was observed is not possible."

I don't need sources..... It's PHYSICS, you know math. It tells me that 1 + 1 = 2.

Once more!!!!!

A plane cannot travel through a 90% air building, but it can travel through multiple walls of a solid structure?

Physics says that this is NOT POSSIBLE!

I suppose it is most useful

I suppose it is most useful to watch the best quality of 9/11 revisited, and not some uncompressed web version of poor audio & video quality.

I'm not trying to get into a

I'm not trying to get into a "Pentagon Debate". Just pointing out the ridiculousness of "planted" plane parts...
Jon Gold | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 11:04 am | #
yeah, because they didnt clear out the Pentagon 3 or 4 times.

right? they didnt have time

right? they didnt have time to plant evidence like they did with Attas bags right? right?!?!?!?!?!

the government planting

the government planting evidence? never happens!!! right?

Chris, I don't believe that

Chris, I don't believe that they would have planted plane parts.

If they were going to plant evidence, it would have been things like ID's, not plane parts.

if they needed people to

if they needed people to believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, thats ample reason to plant plane parts.they had plenty of time with the "plane scares" that happened and cleared out the Pentagon numerous times.im not saying i believe they indeed did that, im just saying they had the oppurtunity, and to completely discount that possibility is irresponsible.unless of course you have something against people who dont believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.then i understand you ingoring certain possibilities.im agnostic about it personally, im not ready to discount either argument.the government still has a long way to go in proving that FLight 77 hit the Pentagon.

a couple of friggin plane

a couple of friggin plane parts are not enough for me to believe that without some major doubts.

Why not just photoshop the

Why not just photoshop the plane parts in later? Much easier.
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies17.htm

Those parts could be from a

Those parts could be from a drone, or have been inside a drone, or been planted by phony construction workers at the renovation site, etc.

Those parts could be from a

Those parts could be from a drone, or have been inside a drone, or been planted by phony construction workers at the renovation site, etc.
Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 11:23 am | #
exactly my point, they had plenty of time and oppurtunity to do so. but some people will call it absurd because it doesnt fit their views on 9/11.

"I don't need sources.....

"I don't need sources..... It's PHYSICS, you know math. It tells me that 1 + 1 = 2."

Then we don't need any investigations, right?

Chris, did you ever think

Chris, did you ever think that a plane did hit the Pentagon? Just not the plane the government claims? So of course there would be parts around.

Also, they would have to have cranes available to plant some of those parts. There's no way they could have done that without there being people see that!

You need to chill out a bit. Just ranting and raving about things does not encourage people do debate with you.

I don't believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but I do believe that a plane hit it.

John, I forget offhand, but

John, I forget offhand, but in 1 of the videos, a video camera on its tripod shakes strongly about 9 seconds before the collapse, and there was no wind or earthquakes that day.

truthout, you're such a

truthout, you're such a pathetic shill you sicken me!

"im just saying they had the

"im just saying they had the oppurtunity, and to completely discount that possibility is irresponsible."

That particular fallacy is called 'Begging the Motive.'

"Those parts could be from a

"Those parts could be from a drone, or have been inside a drone, or been planted by phony construction workers at the renovation site, etc."

We are only interested in actual evidence.

"truthout, you're such a

"truthout, you're such a pathetic shill you sicken me!"

I've already shown why we shouldn't trust you. What are you hiding from us anonymous?

Are you interested in

Are you interested in photoshopped evidence?
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies62.htm

"John, I forget offhand, but

"John, I forget offhand, but in 1 of the videos, a video camera on its tripod shakes strongly about 9 seconds before the collapse, and there was no wind or earthquakes that day."

Do you claim to know what caused the tripod to shake?

"Then we don't need any

"Then we don't need any investigations, right?
truthout | 05.19.06 - 11:26 am | # "

Your really rediculous!

What do you think an investigation will use???? HMMMMM - Physics, and Sceince!

So by me using physics to support my question, you state that we don't need an investigation!

Your as bright as a blown out light bulb.

You still have not provided any Physics evidence to counter my statement about physics. Do you not have any understanding of Physics?????

I look forward to your non-answer and reply!

"Are you interested in

"Are you interested in photoshopped evidence?"

That's a very amatuerish website. I don't think anyone falls for it.

"Also, they would have to

"Also, they would have to have cranes available to plant some of those parts. There's no way they could have done that without there being people see that!"

Ah, you mean like during the renovation of the section of the Pentagon that was struck? But don't worry, all the construction workers were being carefully monitored by that K-Mart webcam with sun-glare & birdshit on the lens.

truthout, you are an

truthout, you are an accessory-after-the-fact CRIMINAL who is spitting on the graves of all those murdered on 9/11. Believe me, youÂ’re playing games with the wrong person here, you piece of slime.

"What do you think an

"What do you think an investigation will use???? HMMMMM - Physics, and Sceince!"

We've already had that. What do you think the NIST investigation was? You made the claim and said all we need is 'common sense' and a physics course, so why would we need another investigation of scientists and physicists?

"You still have not provided any Physics evidence to counter my statement about physics. Do you not have any understanding of Physics?????"

A lot more than you do. I'm still waiting for your evidence from qualified structural engineers, those who rely on physics for their particular specialty.

"Ah, you mean like during

"Ah, you mean like during the renovation of the section of the Pentagon that was struck? But don't worry, all the construction workers were being carefully monitored by that K-Mart webcam with sun-glare & birdshit on the lens.
Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 11:33 am | # "

Let's be real!

First, they would only do things in a context that would be bought at a later time. They could not have the construction crew place plane parts in the Pentagon with any real explaination.

Second, they would not risk placing parts of this size in the building with the chance of them being found before the incident. It's like a bank robber waking into a bank with his mask off and the shotgun in plain site, walking up to the teller, then putting on his mask and hidding his shotgun.

Not very realistic or believeable. The plan, though flawed, was well thought out. It would not have had something like plane parts just placed in the building.

"truthout, you are an

"truthout, you are an accessory-after-the-fact CRIMINAL who is spitting on the graves of all those murdered on 9/11. Believe me, youÂ’re playing games with the wrong person here, you piece of slime."

You're getting more nervous by the minute anonymous. Your empty threats are contrary to the rules of this forum.

Why are you afraid to deal with facts and evidence? That's what I want to know.

You still have not provided

You still have not provided any Physics evidence to counter my statement about physics. Do you not have any understanding of Physics?????

actually i think 'truthout' also has an email address at scientist.com..

pretty impressive to have both an email address at both scientist.com and treason.com - do you own both of those domains truthout? kindof a shame that treason.com isnt being used for anything..

"We've already had that.

"We've already had that. What do you think the NIST investigation was?"

A farce! It was a joke! It was almost as bad as the 9/11 commission report.

Your relying all your evidence on the NIST report? Boy, you are gulible.

"A lot more than you do. I'm still waiting for your evidence from qualified structural engineers, those who rely on physics for their particular specialty."

Really? You have yet to prove how?

I'm not asking how the buidings fell, so I don't need a structural engineer.

I'm asking YOU, how a plane cannot travel through a 90% air building but can travel through multiple walls of a solid building?

Put your "a lot more than you do" where your mouth is. How is this possible, and what physics law states that this is possible?

RB, far stranger things have

RB, far stranger things have happened than plane parts being planted in a construction area. They could have been concealed in there weeks ahead of time.
Show me a photo of 1 of the 220 seats? Where are the black boxes?

truthout, you need to held

truthout, you need to held accountable as an accessory-after-the-fact. You are trying to help the perpetrators conceal their mass murder. Hope to see you on trial with them some day soon.

" "I wonder what happened to

" "I wonder what happened to the 200+ seats, luggage, passengers, etc.???"

See here.

"Show me a photo of 1 of the

"Show me a photo of 1 of the 220 seats? Where are the black boxes?
Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 11:44 am | # "

Who says that there was 220 seats??? Wheres the black boxes for the WTC planes???

I SERIOUSLY doubt that they would have to plant plane parts. They used a plane , so there of course were plane parts. I don't see the issue!

I just don't believe that they planted these large, extremely large, parts. This would have been the most largest risk of the operation, to have parts laying around. What if the operation did not go through as planned????

"I'm not asking how the

"I'm not asking how the buidings fell, so I don't need a structural engineer.

"I'm asking YOU, how a plane cannot travel through a 90% air building but can travel through multiple walls of a solid building?"

If you beleive it, support it. Don't run away from it.

truthout - you do realize

truthout - you do realize that there were people in that part of the building?????

"If you beleive it, support

"If you beleive it, support it. Don't run away from it.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 11:49 am | # "

Typical non-answer from someone who CAN'T PROVE A THING!

truthout, I'm nervous

truthout, I'm nervous because shills like you want Cheney, Rummy, Rove, Bush, & other PNAC NeoCons to get away with this incredible atrocity. Then they & there successors will feel even more bold to something even more astounding in the future!

"Typical non-answer from

"Typical non-answer from someone who CAN'T PROVE A THING!"

But you claim you can but refuse to do so. Why?

"truthout, I'm nervous

"truthout, I'm nervous because shills..."

You know I'm not a shill but you're scared about discussing facts and evidence. Why?

truthout, you can't

truthout, you can't relentlessly play devil's advocate here & claim not to be a shill!

"truthout, you can't

"truthout, you can't relentlessly play devil's advocate here & claim not to be a shill!"

I'm not playing devils's advocate for anyone. We're discussing scientific evidence. I look at the facts and evidence. It puzzles me why anyone wants to believe something other than what the evidence tells us. Like the evidence says conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Why are so many like you resisting it? What is to be gained by it?

truthout- the pancake theory

truthout-

the pancake theory is ridiculous. Did you watch the movie that this post is attached to? How does the pancake theory account for all the explosions?

Without evidence to examine firsthand we can only see which hypothesis best fits the known facts.

I doubt you'll respond to this post. (for the record, no I am not a structural engineer, but here look what some ENGINEERS and Physicists have to say)

Since much of the evidence was destroyed and a thorough investigation was not done, it is hard to say precisely what caused the collapse. Not all structural engineers, scientists and free thinkers are on board with the pancake theory because it is more outlandish and is somewhat contradicted by eyewitness testimony of explosives.

I don't know if this has

I don't know if this has been discussed already (no time to read) but why is the media not being attacked (I refer to CNN looking for people to go after Sheen), on the issue of why there is a plane in the first place on that video.

If you believe Griffin (he made this point) why the heck did the plane even get to its target? Where were the patriot missiles? Why do we even get to see such a video in the first place? Are we to believe the pentagon wasn't defended? And why are we not attacking the media for not explaining this anomaly?

truthout, all you ever do is

truthout, all you ever do is play devil's advocate, convolute and obfuscate every aspect of 9/11 truth. Get lost, shill.

"Like the evidence says

"Like the evidence says conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Why are so many like you resisting it? What is to be gained by it?"

Then where are those NTSB reports proving that those traceable parts are in fact from flight 77??

If it is so "conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon" then you should have no problem providing this evidence.

Until then, it is all SPECULATION!

Keep it up truthout. Your

Keep it up truthout. Your objections make people fight harder to find real evidence.

"I doubt you'll respond to

"I doubt you'll respond to this post. (for the record, no I am not a structural engineer, but here look what some ENGINEERS and Physicists have to say)"

I've addressed this before. Jones is a physics professor who has presented a hypothesis for controlled demolition. That's all. He's not claiming that the floors could not have pancaked.

The problem here is that all of you are ignoring that qualified structural engineers don't disagree with NIST. Why?

"Then where are those NTSB

"Then where are those NTSB reports proving that those traceable parts are in fact from flight 77??"

Did you deliberately ignore the fact that I already answerd that question? We all know that the FBI is in charge of this investigation not the NTSB.

I think some of us get ahead

I think some of us get ahead of ourselves truthout. You could be more empathetic of that fact.

"Your objections make people

"Your objections make people fight harder to find real evidence."

Good! Everyone should look at all of the evidence both for and against. It's painfully obvious from some of the reactions here that a lot of people are against that.

A big thanks for all the

A big thanks for all the great comments guys, really appreciate it!!

"Did you deliberately ignore

"Did you deliberately ignore the fact that I already answerd that question? We all know that the FBI is in charge of this investigation not the NTSB.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 12:25 pm | # "

Then there is no "conclusive" evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is there??

Just because there were some plane parts does not make it evidence that this particular plane hit the Pentagon.

Nice try though! Now run along and let the grownups talk.

"The problem here is that

"The problem here is that all of you are ignoring that qualified structural engineers don't disagree with NIST. Why?
truthout | 05.19.06 - 12:24 pm | # "

You mean those same engineers who are afraid to speak out against the OV because they would be ridiculed, fired, or worse?

If people could speak out without fear of reprocussion, I am very certain that many would state that the OV is full of lies.

Until people can speak out without fear, this will never happen. The professionals will continue to support the theory for fear.

Don't go and say what do they have to loose. If they are ridiculed, and fired for speaking out they will find it hard if not impossible to obtain work anywhere.

So you don't think that someone would toe the line??????

THINK AGAIN!

Truthout- "The problem here

Truthout-

"The problem here is that all of you are ignoring that qualified structural engineers don't disagree with NIST. Why?"

Why are you ignoring the engineers that do? Can you think for yourself? That's why we unquestionably accepted the ridiculous "official story" at first. Because we had no reason to doubt that an honest an investigation would take place or that the media would try and pull the wool over our eyes as they so obviously have.

It's clear to me now from watching the towers explode and crumble that explosives were probably used. This was the conclusion that countless eyewitness observers of the event could see, including even Dan Rather and Peter Jennings if I'm not mistaken.

I understand the why it would be nigh impossible for jet fuel to have brought down the world trade center.

WHY would both towers collapse in such a similar fashion when they were struck at such different points by airliners?

The media has beaten us down, made it so we can't trust our own judgments anymore. We have to start thinking for ourselves.

Here's a question for you: WHY did Tucker Carlson not play the clip of building 7? Because it looks exactly like a controlled demolition. That cannot be explained away. The FEMA report is bunk, from what I've seen of the unreadable, incomplete NIST report it essentially says the same thing.

There is no good reason to NOT think it was controlled demolition (especially with WTC 7) because it best fits with the evidence.

Ok, that's the last bait i'm taking from Truthout.

"then there is no

"then there is no "conclusive" evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is there??"

If it makes you feel better we'll ptened that.

"Just because there were some plane parts does not make it evidence that this particular plane hit the Pentagon."

We can pretend that too.

"Nice try though! Now run along and let the grownups talk."

I was till I came to play with you.

"Until people can speak out

"Until people can speak out without fear, this will never happen. The professionals will continue to support the theory for fear."

How many structural engineers in the world are there? What do they have to fear?

Good! Everyone should look

Good! Everyone should look at all of the evidence both for and against. It's painfully obvious from some of the reactions here that a lot of people are against that.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 12:28 pm | #

the average person just needs to see a video like LC2 to get up to speed... stop acting like people need to spend thousands of hours reading all of the crap out there!!!!

that what me and many of the people here have done for the last 3+ years....

How many structural

How many structural engineers in the world are there? What do they have to fear?
truthout | 05.19.06 - 12:44 pm | #

HAHAHHA!!!!!! are you really this much of a moron???

truthout, you seem to make

truthout,

you seem to make the assumption that all structural engineers agree with the nist report, and that is why so few have come forward to disagree with it.. you dont have any solid statements that show their support of the report, or show that they have analyzed any alternative theories asside from the official story.

so, you use their silence as support for the nist report, when in actuality they probably have never taken the time to look over the evidence and make a decisision.

i believe a few weeks ago a post was on 911blogger which showed out of 6 structural engineer professors asked only 1 had ever heard of building 7 and he had not looked at it even after hearing about it.

"Why are you ignoring the

"Why are you ignoring the engineers that do?"

And who are these thousands of enegineers and what evidence do they have?

"It's clear to me now from watching the towers explode and crumble that explosives were probably used."

It's clear to far more qualified people that explosives weren't needed. Why do you ignore that fact?

"I understand the why it would be nigh impossible for jet fuel to have brought down the world trade center."

Jet fuel didn't bring the towers down. They remained standing after the crashes for a period of time. Why are you ignoring the evidence of why the towers could fall without the use of explosives?

"WHY would both towers collapse in such a similar fashion when they were struck at such different points by airliners?"

What would you expect, something different? Why? How?

"We have to start thinking for ourselves."

I think for myself and evaluate all the evidence. The conclusion is that you haven't made the case you're claiming happened. Why don't you look at all of the evidence? And it doesn't come from the media.

"WHY did Tucker Carlson not play the clip of building 7? Because it looks exactly like a controlled demolition."

Buildings always fall down. Just because it 'looks' like controlled demolition is not evidence that it was. You need the evidence. Where is it?

"There is no good reason to NOT think it was controlled demolition (especially with WTC 7) because it best fits with the evidence."

I have plenty of good reasons and so do structural engineers. If something can be explained scientifically why do we need another theory that has no evidence? The collapse of WTC 7 does not puzzle structural engineers given the known facts about what happened and none of them need explosives to explain it.

That means you have to produce evidence that demonstrates explosives were planted, how much was needed, how it was planted to produce a collapse completely contrary to the methods controlled demolition experts have always used, and why there was no evidence of explosives in the several independent studies done of the dust?

You can't just claimed it happened without explaining how it could be made to happen.

no - very good points.

no - very good points. truthout loves to take no evidence, and when someone says there are other points of view, he likes to take pieces of reports or parts as ABSOLUTE PROOF to something.

I guess he has no concept of science and how it works. Just because something appears to be one thing does not mean that it is.

My guess is that he would also believe the OV of the JFK assasination. Even though science has proven that there are large issues with the OV.

I have given up on him/her/it. There is no talking with a person who claims to require proof on something, but believes everything that the OV says. This is in conflict with what this individual tries to spout.

Once again, nice way to ATTEMPT to get truthout to realize that there are other views to the issue.

"Buildings always fall

"Buildings always fall down."

Oh, buildings always fall down... i forgot.

" "Buildings always fall

" "Buildings always fall down."

Oh, buildings always fall down... i forgot.
Drew M | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 1:03 pm | # "

Yeah and didn't you know that when a planes engines fail in the air, they stop moving forward and just fall straight down.

This is what truthout wants people to believe, despite the physics facts.

"you seem to make the

"you seem to make the assumption that all structural engineers agree with the nist report, and that is why so few have come forward to disagree with it.."

No I don't make that assumption. Most could care less.

But I do believe that structural engineering as any other profession would not put up with bogus science which would hurt their profession immensely, just as the medical profession doesn't put up with quacks. And I don't believe for a minute that independent scientists who were asked to join the NIST investigation would put their careers on the line by allowing their names to be on the document.

I have yet to see anyone refuting NIST on the collapses of the twin towers.

I will however look at the data and evidence of any structural engineer who has provided conclusive evidence that the buildings could not have fallen without explosives.

"Once again, nice way to

"Once again, nice way to ATTEMPT to get truthout to realize that there are other views to the issue."

Is that why you are running away? I guess you don't like other views on the subject so weren't able to answer my questions.

"Yeah and didn't you know

"Yeah and didn't you know that when a planes engines fail in the air, they stop moving forward and just fall straight down."

Is that why many people are upset that NIST didn't examine the towers falling after the cause of the collapses was found?

truthout is s.king, and if

truthout is s.king, and if he really does own treason.com then its no wonder that website doesnt have anything on it.

"This is what truthout wants

"This is what truthout wants people to believe, despite the physics facts."

You haven't given any physical facts. You did say it was just 'common sense' however.

"truthout is s.king," And

"truthout is s.king,"

And you must be 'yes.'

"Is that why you are running

"Is that why you are running away? I guess you don't like other views on the subject so weren't able to answer my questions.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 1:14 pm | # "

First! I'm not running away!

I am not going to waste my time with someone who fails to debate. If you can't answer a simple, and I mean SIMPLE, physics question but you want to state things like "We are only interested in actual evidence", yet you believe that the parts found are 100% proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is nothing but BS!

Second, I have answered your questions! You want to accept the OV, but refuse to answer the most simple question to the days events.

You want people to believe that a bullet cannot go through a cardbaord box, but can zip right through a cinderblock. This is what I want you to explain about the WTC and Pentagon since you support and FULLY believe the OV.

Explain it with some physics! How a plane cannot go through a 90% air building, yet can go through multiple walls of a solid building?

Since you are so sure of yourself, this should be a no brainer for someone with your intelect.

Cummon big boy, show us what you have!

Answer my question!

Your questions have been not of science or physics, it's been to refute a document.

Answer my question!

I have yet to see anyone

I have yet to see anyone refuting NIST on the collapses of the twin towers.

yes you have, hoffman's work and jones's work.. just like you say you have seen no evidence of explosions, despite the videos and photos and first hand eye witnesses..

you pretend there is nothing to refute what you beleive just as you accuse others of doing.

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"
__________----
I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down .

im tired of you s.king.

All those parts are stamped

All those parts are stamped with identification unique to the plane they came from. All they need to do is take reporters to the warehouse they have supposedly kept those parts in. If they had it all destroyed like the steel from the WTC, well that tells a story.

Why on earth can´t they produce those 84 videos ??? Why do they recycle old and useless stuff? Because they destroyed the rest? One has to ask. Evidence has been destroyed in the case, maybe there´s more of that. People who are unable to answer questions and produce elementary evidence most likely have something to hide.

I'm new here and need some

I'm new here and need some help. Trying to download "What's The Truth". The file extension is .mp4.txt. Seems I'm getting a text file. Using Mac
Tiger with Quicktime 7.1 installed. Am I doing something wrong or should I just wait until it's done downloading.
thx

Wow. Good job, Styles. Do

Wow. Good job, Styles.

Do you mind if I post the podcast version at the Internet Archive?

http://www.archive.org

Hey DBLS, can you give me

Hey DBLS, can you give me some details on this video? What you'd like it to say in the description fields on 911podcasts? Those description fields end up in Google, so its good to fill them in.

Email me the goods...

"I'm new here and need some

"I'm new here and need some help. Trying to download "What's The Truth". The file extension is .mp4.txt. Seems I'm getting a text file. Using Mac
Tiger with Quicktime 7.1 installed. Am I doing something wrong or should I just wait until it's done downloading.
thx"

Make sure you have Quicktime 7 or later. Just remove the .txt extension from the file name and it should just work (so the extension becomes .mp4).
Should work...

just did that... worked like

just did that... worked like a charm.. will be watching shortly... thanks.

Truthout, I just want to

Truthout,

I just want to know how you theorize the "squibs" that can be seen blowing out at centralized points 20-30 floors below the collapse wave? I am speaking of the massive point emissions that seem to blowout in the center of each side of the tower at the same time and same floor. I want to hear all sides of the argument. This is one anomaly I can't get my brain around with out considering controlled demo.

T-Bone, obviously the squibs

T-Bone,

obviously the squibs 30+ floors below the collapse were just windows blown out from the air traveling down the stairways faster than the collapse wave itself.

just look on his favorite site 911myths, im sure they imagine a reasonable answer to believe in.

no, I am new here, so I

no,

I am new here, so I don't know who truthout is. If he truely does believe that then I think his views are suspect. I'm sure many of you can fill me in. I have heard that theory and it seems silly. Why would pankaking produce centralized points? Doesn't seem likely. If it was across the whole floor, then yes, maybe plausible.

I've looked at the squibs

I've looked at the squibs footage quite a bit. It looks to me like the expulsion of material speeds and gains force as the main tower debris falls toward it. This would be more consistent with air under increasing compression from the collapse than the detonation of high velocity explosives. In the latter case one would expect to see the squibs exit very quickly, then slow down quickly as the force of the explosion dissapates. You'd also might expect to see a flash of light and/or a sonic "pop" even over the roar of debris.

As to why they appear on the same floor at the same time... Could the ventalation system and/or central core construction have channeled more collapse pressure to those exact points than the surrounding points? Hard to say without blueprints.

Reprehensor that would be

Reprehensor that would be wicked! Hold tight for a small while though dude, Dz pointed out a spelling mistake so I'm just upping a corrected version, I think it’s like the 48th minuet I’ve spelt conditions “condisions”, should be all sorted out in a few hours though.

Sbg, IÂ’ll type something up dudeÂ…

Plus, I have looked at one

Plus, I have looked at one of the clips that shows one of these squibs. It is the one that was shown from the base of the tower looking up at the collapse. I believe the guy who shot it was interviewed on Oprah. Its the one where he begins running with the camera pointed behind him and you can see the cloud chasing him like Independance Day. What was odd about the squib on that one (which is level with the top of one of the buildings next to the tower) is it had a very gas-like, pressurized look, not to mention how far down it was from the collapse wave.

What pulverized nearloy all

What pulverized nearloy all the concrete? We´re talking talcum level here. This takes enormous amounts of energy. To pulverize up to 100 thousand tons of concrete in seconds IN MID AIR you have to blow it apart with high explosives. The concrete floors sat in corrugated steel pans. They were blown apart too.

When a building collapses in a gravity driven event (no demolishion) you don´t have this kund of total collapse and pulverization. And the reinforcing structure by definition delays and slows the collapse. This is elementary. The 911 commission admits on page 305 that the south tower collapsed in ten seconds. This equals 1360 ft. of free fall speed in the atmosphere aclose to sea level. In a vacuum it's 9.2 seconds ! Of course the fall is a little slower where there´s air resistance. Since the towers fell at free fall speed the structure in effect fell through itself without any resistance except from the atmosphere. This is a physical impossiblity in a collapse solely driven by gravity.

So; they admit on page 305

So; they admit on page 305 that the south tower collapsed in ten seconds.
They don´t mention the time as the other tower was concerned probably because it was even faster ! If i recall it correctly it was nine seconds. Anyway, they are in effect confirming what many sceptics have claimed that the tower collapsed indeed at free fall speed.

Actaully ten seconds is faster than free fall speed in the atmosphere at sea level because there´s air resistance, maybe wind, updraft, etc. Remember it's 9.2 seconds in a vaccuum. I'm always referring to 1360 feet, the height of those towers.

You can´t just brush all this off. These collapses are in clear violation of physical law if you assume a gravity driven collapse (no demolition). There is no way around that.

truthout is just another

truthout is just another Terrance. He makes statements as if they are inherently true. He never provides any links to back up his claims though so he has no credibility until he does so. The NIST study is bogus. The director of that study stated in an interview he doesn't understand why Americans are so obssesed about building 7. And anyone who thinks WTC 7's collapse is normal is insane.

"...you believe that the

"...you believe that the parts found are 100% proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is nothing but BS!"

I never said that. I said all of the evidence and you ignore all of the evidence.

"Explain it with some physics! How a plane cannot go through a 90% air building, yet can go through multiple walls of a solid building?"

That's you claim, not mine. Prove it.

"Your questions have been not of science or physics, it's been to refute a document."

Where's your evidence? Why are you dodging?

True AW, I read that

True AW, I read that interview.

That guy was laughable.

I have it handy. Maybe I should post it. :)

t-bone dont listen to these

t-bone

dont listen to these fools... think for yourself...

gangster is right on, these other dudes are crazy...

truthout is nothing but a shill of some sort, same with kyle... theyre new and will be gone soon im sure...

Regarding Ground Effect

Regarding Ground Effect maybe this could be useful

Ground Effect and WIG Vehicles

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml

"yes you have, hoffman's

"yes you have, hoffman's work and jones's work.."

They don't refute NIST.

"I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

How does that refute the NIST report?

"im tired of you s.king." I am not s.king or tarzan.

Support your case.

Government spokesman says,

Government spokesman says, “I don’t understand the public’s fascination with World Trade Center Building Seven.”

http://www.teamliberty.net/id235.html

March 21, 2006 – Michael E. Newman, Public and Business Affairs spokesman for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in a phone interview with the Muckraker Report on Monday, March 20th, said that he didn’t “understand the public’s fascination with World Trade Center Building Seven.” Newman was contacted by the Muckraker Report to discuss when the National Institute of Standards and Technology anticipated releasing its report regarding how World Trade Center Building Seven collapsed onto its footprint at 5:20p.m. EST on September 11, 2001.

What I found so interesting about my 30-minute conversation with Newman was how easily he discounted as unfounded conspiracies, the findings and opinions of scientists who are operating outside of the government’s payroll. He frequently used analogies to conspiracy theories and urban legends such as Bigfoot and UFO’s. At one point Newman said that he has joked with members of his Public and Business Affairs that they might as well conduct press conferences wearing “Bigfoot” costumes because “no matter what we say, some people will not believe the government”. Newman continued, “For some people, no matter what the government says about 9/11, they will still believe that the government is lying. Some people still believe the world is flat and there are UFO’s. There’s nothing the federal government can say to convince these people otherwise.”

When I mentioned to Newman that we’re not talking about nutcases from Kooksville, but rather credentialed scientists such as BYU Physics Professor, Stephen E. Jones, Claremont Professor Emeritus, David Ray Griffin, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Engineer, Jeff King, he said, “Just because a person is from MIT doesn’t mean that they know what they’re talking about.” Assuming that Newman is right, then it must be noted that the Lead Technical Investigator for the NIST National Construction Safety Team for WTC Investigation is a gentleman named Shyam Sunder, who incidentally, received his doctoral degree in structural engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1981.[1]

I asked Newman whether his

I asked Newman whether his agency had a compelling interest to produce a report regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers that substantiated the 9/11 Commission Report. He indicated that NIST had no such interest. When asked if NIST would produce and release a report on World Trade Center Building Seven, even if the InstituteÂ’s conclusions reveal that WTC-7 did in fact collapse as the direct result of a controlled demolition, Newman said that NIST would release such a report if that turns out to be its findings.

Intrigued by Newman’s ability to maintain a persona of impartiality and claimed dedication to truthfulness while he simultaneously scoffed, if not ridiculed any scientist who disagrees with the government’s scientists and their findings, I decided to test his dedication to impartiality and whether NIST had any predisposition towards finding a cause of collapse of WTC Building Seven that will coincide with the government’s account of 9/11. I asked him about the now infamous public statements made by Larry Silverstein, the controller of the World Trade Center Complex. Recall that on a PBS documentary that aired in September 2002, Silverstein said that he and the New York Fire Department decided jointly to “pull” WTC-7. Here is the exact Silverstein quote from the 2002 PBS documentary.

“I remember getting a call from the ER, Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is ‘pull it.’ And they made the decision to ‘pull’ and we watched the building collapse.”

Almost immediately after I finished referencing Silverstein as saying that the “smartest thing to do is pull it”, Newman responded with a condescending chuckle to remind me that the federal government is always right, and the people, always wrong. He then said, “Silverstein already explained that what he meant was that they decided to pull the firefighters and emergency rescue workers from World Trade Center Building Seven.” One can only hope that NIST doesn’t consider its investigation into what Silverstein meant by his usage of the words, “pull it” as complete, solely on an ambiguous clarification offered years later by a man (Silverstein) that certainly has a financial and personal interest in the government’s official account of 9/11 prevailing.

"It looks to me like the

"It looks to me like the expulsion of material speeds and gains force as the main tower debris falls toward it. This would be more consistent with air under increasing compression from the collapse than the detonation of high velocity explosives. In the latter case one would expect to see the squibs exit very quickly, then slow down quickly as the force of the explosion dissapates. You'd also might expect to see a flash of light and/or a sonic "pop" even over the roar of debris."

I don't think we are talking about the same anomaly. I am speaking of the squibs well below the collapse wave.
"In the latter case one would expect to see the squibs exit very quickly, then slow down quickly as the force of the explosion dissapates." In the clip I descibed in my post at 2:21 shows what you describe here.

"All those parts are stamped

"All those parts are stamped with identification unique to the plane they came from. All they need to do is take reporters to the warehouse they have supposedly kept those parts in."

How does that effect all of the other evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon?

After Newman finished

After Newman finished minimizing the value of the Silverstein comment as essentially worthless, I pointed out to him the fact that organizations such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Revisited certainly seemed to be presenting thoughtful and scientific information that refuted much of the work by the government’s scientists at NIST. I expressed to him my concern that more than half of all Americans now believe the U.S. government has some complicity if not culpability regarding 9/11, with many people now believing that 9/11 is nothing more than a massive government cover-up; a public perception Newman did not refute. However, when I suggested that a possible method to reconcile the division in the United States between the government and its people might be for a series of televised national debates between his thirty scientists assigned to investigate how World Trade Center Buildings – 1, 2, & 7 collapsed onto their footprints on September 11, 2001, I was abruptly interrupted and told that none of the NIST scientists would participate in any public debate.

Curious, I asked why the National Institute of Standards and Technology would avoid public debate, particularly if it was confident in its work. Newman responded, “Because there is no winning in such debates.” When I pointed out that such a debate between the thirty scientists who worked on the NIST 9/11 Investigation and thirty equally-qualified scientists who dispute, and claim to be able to refute the NIST findings; that such a public, televised debate might actually help answer many of the public’s questions and possibly restore some national unity, the NIST spokesman emphatically insisted that such a debate will never occur.

As precociously as Michael E. Newman presented himself as a government man, and therefore trustworthy, the inconsistencies in his agencyÂ’s work pertaining to how the Twin Towers collapsed will persist if NIST and its lot of government scientists donÂ’t publicly debate with non-government scientists that are presently and publicly disputing the governmentÂ’s findings.

Glaring evidence of a fallible, if not predisposed government agency is found on the National Institute of Standards and Technology web site. For example, NIST lists as one if its main 9/11 investigation objectives as to determine:

Why and how World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft[2]
Note: In the event that NIST changes the aforementioned misleading language on its web site, click here to see how the web page read as of March 20, 2006.

Why is the false statement on the NIST web site? The National Institute of Standards and Technology knows, along with the rest of the world, that no aircraft impacted WTC-7. Yet on its web site, it uses language that suggests that WTC-7 was also collided into by an aircraft. Is it any wonder why Americans are struggling to accept the governmentÂ’s 9/11 story when a federal agency intended to set the standard is demonstrating to the world that its own standard of accuracy regarding the dissemination of information is woefully inadequate?

This lack of standards is demonstrated again in the National Institute of Standards and Technology - Executive Summary, which is a portion of its report regarding how the Twin Towers collapsed. Listed as Finding 59, NIST reported:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Amazingly, the government sees the dust clouds produced during the collapse of the Twin Towers as an obstruction of view, while scientists, outside the governmentÂ’s control, see the volume, density, and speed of outward projection from the buildings during the collapse that the dust clouds demonstrated, as evidence of secondary explosive devices. Whether secondary explosive devices caused or assisted the collapse of the Twin Towers or not, the dust clouds were and remain compelling evidence that the government, by their own admission, missed or ignored.

Seeing as NIST scientists couldnÂ’t see the fact that the dust clouds were themselves, evidence, and not obstructions, is it possible for the National Institute of Standard and Technology to be taken seriously, let alone, trusted? Why is the public so fascinated with WTC-7 Mr. Newman? We are so fascinated by it because the events of September 11, 2001 were a national tragedy with many valid and unanswered questions remaining in the public mind.

If there is a weak link in a government cover-up, World Trade Center Building Seven is it. If WTC-7 is found to have collapsed as a result of a controlled demolition, than the NIST report on the Twin Towers will be aggressively scrutinized because the question of how and when explosive devices were wired into WTC-7 would have to be answered. By answering that question, a new truth regarding WTC-1 and WTC-2 might be revealed.

Does NIST have a compelling interest to report that WTC-7 defied the laws of physics also on September 11, 2001 and miraculously collapsed at freefall speed as the result of office fires? You bet it does! Can the National Institute of Standards and Technology be trusted as a competent federal agency that will deliver an untainted, truthful analysis of WTC-7 regardless of what that truth might be? IÂ’ll leave the answer to that question up to you.

________________________________________________________________________________

[1] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Project Leaders, National Construction Safety Team for WTC Investigation, Shyam Sunder, http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=sunder, [Accessed March 20, 2006]

[2] NIST & The World Trade Center, Fact Sheets, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm, [Accessed March 20, 2006]

Freelance writer / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report. Get smart. Read the Muckraker Report. [http://teamliberty.net] To learn more about EdÂ’s current and previous work, visit Crafting Prose. [http://craftingprose.com]

Truthout, I just want to

Truthout,

I just want to know how you theorize the "squibs" that can be seen blowing out at centralized points 20-30 floors below the collapse wave? I am speaking of the massive point emissions that seem to blowout in the center of each side of the tower at the same time and same floor. I want to hear all sides of the argument. This is one anomaly I can't get my brain around with out considering controlled demo.

Hoffman totally refutes

Hoffman totally refutes NIST. The energy equation doesn´t add up. The energy sink is much larger than the building's potential energy. When a building collapses its potential energy relative to gravity and mass is converted into kinetic energy. This doesn´t create any new energy except minor things like gas tanks and other flammable material may ignite as the building collapses. But basically potential energy relative to mass and gravity is converted into kinetic energy ans that´s it. You can´t have energy sinks in a gravity driven event (no demolition) that are dozens of times larger than the building's potential energy ! Most people probably know that energy isn´t created out of nothing. :)

Sounds great, downloading

Sounds great, downloading now!

(won't post comments in this thread)

"I never said that. I said

"I never said that. I said all of the evidence and you ignore all of the evidence."

Really??? How about this statement!

"I'm not playing devils's advocate for anyone. We're discussing scientific evidence. I look at the facts and evidence. It puzzles me why anyone wants to believe something other than what the evidence tells us. Like the evidence says conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Why are so many like you resisting it? What is to be gained by it?
truthout | 05.19.06 - 12:04 pm | # "

Conclusively is like stating 100%. This is a statement to say that this is a fact! It is not a fact that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. It can be shown that a plane hit the Pentagon, but not flight 77.

"That's you claim, not mine. Prove it."

You are an IDIOT! You think it's a claim????

So then please provide this evidence of the planes going clean through this 90% air building and landing on the ground or in another building.

Since you seem to think that this is normal and physically possible provide the evidence to support it.

Here is my proof.

F = MA.

My claim is that since the planes did not exit the WTC's, then how can one go through the multiple walls of the Pentagon.

I don't expect an intelligent answer from you because your just a troll. This particular question is not dificult for someone who supports the OV. Since you fail to answer it you obviously are just regurgitating the OV.

Inside, Don't worry, I am a

Inside,

Don't worry, I am a free thinker. One of my favorite quotes from a great American mind:

"I got this real moron thing I do, it's called THINKING!!! And I don't make a very good American because I like to form my own opinion."

---George Carlin--- Jammin in New York

Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 2:52

Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 2:52 pm | #

this was me

"I just want to know how you

"I just want to know how you theorize the "squibs" that can be seen blowing out at centralized points 20-30 floors below the collapse wave?...This is one anomaly I can't get my brain around with out considering controlled demo."

First I would ask why you would think it was an 'anomaly?' The event was unique in history. We've never seen buildings like the twin towers collapse before.

The alernate hypothesis makes a lot of sense: as the floors collapsed air in the building was being compressed and forced downward through elevator shafts and stairwells into offices. Where the overpressure exceeded a certain value or where there was weakening around the sealed windows, the windows blew outward with the dust and smoke-laden air.

The 'squib' theory still has to account for why there is no evidence of explosives.

Note that the pulverization

Note that the pulverization of the concrete is only part of the energy sink (converting potential energy into kinetic energy). There's also the cutting of all that steel into small units, this takes huge energy. pulverization of gypsum, furniture, office equipment, basically everything but the steel. Add temperature in the hundreds of degrees in the ruins for weeks and molten steel found days or weeks after the collapse. Energy isn´t created from nothing. The energy expenditure here in effect proves an outside source of energy to assist the collpase, that is explosives. The energy sink is the smoking gun. It was a controlled demolition.

truthout, you can´t just

truthout, you can´t just sit there and ignore basic physics. We´re not in the fifteenth century you know. When buildings collapse they are obliged to do so according to certain physical reality. If that is violated then those buildings must have had some outsife energy source assist in the collapse.

Truthout, I still can't see

Truthout,

I still can't see your theory beiing plausible due to the fact that the "squibs" I am refering to are way below the collapse zone. If they were traveling down stairwells and elevator shafts, why didn't they blowout on every floor? Another question for you is, do you believe controlled demo is a possibility? Is it possible this could have happened?

"Really??? How about this

"Really??? How about this statement!"

It proves what I said.

"It is not a fact that flight 77 hit the Pentagon."

Yes, it is. If you don't think so, tell us what is wrong with all of the evidence that proves it did and tell us what happened to AA 77 if it did not hit the Pentagon.

You would be the first in history to do it.

"So then please provide this evidence of the planes going clean through this 90% air building and landing on the ground or in another building."

As I said, that is your claim not mine. You don't have anything to back your claim up since your refuse to do so.

"My claim is that since the planes did not exit the WTC's, then how can one go through the multiple walls of the Pentagon."

So it is your claim after all just like I said.

Go ahead, prove it.

The whole 911 script is just

The whole 911 script is just nonsensical. It's writers were just sloppy and non chalant. They didn´t bother about physics. It was a shock and awe Hollywood show first and foremost scripted to shock the American people and the world to be able to sell war and loss of liberties and armies of security. It's the perfect use for deficits and money printing and cronyism. War is a HUGE business and so are those seurity armies and surveillance industry.

Gangster, truthout does not

Gangster, truthout does not believe in physics or science. Your just wasting your type.

He will argue with you that it is perfectly normal for a plane to fall straight down if it's engines fail, rather than moving forward still.

I for one look at the evidence and make a conclussion. Like you pointed out.....

Not one other time in history has a building fell onto it's own footprint at a near free fall speed before. Yet everyone seems to think that 3 buildings in the same day is absolutely normal.

I just don't understand what the schools are teaching these days.

Truthout, You also said,

Truthout,

You also said, "The 'squib' theory still has to account for why there is no evidence of explosives."

The squibs themselves are evidence, along with explosions reported. Popping sounds reported, flashes of light. All of these are evidence of demolition.

Read, it's the perfect

Read, it's the perfect excuse for deficits ....

"Yes, it is. If you don't

"Yes, it is. If you don't think so, tell us what is wrong with all of the evidence that proves it did and tell us what happened to AA 77 if it did not hit the Pentagon."

So because one of the questions cannot be answered this makes the whole thing true???

I'll say it again! IDIOT!

Since it is a FACT, show me the NTSB document that shows the match of the traceable parts for flight 77 to the parts from the Pentagon.

Show me the proof! If you can't then it is NOT A FACT!

GOD DAMN AM I GETTING TIRED OF THIS MORON!

1. Truthout will next tell

1. Truthout will next tell us how the FBI werent forced to stop investigating the hijackers and al Qaeda, and that nooen in the government had prior knowlege;)

2. Yeah, these are really "planted"...Im sure they had plenty of time to plant charred 747 parts in the most extreme heat areas of the hole.
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59884#post59884

What Michael Berger should have said on tv was 'This footage is a distraction from the provable facts that 9/11 was not as we were told"

to anonymous i know this

to anonymous

i know this answer is coming very late - but you contend that the camera in 911Eyewitness visibly shakes during the collapse of the towers.

are you aware how ridiculous that claim is? the camera was placed on the other side of the Hudson river in New Jersey. First of all - that is simply too far away and on the other side of a major river to be affected physically by the collapse - even IF explosives were used. My wife and I were standing in Manhattan 20 short city blocks away when the towers collapsed - and felt nothing. (except terror)

Second - there is ALWAYS wind on a pier of the Hudson River.

Third - there are simply too many unknowns. The shaking could have been caused by MANY other things - including the camera man reacting to the collapse.

I just get tired of all the speculation and almost desperate attempts to prove demolition.

Truthout, I still can't see

Truthout,

I still can't see your theory beiing plausible due to the fact that the "squibs" I am refering to are way below the collapse zone. If they were traveling down stairwells and elevator shafts, why didn't they blowout on every floor? Another question for you is, do you believe controlled demo is a possibility? Is it possible this could have happened?

Truthout, You also said,

Truthout,

You also said, "The 'squib' theory still has to account for why there is no evidence of explosives."

The squibs themselves are evidence, along with explosions reported. Popping sounds reported, flashes of light. All of these are evidence of demolition.

RB, well the guy believes

RB, well the guy believes that those towers collapsed in a gravity driven event (no demolition). If he believes something he must have some inkling about WHY he believes it. He must be able to argue for it. This is obvious. Since gravity driven event proceed according to certain indisputable physical law and these collapses clearly violate those laws the guy obviously is in a hopeless dilemma ! :) He doesn´t know why he believes this, in other words he is believes blindly in bunk he´s fed. :)

These people are ridiculous.

These people are ridiculous. One joker calls the laws of physics "a desperate attempt to prove demolition". LOL.

Get your heads examined shills. LOL.

These shills clearly do not

These shills clearly do not understand what they believe. They don´t understand why they believe the official story. They believe in a gravity driven event but don´t know why. Ergo; They believe blindly.

Gangster, that's exactly

Gangster, that's exactly right.

I have asked questions that are of the most basic, that does not necessarily relate to 9/11 and he still cant answer it.

He is just a parrot. I enjoy discussion with people of different views. I may learn something, but when they refuse to answer simple questions, then I get tired of it real quick.

My god, he can't even provide evidence to the plane parts that I ask for, but he claims that it is a FACT that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Anyone who has even the smallest intellect knows that there are hundreds of parts that are tracked on aircraft. If it was AA77, then it would be proof by him showing the documents that prove that those parts are from AA77.

But noooooo....... It's a fact, even though he can't prove it. Then he wants an answer to something that has not been proven yet. First, let's prove that the parts in fact belong to AA77, then if not we can begin to determine what happened to that actual plane.

GEEZE!

Those shills seem to be

Those shills seem to be religious zealots. Their blind belief in things they clearly do not understand (they totally ignore the laws of physics) indicates this.

Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 3:18

Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 3:18 pm | #

me again

"truthout, you can´t just

"truthout, you can´t just sit there and ignore basic physics. We´re not in the fifteenth century you know. When buildings collapse they are obliged to do so according to certain physical reality. If that is violated then those buildings must have had some outsife energy source assist in the collapse."

That was funny.

The problem is that the buildings have been shown to collapse from the damage and fires without the need for explosives.

So you are unable to say that they could only be brought down by explosives. You need to have physical evdidence of explosives.

Guys, you have to understand

Guys, you have to understand shill tactics. They are designed to tire you and drive you from the discussion. They ignore fundamentals but split hairs, obfuscate and you have to tell them the same basic over and over again. It never seems to register in their heads. It's a strategy of boredom and ennui. :)

"The problem is that the

"The problem is that the buildings have been shown to collapse from the damage and fires without the need for explosives.

So you are unable to say that they could only be brought down by explosives. You need to have physical evdidence of explosives.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 3:20 pm | # "

It is true that buildings have fallen due to fines. However, they have not fallen in a free fall, and they did not fall on to their own footprint.

Since this happens ALL THE TIME, you will have no problem providing an example of JUST ONE of these magnificant building collapses?????

JUST ONE!!!!

truthout, no it is YOU who

truthout, no it is YOU who have to explain why those towers collapsed at a free fall speed in a gravity driven event (no demolition). The theory you believe in violates physical law.

"You also said, "The 'squib'

"You also said, "The 'squib' theory still has to account for why there is no evidence of explosives."

Exactly

"The squibs themselves are evidence, along with explosions reported."

I just showed you that 'suibs' could easily be something else.

"Popping sounds reported, flashes of light. All of these are evidence of demolition."

No, they are not physical evidence of explosives. You need residue, evidence of blasting, wire, etc., actual physical evidence. You would have to also explain why a controlled demolition was done completely in contradiction to all controlled demolitions ever done by demolition experts.

A building's reinforcing

A building's reinforcing structure by definition prevents it from collapsing. This is awfully elementary. Worst case it DELAYS the collapse. Since those towers collapsed at a free fall speed it obviously follows that the reinforcing structure didn´t delay the collapse at all. In a gravity driven event (no demolition) this is a physical impossiblity. You can´t get around this. This is just basics. LOL.

just got thru "What's The

just got thru "What's The Truth". Very impressive.
Congrats to DBLS for an outstanding effort.
Tucker Carlson certainly showed his cowardice and ineptitude vs. Steve Jones. Anyone got Tucker's email address so I can personally lambast him?
cheers.

People who do not understand

People who do not understand why buildings are reinforced and clearly truthout doesn´t are not qualified to partake in a disussion on such events. This is also elementary. :)

If you really believe that

If you really believe that heavily reinforced buildings can collapse at free fall speed (without any delay from from the reinforcing structure)

then you can not also believe that parachutes work ! :)

Hello? Anybody home? LOL

"So because one of the

"So because one of the questions cannot be answered this makes the whole thing true???"

You're confused. The convergence of all the available evidence from all sources demonstrates that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

"Since it is a FACT, show me the NTSB document that shows the match of the traceable parts for flight 77 to the parts from the Pentagon."

The FBI has the documents. You already learned that. It is irrelevant anyway since all of other evidence shows that only AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

"GOD DAMN AM I GETTING TIRED OF THIS MORON!"

When you confront the fact that you don't know what you are talking about maybe you will start listening.

If you really believe that

If you really believe that heavily reinforced buildings can collapse at free fall speed (without any delay from from the reinforcing structure)
in a gravity driven event (no demolition)

then you can not also believe that parachutes work !

Hello? Anybody home? LOL

I am confused by the

I am confused by the physics. Physics is math. 2 + 2 = 4.

Many of you claim that the laws of physics were defied by these collapses - yet, none of your are actual physicists. It just "sounds" right.

So, lets admit that we are all not physicists.

Additionally, we have the work of Dr. Jones and Jim Hoffman. These gentleman certainly ARE qualified to make scientific statements.

Yet, it appears that their work has not been accepted by the scientific community as quantitatively correct. Let us not forget that there are literally thousands of qualified physicists and structural engineers worldwide who do not agree, or who have not qualified the work of Jones and Hoffman.

So, those of us who INSIST that the laws of physics have been violated are being intellectually dishonest and making claims of expertise in areas they do not possess.

Additionally, we have those who make unsupportable claims that "it is obvious" and "you can just SEE" etc etc

But, once again the scientific community itself does not appear to share the same sense of "the obvious"

Given the SIZE of the scientific community in myriad universities and research think-tanks worldwide, it is a peculiar vacuum of opinion, and therefore unreasonable to believe that all of these experts of silent for reasons of "denial" or "intimidation".

So, can we please stop claiming that the laws of physics support the controlled demolition theory?

Can we perhaps possess a modicum of objectivity and humility about our own limitations as NON-experts, and allow for the fact that even among the REAL experts this theory is highly suspect?

If it was as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 there would be no dispute in the scientific community - so please stop framing it this way.

The laws of science are not subject to the popular whims of the populace. It does not matter HOW MANY websites and message boards and videos make the claim. Without peer review from a fair cross-section of the independent scientific community, you are simply blowing smoke out of your ass - and calling it a squib.

Sorry, in the first post I

Sorry, in the first post I forget a part of the sentence.

Gangster, I don't mind if

Gangster, I don't mind if people are not qualified discuss the issue, but I do have an issue with people saying that it is a FACT when they don't even understand the basics of physics.

Just look at the top of the building that was at a 30 degree angle. There is no question that this part would have fallen down, but it would have kept going in the same direction. Instead, it straightens its self out and falls down straight. Only a large amount of energy could have done that.

The top part correcting its self is completely against Newton's 3 laws.

But who was Newton and what the hell did he know!

Albinese this is just

Albinese this is just nonsense. Identify the argument and stop this contentless shilling.

This Albenese guy is a

This Albenese guy is a classic example of a contentless shill that refuses to identify basic arguments.

Absolutely RB, this is

Absolutely RB, this is another important violation of physical law in the collapse.

The whole 911 affair desperately needs a real investigation by qualified people who do not have to fear threats and intimidation from the Bush administration and its goons.

"I still can't see your

"I still can't see your theory beiing plausible due to the fact that the "squibs" I am refering to are way below the collapse zone. If they were traveling down stairwells and elevator shafts, why didn't they blowout on every floor?" Another question for you is, do you believe controlled demo is a possibility? Is it possible this could have happened?"

It is not 'my' theory.

I don't see why they would have to blow out every floor. More likely it was where there was weakened or already destroyed windows. Also if you compare the videos of them from the twin towers and videos of real explosive squibs you'll see how much longer the WTC ones last, how much further they blow out.

"Another question for you is, do you believe controlled demo is a possibility? Is it possible this could have happened?"

I don't see it from any of the evidence thus far presented. There is a chain of evidence that must be present and overwhelming for the concept to be believable and it just isn't there.

I also see things that people here descibe as impossible, anomalous, violating the laws of physics, etc. as just plain wrong, uninformed, and perfectly explainable by physical principles.

John Albanese - you make

John Albanese - you make some very good points, but you saying that just because someone is not a physicist that no one is quialified to bring up physics.

That is just insane!

So if that is the case, can you tell me why I was required to take physics, calc. 1, and calc. 2 for my engineering degree???? If I am not qualified to discuss physics, or analyze things using math then why did I have to take all these courses????

I understand your point, but to say it the way you did is just incorrect.

There are many facts of 9/11 that have been proven to be incorrect by using math. For example, the fact that the buildings fell at a near free fall speed. This can be proven by the math. So anyone who has basic math skills can prove this and they do not need to be a physicist.

So because the scientific community is reluctant to discuss this and provide debate regarding the matter, people are suppose to just accept this story as fact and just say Oh Well????

NO! The fact that people don't want to talk about it is a clear sign that there is something that is not right aobut the OV. Otherwise, if it was so clear cut then as you said, there should be hundreds of people who would provide the evidence in debates to disolve this issue.

They are not, which is often a sign of reluctance to voice an opinion.

"Since gravity driven event

"Since gravity driven event proceed according to certain indisputable physical law and these collapses clearly violate those laws the guy obviously is in a hopeless dilemma ! He doesn´t know why he believes this, in other words he is believes blindly in bunk he´s fed."

I just can't see why you can't explain how these events clearly violate physical laws when structural engineers don't agree with you or amateur conpiracy theorists.

Maybe you have a plausible reason that has nothing to do with physics and structural engineering that can enlighten us.

"However, they have not

"However, they have not fallen in a free fall, and they did not fall on to their own footprint."

I'm curious why you always get your facts wrong. The three towers fell slower than freefall and they did not fall in their own footprint. This has been known since the towers fell on 9/11.

Just where do you get your false information and why do you beleive it?

"truthout, no it is YOU who

"truthout, no it is YOU who have to explain why those towers collapsed at a free fall speed in a gravity driven event (no demolition). The theory you believe in violates physical law."

I don't have to explain something that did not happen do I?

The towers did not fall at freefall speed. Why would you say that?

Truthout, I assume this was

Truthout,

I assume this was you,

"I just showed you that 'suibs' could easily be something else."

"No, they are not physical evidence of explosives. You need residue, evidence of blasting, wire, etc., actual physical evidence. You would have to also explain why a controlled demolition was done completely in contradiction to all controlled demolitions ever done by demolition experts."
Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 3:26 pm

I do not need phisical evidence to accept thwe possibility that the towers were brought down by controlled demo. As an average American, I do not have the priviledge to examine any physical evidence. You didn't address my question. Do you at least think it is a possibility that they were brought down by controlled demo due to circumstantial evidence?

"A building's reinforcing

"A building's reinforcing structure by definition prevents it from collapsing. This is awfully elementary."Worst case it DELAYS the collapse. Since those towers collapsed at a free fall speed it obviously follows that the reinforcing structure didn´t delay the collapse at all. In a gravity driven event (no demolition) this is a physical impossiblity. You can´t get around this. This is just basics. LOL."

There is nothing to get around since the towers did not collapse at freefall speed and you indiciate that you have no knowledge of the construction of the twin towers.

"The three towers fell

"The three towers fell slower than freefall and they did not fall in their own footprint. This has been known since the towers fell on 9/11. "

A second or two is not considered to be slower!

Go to school and learn some math for crying out loud!

Here is a little something that should have happened.....

The resistance of each floor should have slowed the fall down. Being generous, if we say that it was slowed down by just 1/2 a second, then that would have been 40 seconds for WTC1 and 2 to fall. They fell less than 15 seconds. IMPOSSIBLE!

Do the math!!!!!

So far all i see from the

So far all i see from the pro-demolitionists is accusations of "shill".

My post was well reasoned and made a very legitimate point about the lack of scientific support for the demolition theory. Period.

But what do you say of someone who accuses you of being a "shill" simply for disagreeing?

And what do you say about someone who claims expertise in a scientific field where they have none?

I think this is becoming an issue of fundamentalism in the movement - where 9/11 dogma must be repeated - or you are labeled a sinister "shill" for the government.

Silly stuff.

ItÂ’s so exciting all

It’s so exciting all these docs coming out, “Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime” my one and “Improabable Collapse”, it’s like a big blast of truth of the port bow lol!

"Gangster, I don't mind if

"Gangster, I don't mind if people are not qualified discuss the issue, but I do have an issue with people saying that it is a FACT when they don't even understand the basics of physics."

I have just that problem with you.

John Albanese, I think

John Albanese,

I think controlled demo is a possibility, but I will not call anyone a "shill" since I think that is disrespectful in a debate. Just so you know there are those out there like me.

Truthout, I assume this was

Truthout,

I assume this was you,

"I just showed you that 'suibs' could easily be something else."

"No, they are not physical evidence of explosives. You need residue, evidence of blasting, wire, etc., actual physical evidence. You would have to also explain why a controlled demolition was done completely in contradiction to all controlled demolitions ever done by demolition experts."
Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 3:26 pm

I do not need physical evidence to accept thwe possibility that the towers were brought down by controlled demo. As an average American, I do not have the priviledge to examine any physical evidence. You didn't address my question. Do you at least think it is a possibility that they were brought down by controlled demo due to circumstantial evidence?

John- You made that move

John-

You made that move EGLS, or are somehow associated with it, right? I don't think you are a "schill" for the record :).

However, I think that there is an air of intimidation to not speak up about any aspect of the OV being wrong in any capacity: FAA Flight Controllers, Members of Military, those in Government and Scientists.

People from all these various groups have spoken out, yet there are probably more that could step forward.

If you go back and look at all the Eyewitness testimony, the oral histories and the news reports on that day the conclusion to reach would be that it was a controlled demolition. It seems to me that if the gov't and media didn't actively try and change public opinion, those would've been the assumptions from day one.

Look at what more Scientists have to say about Stephen Jones' Paper. Please read it. Please, these are the "structural engineers" that everyone claims to not exist, the ones doubting the official theory.

again - when you say "do the

again - when you say "do the math" i must request that you provide us with a mathematical consensus from the scientific community.

Sorry but - you guys can repeat the same dogma over and over and over again - but the fact is that there is no scientific consensus in the scientific community claiming that these building could NOT have fallen at the speed they fell. There just ISN'T.

You claim "do the math" while being unable to provide a definitive and widely accepted peer reviewed mathematical treatise on the subject.

You simply repeat the dogma.

The buildings could not have fallen, blah blah blah.

Of course, there are trained physicists who do not agree - yet you claim eminent domain on the issue. funny.

"but you saying that just

"but you saying that just because someone is not a physicist that no one is quialified to bring up physics."

Someone who is a physics professor is not a structural engineer and does not automatically possess the same qualifications to discuss structural engineering issues as a structural engineer.

We have no reason to accept what a non-expert has to say a priori.

"There are many facts of 9/11 that have been proven to be incorrect by using math. For example, the fact that the buildings fell at a near free fall speed. This can be proven by the math. So anyone who has basic math skills can prove this and they do not need to be a physicist."

First we know as fact the times of the collapses and they were nowhere near freefall speeds. This can be proven with simple math but seems to have escaped your abilities in math.

"So because the scientific community is reluctant to discuss this and provide debate regarding the matter, people are suppose to just accept this story as fact and just say Oh Well????"

What is there to discuss? That you are not a physicist, structural engineer, and cannot do simple math? Why would they waste their time.

NIST has spoken and you have not refuted them. Until you do then there is nothing to discuss.

" So far all i see from the

" So far all i see from the pro-demolitionists is accusations of "shill".

My post was well reasoned and made a very legitimate point about the lack of scientific support for the demolition theory. Period.

But what do you say of someone who accuses you of being a "shill" simply for disagreeing?

And what do you say about someone who claims expertise in a scientific field where they have none?

I think this is becoming an issue of fundamentalism in the movement - where 9/11 dogma must be repeated - or you are labeled a sinister "shill" for the government.

Silly stuff.
John Albanese | 05.19.06 - 3:55 pm | # "

Am I to assume that this was in regards to my post, since I was the only one who addressed your post???

So what I stated in my post called you a "shill"?????

The problem with you and people like you is that you have a problem with people providing information that counters your line of thought. When there is information, whether you like it or not, and it's not what you want to hear then the other person is calling you a "shill".

If you have something to provide to the debate fine, if not then quit accusing people of calling you a "shill".

Provide the math that supports a near free fall of a building without explosives.

Let me see it, because I have actually done the math and it comes out at almost the same time that the towers fell. If your going to argue just a few seconds, then you really have no case. But if you can show me the math that explains how the air resistance and building material resistance are non-existant for this collapse then I will look at it.

Otherwise, you might want to do some math and prove the calculation out for yourself to see that the math shows that this is not possible.

I don't believe that Flight

I don't believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but I do believe that a plane hit it.
RemoveBush | 05.19.06 - 11:26 am | #
i agree.

The buildings could not have

The buildings could not have fallen, blah blah blah.

Of course, there are trained physicists who do not agree - yet you claim eminent domain on the issue. funny.
John Albanese | 05.19.06 - 4:02 pm | #
i loved your film John, and i guess i can understand you not wanting to touch demolition. but can you give me an honest answer? tell me, do you honestly think WTC7 fell from anything other than controlled demolition? you dont honestly believe it was fires that brought it down do you? nevermind the towers, just tell me what you think of WTC7.

"I do not need phisical

"I do not need phisical evidence to accept thwe possibility that the towers were brought down by controlled demo. As an average American, I do not have the priviledge to examine any physical evidence."

Then just what is it that informs your beleifs? What you read and hear or something else?

"You didn't address my question. Do you at least think it is a possibility that they were brought down by controlled demo due to circumstantial evidence?"

I answered it directly: "I don't see it from any of the evidence thus far presented. There is a chain of evidence that must be present and overwhelming for the concept to be believable and it just isn't there."

Drew M - Thank you for your

Drew M -

Thank you for your polite response. Yes, i am familiar with the research, unfortunately there are still many of us in and out of the scientific community who simply do not see any of this as conclusive.

That;s a fact.

So, its not conclusive.

Now i know you feel strongly about this, and believe the evidence is conclusive. But, many don't - even in the 9/11 truth community.

i could easily provide a list of conflicting accounts from firemen at WTC 7 who claimed that the building was an inferno and in danger of collapse for hours, with a hole 20-stories high.

Being from NYC i know the pain the FDNY community has endured. I see no reason to call these men liars.

Yet, i see 9/11 activists claiming there were no serious fires in WTC7.

why?

To date no one from the FDNY has endorsed the WTC7 demolition theory - and they were THERE! They saw their friends die that day. They went to funerals for months. Yet, strangely, not ONE has publically endorsed this theory.

so - its a problem.

please note that i am not presenting MY opinion. i am agnostic. i am 50-50 on the the issue.

many firemen are under gag

many firemen are under gag orders, so that might explain some of the silence.

Some of you here seem to be

Some of you here seem to be unable to distinguish between the issue of controlled demolition (of which i am agnostic) and the issue of dogma and fundamentalism (which is what i am talking about).

The issue is debatable. the scientific community CERTAINLY has NOT taked a conclusive stand on the issue - yet someof you demand that WE do.

i respect everyone's right to an opinion. i KNOW you feel very STRONGLY about this. but - the fact is that we do not have a conclusive position from a body of experts in the scientific community yet - and many of us look at the same evidence and see different things - as LAYMEN.

the question of demolition can NOT be answered here.

the question of whether we should take a dogmatic fundamentalist approach to the issue is more important.

it speaks to the heart of credibility.

"A second or two is not

"A second or two is not considered to be slower!"

Let's tst your knowledge of math and physics.

WTC 1 was 1,368 feet tall. How long would it take for it to fall at freefall speed?

Now add 2 seconds to that speed. How tall would the tower have to be to fall at freefall spped?

"The resistance of each floor should have slowed the fall down. Being generous, if we say that it was slowed down by just 1/2 a second, then that would have been 40 seconds for WTC1 and 2 to fall."

There you go with the 'should have' again. What we need is your physics and math calculations not your assertions. I wonder why you can't provide anything.

"I think this is becoming an

"I think this is becoming an issue of fundamentalism in the movement - where 9/11 dogma must be repeated - or you are labeled a sinister "shill" for the government."

____________________

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, it would appear that many here have learned how to debate from watching television news shows.

No compromise, out of fear of appearing weak or unknowledgable. Even if you don't have good information, there is a tendency to defend your ground bitterly. Anger, humiliation, and name-calling are rampant, but facts are scarce.

Kind of like the Lord of the Flies, really.

Not everyone here is like that, however, and that's why I keep posting.

I'm gonna get some hate posts for this...
S.

John A- It just seems to me

John A-

It just seems to me to be the more likely explanation, given that so far the only official reason was considered "highly unlikely".

It's unfortunate that a true forensic investigation was never done. But I personally haven't seen an independent scientific community address this issue. If you have peer reviews of Stephen's paper or other sources entirely, point them out to me if you can.

I believe that the towers did come down in a demolition (justified or not), but am also interested in seeing carried out, so i probably don't spend as much time trying to falsify the controlled demolition hypothesis as much as I probably should. There are just so many other various things to do. But if you've got some links, please share them.

"I think this is becoming an

"I think this is becoming an issue of fundamentalism in the movement - where 9/11 dogma must be repeated - or you are labeled a sinister "shill" for the government."

I've believed exactly that for a long time. Even when you stick to the facts of physics and math, question others' calculations, a sizable faction here immediately thinks it is all political.

I can name several here that qualify as no different from Creationsists blindly believing religious dogma.

It's sad.

anyone who knows the FDNY

anyone who knows the FDNY knows that a gag order would not stop a fireman for ONE MINUTE if they believed that 300 of their friends and families were MURDERED.

In fact you should hear what some of them SAY about the subject. It angers them. There are those who bring banners to ground zero saying "controlled demolition" and this upsets the firemen VERY MUCH.

and they were there. their opinions are not based on internet research. they were AT wtc7 when the order came to "pull out".

and they were there. their

and they were there. their opinions are not based on internet research. they were AT wtc7 when the order came to "pull out".
John Albanese | 05.19.06 - 4:22 pm | #
"pull it" according to the guy who owned the building and made huge profits because of the towers destruction.

"If you go back and look at

"If you go back and look at all the Eyewitness testimony, the oral histories and the news reports on that day the conclusion to reach would be that it was a controlled demolition."

Here they are:

http://www.nistreview.org/histories.php

Please show us why we would reach your conclusion.

"Some of you here seem to be

"Some of you here seem to be unable to distinguish between the issue of controlled demolition (of which i am agnostic) and the issue of dogma and fundamentalism (which is what i am talking about).

The issue is debatable. the scientific community CERTAINLY has NOT taked a conclusive stand on the issue - yet someof you demand that WE do."

I don't believe that to be the case...... I believe the arguement, at least from my point, is that controlled demolition makes more sense than the official story. The OV cannot prove what they say by math, and pay people to say what they want. I'm not saying that this is an absolute in this case, but it is possible.

"i respect everyone's right to an opinion. i KNOW you feel very STRONGLY about this. but - the fact is that we do not have a conclusive position from a body of experts in the scientific community yet - and many of us look at the same evidence and see different things - as LAYMEN."

Yes, but the arguements are with those that claim that it is a FACT!!!! Nothing of 9/11 is a FACT except: 3 buildings collapsed, the pentagon was hit, and a plane went down in PA.

These items are the only thing that is known to be a FACT. beyond that, a lot of things are speculation.

"the question of demolition can NOT be answered here."

No it can't but it can be discussed here. So should everyone just stop talking about 9/11???? We can't answer whether or not the hijackers were really on the planes. Whether or not there was a standdown order. Whether or not AA77 actually hit the pentagon. Whether or not Flight 93 actually crashed or was shot down.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. To say that just because the scientific community is at odds with this, we should not talk about it just is illogical thinking.

"the question of whether we should take a dogmatic fundamentalist approach to the issue is more important.

it speaks to the heart of credibility.
John Albanese | 05.19.06 - 4:16 pm | # "

I guess my point is that if you really want to make a case that the scientific community is not certain, that we should not talk about it leaves room for our history and the future to be determined by people who present things to the public and we are to just believe it at face value without question.

I don't believe, and I hope you are not proposing this, to be the way our world should operate.

Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 4:27

Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 4:27 pm | #

was me again.

I tried to watch this film

I tried to watch this film today but was constantly being diverted by other things. But what I heard sounded pretty good. It starts where EGLS ends by Bush sitting like an idot with the other kids.

It almost looks like his handlers and/or the people in charge of 9/11 are out to deliberatly humilate the guy. Put him to play with the kids while the grown-ups are busy.

Baby Bush is little more than a salesman of a policy that is made by his handlers. An autistic schizophreniac he's an automatic lying machine who believes his own lies.

Truthout - you give us an

Truthout -

you give us an example of simple math - adding 1/2 second for each floor of the towers.

Surely you are aware that that is not a scientific analysis of the physics involved. If it was that simple the scientific community would be unified on the issue.

They are not.

Truthout, You said, "I don't

Truthout,

You said, "I don't see it from any of the evidence thus far presented. There is a chain of evidence that must be present and overwhelming for the concept to be believable and it just isn't there."

I didn't ask if you see it, I asked if it is a possibility. It does not take "a chain of evidence that must be present and overwhelming for the concept to be believable" to consider the hypothesis. I and others would argue that there is a chain of evidence that is overwhelming. Thats why so many of us think it is possible. I take from your answer you believe this hypothesis is not possible, meaning there is no way in hell this could have happened.

" "A second or two is not

" "A second or two is not considered to be slower!"

Let's tst your knowledge of math and physics.

WTC 1 was 1,368 feet tall. How long would it take for it to fall at freefall speed?

Now add 2 seconds to that speed. How tall would the tower have to be to fall at freefall spped?

"The resistance of each floor should have slowed the fall down. Being generous, if we say that it was slowed down by just 1/2 a second, then that would have been 40 seconds for WTC1 and 2 to fall."

There you go with the 'should have' again. What we need is your physics and math calculations not your assertions. I wonder why you can't provide anything.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 4:17 pm | # "

I noticed that you never provided the math to show how this is possible for the buildings to fall at a near free fall speed.

Nice try, but until you provide the math to show what you say is true or fact, then I won't play your game.

Answer my question first with the evidence, the math, that I asked for and I will return in kind.

Come on, you don´t really

Come on, you don´t really believe that the scientific community is FREE. These people depend on federal grants and the current psychopaths in DC will turn that off if you speak against them - or worse.

Get real people. :)

Give it up guys. These

Give it up guys.

These shills do not understand the purpose of reinforcing structure.

They will never understand that the reinforcing structure by definition prevents a building from collapsing and in the worst case delay the collapse. So it´s pointless to waste time on them.

Gangster, that is why I have

Gangster, that is why I have very little credibility for the statement "other scientists have not agreed with your claim".

If it were not for the government having so much power over the scientific community, I believe that there would be much more conversations about the WTC collapse.

Since funding, contracts, etc. can and would be terminated if people started commenting in oppositioin of the OV this really prevents those people from stepping up to the plate.

Those that have not been in the buisness world very long are naieve to the whole concept. This is the problem when they start making the arguement about other scientists or structural engineers.

I just wish that we could present information and discuss that. But the problem is that many people are simply mathmatically challenged.

i never suggested that we

i never suggested that we should not be allowed to discuss and speculate here.

but i do feel that the convictions of some people in this movement are out of proportion to the evidence available, and a certain amount of hostility exists towards those of us who refuse to take a definitive position on the issue.

There are those in this community who are claiming that the evidence is definitive and the theory has been PROVEN.

There are those who claim that the phrase "Pull It" is definitive. But of course it is not. No one here has ESP and can enter the soul (if he has one) of Silverstein and discern what he truly meant.

Some people seem to have a hard time seperating fact from speculation - and hurt this movement as a result.

These shills don´t

These shills don´t understand how gravity works. Just read what they post. :)

They don´t understand the most elementary of physics. Just read what they post. :)

I LOVE WATCHING YALL WHIP

I LOVE WATCHING YALL WHIP THOSE SHILLS!!!

____________________---

thanks for the link about that barometric bomb---

this could be a breakthrough in understanding
_________________________-

SCREW THE FAKE MSM---THEY ARE PATHETIC (AND I THINK THEY ARE CRYING OUT FOR HELP PERSONALLY) AND ARE NOT WORTH CONFORMING TO

GIVE THEM A HUG AND TELL THEM 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

I just want to say that no

I just want to say that no single piece of evidence is infallible.

We need to look at the preponderous of the evidence as a whole.

Some claim that eyewitness testimony clearly indicates that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. These same people will discount the eyewitness testimony about explosions being heard. Equal consideration must be given to both.

"There are those who claim

"There are those who claim that the phrase "Pull It" is definitive. But of course it is not. No one here has ESP and can enter the soul (if he has one) of Silverstein and discern what he truly meant."

I must disagree with you on this one.....

If he was just starting out with buying buildings and had not been around for many years in the buis.... I would agree with you.

With that said. He knows from being in the business, probably having witnessed controlled demolition before, what the term 'pull-it' meant. This is where I have a problem.

Someone being in the business for that many years knows the term and what it means....

These shills think that

These shills think that everything is just fine and honky in America and everybody can speak their mind at will with no fear of any consequences. I mean the main reason for Bush's huge popularity is his administration's openness and lack of control and lack of secrecy, right? LOL

No, those who dare speak up against the 9/11 fairy tales are systematically ridiculed, ostracized and even worse. Wake up people.

"I can name several here

"I can name several here that qualify as no different from Creationsists blindly believing religious dogma.

It's sad.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 4:21 pm | #"

_______________-

This is a very telling statement as well. In fact, this situation we're in is very much like a religious movement.

People want to think that somehow they're more connected to the truth than others. Many find a renewed purpose in their lives where there was an opaque void, a lacking, before. By so strongly identifying with this movement, they morph their identities from "average person" to "activist", and feel as though some type of calling has been answered. Maybe they're right, but much of it also reeks of an overzealous compulsion to find consistent information and opinions. The facts become secondary to the reinforcement of the new identity of "activist". There is also a sense of cannibalism of ideas, where one goes about collecting viewpoints that tickle the fancy of the new identity, and then this is assimilated into a stance on what happened.

The self, in it's new form, seeks to feed this feeling of empowerment. It becomes addicted to it. Constantly foraging the familiar, and sometimes venturing into the wilderness when that isn't enough.

Of course, if people didn't have this tendency then the world would be far different. That this human need can bring about religion, war, charity, and social activism is incredible.

I'm no different.

and i suppose the government

and i suppose the government also controls the scientists in Europe and everywhere else in the world?

and they control the FDNY with gag orders after murdering 300 of their brothers?

you see - this is reverse engineering where you find excuses to explain away the inconvenient fact that scientists and ny firemen do not seem to share your convictions.

PUH-LEEZE!!!

look - again - i am 50/50 on the issue. agnostic. i see some good evidence FOR and AGAINST the issue.

but i also see evidence that the government loooooves red herrings. that video they released the other day of the pentagon was SUCH an obvious attempt to get the 9/11 tinfoil hats frothing at the mouth - because they know that the tinfoil mad hatters make us look silly.

John Albanese, I think the

John Albanese,

I think the main culprit to the convictions you speak of is the fact that we, the truth movement, are not being taken seriously for the most part. Even those who keep a level head about it and don't jump to definitive conclusions. It's frustration. Frustration kills me at work all the time. Dang it! The phones ringing again!!! I'm an insurance agent whos addicted to tums!!

BENJAMIN

BENJAMIN 'FREEDMAN'

DUDE\\ISRAEL HAS NUKES---THEY AINT GOING NOWHERE_____

WE CAN GO AFTER THE INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR GOVT THAT WERE IN LEAGUE WITH THE PNAC----

THEN THE PEOPLES OF USA,ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD WILL NEVER LET A GOVT DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS AGAIN

THE WORLD WILL EMBRACE AND DESTROY THESE OLD MANIFESTATIONS

IF YOU ARE LED BY BLIND HATRED OF A CONCEPT (THE CONCEPT OF 'ISRAEL') WHERE MAYBE .01 PERCENT OF THOSE PEOPLE COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

YOU ARE HURTING THE FEELINGS OF 100 MILLION PEOPLE WHO NEVER DID ANYTHING TO ANYBODY----BUT ARE COVERED BY THAT BLANKET TERM 'ISRAEL' THAT YOU HURL AGGRESSION TOWARDS

" Truthout - "you give us

" Truthout -

"you give us an example of simple math - adding 1/2 second for each floor of the towers."

That was not me that gave that example. It was RemoveBush.

Stuart Provine, Are you a

Stuart Provine,

Are you a psychologist?

You don´t argue against

You don´t argue against laws of physics.

This is always a major problem for govt. shills.

They're stuck in their obfuscation and their posts just look ignorant and silly. If you don´t understand the purpose of reinforcing structures you clearly have no business discussing the collapse of buildings. And it shows in the posts of these ignorant people. :)

I think that quote is taken

I think that quote is taken out of context look at the whole statement:

"Being generous, if we say that it was slowed down by just 1/2 a second, then that would have been 40 seconds for WTC1 and 2 to fall. They fell less than 15 seconds. IMPOSSIBLE!"

"I noticed that you never

"I noticed that you never provided the math to show how this is possible for the buildings to fall at a near free fall speed."

You think you can pretend that I did not say repeatedly that none of the WTC towers collapsed at freefall speeds?

You really are getting evasise.

"He knows from being in the

"He knows from being in the business, probably having witnessed controlled demolition before, what the term 'pull-it' meant. This is where I have a problem. Someone being in the business for that many years knows the term and what it means...."
RemoveBush | 05.19.06 - 4:50 pm | #

OK - so show us where the term "Pull It" is a standard demolition term.

This rumor was started shortly after Silverstein's TV interview as a highly speculative "guess" at what he possibly meant.

Shortly thereafter it morphed and spread over the internet like wildfire that "pull it" was a standard term for controlled demolition.

The website Oil Empires did a survey of the only 16 firms in america that specialize in controlled demolition. none of them recognized the term "Pull It" as a standard industry term.

In fact, it is a standard term in the fire department. Firemen quoted that same day used it to describe their decision to pull out of the area.... tthere was such a loss of life and WTC7 was so far gone.... they suspected collapse.... so they pulled it....

I guess shills without

I guess shills without elementary education shows resignation on part of the perpetrators of 911. It is an obvious conclusion really.

"and they control the FDNY

"and they control the FDNY with gag orders after murdering 300 of their brothers?"

Bush has killed over 2500 soldiers with their lies, but the military is still quiet.

Your arguement there is a bit neieve... Not real world thinking, only ideaology thinking.

I wish I was young again and believe that business don't get contracts for looking the other way on things when it benefits them.

"you see - this is reverse engineering where you find excuses to explain away the inconvenient fact that scientists and ny firemen do not seem to share your convictions."

No, not true. It's like the following:

If I see a body with a hole in the head and I later am told by the ME that it was death by natural causes, I'm going to be jumping up and down pointing out issues with that claim.

I have read many of the transcripts of the fireman, and many of them do make the statement that there were secondary explossions and flashes of light and boom boom boom.

So are those firemen liars???? It was a crazy day on 9/11, and I don't think that all of them have the same thought of what happened that day. However, I do believe that a majority of them do not believe the official version.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but not from what I have read in a multitude of articles.

why do people keep hammering

why do people keep hammering the "freefall speed" issue. I see no conclusive position from the physics community on this. if it was so OBVIOUS that the laws of physics were violated - there would be consensus on the issue.

there isn't.

some of you want to claim there is.

but there isn't

Please explain the molten

Please explain the molten metal and furnace-like conditions under the towers weeks after the event. Dr. Jones (BYU) paper does a good job. I can't refute it. That has been a good starting point for me.

"Some claim that eyewitness

"Some claim that eyewitness testimony clearly indicates that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. These same people will discount the eyewitness testimony about explosions being heard. Equal consideration must be given to both."

There is no reason to give equal consideration to both.

What people saw from many different locations and were able to identify as a twin-engine jet with American Airline markings with some knowledgable enough to know it was a 757 rather than a 767 or an Airbus A320 is far more definitive than sounds of "explosions" that none could identify as "explosives" in any way amidst a cacaphony of different sounds people never heard before.

if there are firefighters on

if there are firefighters on tape saying they saw bombs----

then there were bombs
_________________________-
that is a super ace in the hole in controlling these troubles

anyone that doubts this illumination is severly confused

Apparently it is used in

Apparently it is used in construction and by people in the field to indicate a destruction of a building.

Why would people in the business use the word to indicate a destruction of a building in one instance of an interview if it was not meant in the context of the conversation?

(Unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."

http://www.physics.byu.edu/re

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

Here is Dr. Steven Jones lecture.

Review it for yourselves.

you say: "Bush has killed

you say:

"Bush has killed over 2500 soldiers with their lies, but the military is still quiet."

uhhhh....that's not true. there are generals talking, and whistleblowers up and down the system.

do you live in a plastic bubble?

further - quoting firemen about hearing explosions is not enough. do you have any idea how much electricity was being pumped into those buildings? do you have any idea how many electrical substations and transformers could have been exploding as the structure failed?

again - firemen do not support the demolition theory - not just in NYC where there is a gag order - but ANYWHERE in america.

in fact - from the firemen i have met in NYC as a high profile 9/11 activist - they are hostile to the idea.

and they watched 300 of their brothers die. there isn't a gag order strong enough to keep these men - brave enough to have even been IN the WTC - silent.

These firemen were picking up body parts for months - and you are calling them cowards? afraid to talk?

come to NYC and try floating that idea.

"Someone here mentioned

"Someone here mentioned 911Eyewitness.

The sounds of "explosions" seem compelling - but unfortunately if you review the same video tape this person took from much later in the day - after the collapse of WTC 7 - you STILL hear these mysterious sounds.

in fact, these sounds appear throughout the entire tape of the entire day.

so - simply showing the portion of the tape immediately preceding the collapse (with these sounds) is somewhat misleading and intellectually dishonest.

I am unsure what the source of these sounds are, and I do not care to speculate, but, it is important to note that the sounds showcased in this video appear throughout the tape - and not just immediately preceeding the collapse.

________________________________________

John Albanese,

I think you are referring to my report on the screening in London of Rick Siegel's update of
911eyewitness.

Although I have not seen your film, I have heard good reports of it. I am, however, very surprised by your attempts to debunk the controlled demolition theory, which seems to me beyond question the most likely cause of the "Improbable Collapse' of the three towers.

What do you mean by saying that the explosions were heard on the rest of the tape? They are not. I would suggest you get hold of a copy of the new film and check it out . They arre unmistakeably present at regular intervals a few seconds before the towers fell - and only then. There are also dust clouds arising from the street well before the collapses.

How can you dismiss the molten steel? The 'hot spots filmed from a satellite? The upward ejections of hugely heavy beams? The uniform size of the 'chopped-up' columns? The fact that the fires were nearly out in the North Tower, and the firefghters inside the South Tower were confident of success in controlling the fires?
The symmetrical nature of the wct7 collapse, not to mention its astonishing speed, faster than free fall (suggesting a vacuum had been created by the implosion)?
The extraordinary way in which the top section of the South Tower , having tipped right over, 'righted' itself before dissolving into dust? The 'pyroclastic flow' of the debris, shown strikingly to be virtually identical with that following a volcanic eruption?

I and many if not most truthers are confident that only demolition could have caused all these and other inexplicable phenonema.

Similarly, the theory of the use of a limited nuclear device is not disinfo. For all you know, it could indeed be the truth. A little humility is good, I agree with you 100%/

" "A second or two is not

" "A second or two is not considered to be slower!"

Let's tst your knowledge of math and physics.

WTC 1 was 1,368 feet tall. How long would it take for it to fall at freefall speed?

Now add 2 seconds to that speed. How tall would the tower have to be to fall at freefall spped?

" " Truthout -

"you give us an example of simple math - adding 1/2 second for each floor of the towers."

That was not me that gave that example. It was RemoveBush.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 4:55 pm | # "

Really????? Wish to correct your comment???

"The resistance of each floor should have slowed the fall down. Being generous, if we say that it was slowed down by just 1/2 a second, then that would have been 40 seconds for WTC1 and 2 to fall."

There you go with the 'should have' again. What we need is your physics and math calculations not your assertions. I wonder why you can't provide anything.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 4:17 pm | # "

"uhhhh....that's not true.

"uhhhh....that's not true. there are generals talking, and whistleblowers up and down the system."

Are they ACTIVE MILITARY???

No they are not!!!! If you served in the military, and were a bit older, you might understand how the real world works.

Like I said before, I wish I was young and neieve again.

I have to go home, so I'll pick up on this there.

till then.....

"I have read many of the

"I have read many of the transcripts of the fireman, and many of them do make the statement that there were secondary explossions and flashes of light and boom boom boom.

"So are those firemen liars????"

Of course not.

But it doesn't mean that they can identify the sounds as "explosives."

Truthout, Since you are on

Truthout,

Since you are on the other end of the spectrum regarding 9/11, anyway you can give us an opinion on why we went to war in Iraq and your opinion on the "War on Terror"?. I'm not baiting, just curious

Andrew Lowe Watson

Andrew Lowe Watson wrote,

"How can you dismiss the molten steel? The 'hot spots filmed from a satellite? The upward ejections of hugely heavy beams? The uniform size of the 'chopped-up' columns? The fact that the fires were nearly out in the North Tower, and the firefghters inside the South Tower were confident of success in controlling the fires?"

The fires were NOT nearly out and no firefighters in WTC had even reached the fires before the building collapsed.

"The symmetrical nature of the wct7 collapse, not to mention its astonishing speed, faster than free fall (suggesting a vacuum had been created by the implosion)?"

You must know that statement is patently false. WTC 7 fell far slower than freefall speed which has been repeatedly demonstrated.

"The extraordinary way in which the top section of the South Tower , having tipped right over, 'righted' itself before dissolving into dust?"

It did not right itself.

"The 'pyroclastic flow' of the debris, shown strikingly to be virtually identical with that following a volcanic eruption?"

That's the ONLY thing that you got right which was explained by an expert in pyrochlastic flows.

Why you insist on repeating the other nonsense is beyond me.

So you're denying you wrote

So you're denying you wrote this statement RemoveBush?

"The resistance of each floor should have slowed the fall down. Being generous, if we say that it was slowed down by just 1/2 a second, then that would have been 40 seconds for WTC1 and 2 to fall."

I guess you learned that you couldn't back that claim with evidence could you?

"Stuart Provine, Are you a

"Stuart Provine,

Are you a psychologist?
T-Bone | 05.19.06 - 4:57 pm | #"

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

; - )

(I'm a sound editor)

Truthout, Since you are on

Truthout,

Since you are on the other end of the spectrum regarding 9/11, anyway you can give us an opinion on why we went to war in Iraq and your opinion on the "War on Terror"?. I'm not baiting, just curious

" Durango Woman Sues Herald

" Durango Woman Sues Herald For 9/11 Cover Up"

Talk about stupidity. That woman takes the cake.

"The captain of emergency

"The captain of emergency medical services said "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 ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (page 15 -- pdf file; Google's web version is here)"

"Similiarly, the Assistant Fire Commissioner stated "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” . In the same statement, the Assistant Commissioner recounts how a lieutenant firefighter he spoke with independently verified the flashes."

Find it all here:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Grego...

Or, we can ignore all the evidence and wholly embrace the pancake theory.

Plenty of evidence to suggest demolition.

"It would be very hard for

"It would be very hard for anyone sitting in that cinema to come away thinking they had seen anything other than three towers expertly and efficiently demolished. It's not hard fact maybe, but it's sheer common sense."

No, it is neither fact nor common sense.

Ask any expert in controlled demolitions and structural engineering.

" Durango Woman Sues Herald

" Durango Woman Sues Herald For 9/11 Cover Up"

Talk about stupidity. That woman takes the cake.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 6:06 pm | #
this comment proves it all about truthout.i think im going to copy and paste this everytime he starts his shilling.

truthout says-"stay silent

truthout says-"stay silent always, let the government do its job, nothing to see here. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, etc etc etc."

Truthout, I know your in

Truthout,

I know your in high demand on here.

Since you are on the other end of the spectrum regarding 9/11, anyway you can give us an opinion on why we went to war in Iraq and your opinion on the "War on Terror"?. I'm not baiting, just curious

"Since you are on the other

"Since you are on the other end of the spectrum regarding 9/11, anyway you can give us an opinion on why we went to war in Iraq and your opinion on the "War on Terror"?."

There's not much relevance to physics and structural engineering.

"this comment proves it all

"this comment proves it all about truthout."

When I see obvious stupidity and feel like commenting on it, I will.

In the meantime you just can't come up with anything relevant or constructive to write.

"truthout says-"stay silent

"truthout says-"stay silent always, let the government do its job, nothing to see here."

You have a wild imagination.

Truthout, "There's not much

Truthout,

"There's not much relevance to physics and structural engineering."
truthout | 05.19.06 - 6:18 pm |

I guese I should have indicated that it was sort of off topic since you seem to not be able to see that. I am not debating structural eng. nor physics with you. Are you willing to answer my question? You don't have to say there is no relevance, you could just say no.

IS THAT REALLY EGLS JOHN

IS THAT REALLY EGLS JOHN ALBANESE SPEAKING THAT BULLSHIT OR SOME SHILL WORKING IN TANDEM WITH TRUTHOUT???

I THINK YOU PEOPLE ARE BEING DUPED.

The conservation of energy

The conservation of energy argument in favor of controlled demolition of the towers and building 7 is irrefutable. Anyone with that has done undergraduate studies in engineering can easily see that. RB has presented the arguments very well, and as a fellow engineeer, I honestly can't see how other engineers can disagree.

The argument made by truthout and John A that the fact that not all scientists (or structural engineers or whoever) have publicly endorsed the CD theory automatically means those same scientists endorse the official version is a logical fallacy. I'm sure anyone with a brain can see that.

About shills, I don't think John A is a shill, but I do wonder if he is a scientist because, again, the conservation of energy argument is obviously irrefutable from a scientific perspective. Truthout is obviously a shill. He has offered nothing to this debate. Truthout's questions are similar to those that would be asked by a newbie. Trolls like him are good to a point, because people like RB can hone their skills in presenting the truth to those that have never heard it before. After awhile, though, the questions posed by truthout are repetitious and unhelpful. I think it's time to start ignoring him in the same way everyone usually does to terrence, unless someone that has not thus far engaged in this debate wants to improve their debating skills and their understanding of the facts.

CAN'T YOU PEOPLE TELL WHEN

CAN'T YOU PEOPLE TELL WHEN SOMEONE IS BULLSHITTING YOU???

Seve B, I second that.

Seve B,

I second that.

THAT'S NOT JOHN ALBANESE OF

THAT'S NOT JOHN ALBANESE OF EGLS!!! FUCKING SHILLS IMPERSONATING PEOPLE NOW!!!

"{So you're denying you

"{So you're denying you wrote this statement RemoveBush?

"The resistance of each floor should have slowed the fall down. Being generous, if we say that it was slowed down by just 1/2 a second, then that would have been 40 seconds for WTC1 and 2 to fall."

I guess you learned that you couldn't back that claim with evidence could you?
truthout | 05.19.06 - 5:55 pm | #"

Yeah I wrote that.....

But you have yet to provide the evidence mathmatically proving that the building CAN fall in that amount of time.

Just to SHUT YOU UP, here are the calculations with some very nice graphs as well.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

by the way..... I have one

by the way..... I have one small typo in the following sentence....

"Being generous, if we say that it was slowed down by just 1/2 a second,"

Should have read....

Being generous, if we say that it was slowed down by just 1/2 a second/floor,

Thanks Seve B. :)

Thanks Seve B.

:)

"I guese I should have

"I guese I should have indicated that it was sort of off topic since you seem to not be able to see that."

Yes, it's off topic. Neither is it relevant.

"I am not debating structural eng. nor physics with you. Are you willing to answer my question?"

I answered the question appropriately.

truthout, you're a criminal

truthout, you're a criminal and a liar. Take that other piece of crap impersonating John Albanese with you!!!

"I THINK YOU PEOPLE ARE

"I THINK YOU PEOPLE ARE BEING DUPED.
"

By you? No way.

Damn, you people aren't the

Damn, you people aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, are you?

Thank you, John Albanese,

Thank you, John Albanese, for the lesson.....

everybody's gotta learn sometime
flashing photographs of 9/11
9/11 was an inside job
stop the 9/11 cover up
unanswered questions
blizzard of independent theories

5:31

a quick over view of relevant issues at hand

5:57

PNAC: Project for the New American Century
Who's involved? Many prominent elements in the current Bush Admin.
Their interests: energy reserves, invasion of Iraq, control of Eurasia, strategic invasion of Caspian sea, military spending increase

In 2001, PNAC declares their transformation would benefit from a catalyzing event 'like a new Pearl Harbor'
Nine months later.... 9/11

9:00

2000 Presidential Election Fraud in Florida
PNAC member Jeb Bush gives orders leading to the disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters
DBT of Choice Point complies a list of 57,000 criminal names
Katherine Harris removes 57,000 names from voter roles
90% of the 57,000 names, scrubbed from Florida voter roles, were innocent of any crime
The vast majority of these voters were reregistered black american democrats
Bush wins Florida election by 527 Votes
PNAC member John Bolton stops recount, "I'm with the Bush/Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count"

10:31

The countdown to 9/11 begins

10:42

In Florida, 2 hijackers are training
Wally Hilliard purchases Huffman Aviation months before 9/11
43 lbs. of heroin seized from Wally's private jet, the biggest seizure of heroin in history of Central Florida
Huffman Aviation flight school is also training 2 of the hijackers
These 2 hijackers were also being followed by Able Danger
Wally Hilliard was never indicted

13:30

Abdussattar Shaikh, a tested FBI asset, housed at least 2 of the 9/11 terrorists in San Diego in 2000
Abdussattar Shaikh has a phony PhD and is the VP of a fake university called A.C.U.

15:04

How did terrorists get in to US?
VISA Express program initiated - 3 months before 911 - extended to Saudi Arabia only

16:00

Whistle Blowing

FBI agent, Robert Wright, launches criminal investigation into FBI supervisors who deliberately thwart his pursuit of AlQaeda in US
Colleen Rowley - Time's 2002 co-person of the year for her efforts to expose FBI
FBI agent Harry Sammit testifies that he warned FBI 70 times that Moussoui was planning air attack
The FBI supervisor, who blocked field agents' attempts to search Moussoui's computer, Michael Maltbie, is promoted to field supervisor
Sibel Edmonds with more government gag orders than anyone in US history
Sibel Edmonds not mentioned in 9/11 Commission Report, except for a single footnote

22:00

Able Danger identifies two of three AlQaeda cells more than a year before attack
Testimony by Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer that he was directed to ignore Atta
Schaffer whistle blows and loses security clearance and his job
SOCOM keeps Able Danger information from getting to FBI
9/11 Commission Report failed to include any details about Able Danger

25:00

Curt Weldon speaks on the floor of the House on behalf of Tony Schaffer
Lou Dobbs interviews Curt Weldon
Louis Freeh writes that if government had Able Danger info, then 9/11 could have been stopped
2.5 terabytes of data destroyed in summer of 2000 that was compiled by Able Danger

29:00

Where is the media?
on Michael Jackson
on Scott Peterson
on Heidi Klume

30:00

'Network' 1976, a performance piece warning about the ill effects of Americans watching TV
"You do whatever the tube tells you" "Mass Madness" "Turn off your TV sets"

V for Vendetta clip (2006)
"The truth is there something terribly wrong with this country"

Star Wars clip (2005)
"The republic has become the very evil we are trying to destroy"
"The republic will be reorganized into the first galactic empire"
"This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause"
"The chancellor is behind everything, including the war"

Does Reality imitate Art?

39:30

Tom Delay steps down as majority leader

Jack Abramoff pleads guilty to Fraud, Tax Evasion, Conspiracy
'Gus' Boulis, owner of Sun Cruz Lines and Miami Sub Restaurant Chain, sells Sun Cruz Lines to Jack Abramoff's ownership group
Abramoff is now the proud owner of Sun Cruz Lines: cruises to nowhere, unlicensed gambling boats, largest unregulated gambling industry in US
Then Boulis is gunned down by someone in a black mustang on Feb 6, 2001
Shortly after, Abramoff invites several republican congressional staffers to gamble on the ships

On Sept 26 2001, employees of Sun Cruz Lines recognize Atta as frequent visitor on Sun Cruz ship
Ship logs reveal that 3 of the hijackers were aboard Sun Cruz ship on Sept. 5 2001

44:00

Foreknowledge
Willie Brown warned 8 hours before attacks
Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet
From the London Times: Rushdee thinks US had warning of upcoming attack

46:00

Unusual 'put options' on United and American airlines on the Chicago exchange
A firm that was used to place some of these 'put options' was managed by 'Buzzy' Krongard, chairman of investment bank AB-Brown, and formerly #3 in CIA

48:00

ABC news reports that $100,000 from banks in Pakistan put into Florida accounts held by Mohammed Atta.
WSJ, citing Times of India, reported that Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of General Mahmud (head of the Pakistani ISI) wired the $100,000 to Mohammed Atta
Daniel Pearl was killed by Ahmad Umar Shiekh in 2002
At the time, Pearl was investigating connections between Pakistan and Islamic Militant groups

On 9/11, Pakistan's intel chief, Gen. Mahmud, was having a breakfast meeting with Senator Graham and Porter Goss.
Graham and Goss would become the chairmen of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry

50:42

23 warnings from 11 foreign governments of upcoming attacks with specific information were ignored by US

51:45

John O'Neill retires from FBI because of repeated obstruction of his investigations into AlQaeda
Following his resignation, he is offered a job as head of security for WTC
On September 10th, he moves into his new office on 34th floor of WTC
He is killed the next day

52:30

August 6th PDB - Bin Laden determined to attack in the US
Sept 7 2001, Jeb Bush signs a Florida executive order which declares martial law in Florida

53:30

Failed Air Defenses
Washington DC remains unprotected for 85 minutes, when the Pentagon was struck at 9:40
Andrew's Air-force base only 11 miles from Pentagon
In the year prior to 9/11, Air-force successfully scrambles jets 67 out of 67 times

56:33

Rumsfeld recalls saying this... an hour before the 9/11 attacks:"I had said at an eight o'clock breakfast sometime in the next 2,4,6,8,10,12 months there would be an event that would occur in the world that be sufficiently shocking that would remind people again how important it is to have a strong defense department"

Pentagon is hit where it had just been reinforced
Pentagon Crash drill, Oct 24-26, 2000
Condi Rice "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon"
Bush: "I don't think anybody anticipated a breach of the levees"

57:38

FAA records show that Hani Hanjour obtained commercial pilots license in 1999, FAA refuse to discuss where he got this license
Hani Hanjour supposedly pilots flight 77 into Pentagon
Experts agree that it is a very skilled maneuver by flight 77 before it struck the Pentagon
Hanjour's flight instructors reported he had trouble simply landing a Sesna
Hanjour's flight skills are 'sub-standard'

59:20

Michael Meacher MP, fmr. UK Environment Minister, criticizes the US failure to stop attacks
Paul Hellyer , fmr. National Defense Minister of Canada, criticizes the failed response
Andreas Von Bulow, fmr. German Intel Minister, says we must question the official theory
Robert Bowman, fmr. Head of Advanced Space Programs at DOD, charges possible treason against Bush admin

1:01:36

Gen Montague Winfield, director of NMCC, steps away from post on crucial hours of 9/11
He requests on Sept 10th that his second-in-command stand in for him on 9/11, from 8:30 to 10:30

1:02:00

Bush in the Florida classroom on 9/11, America is under attack, Bush is told
Where is the Secret Service?
Who was in Charge that day?

1:07:30

June 2001, Cheney took charge of Counterterrorism Task Force, but never convened a single meeting

1:08:30

Republican Senator George Voinovich breaks down on the Senate floor, warning not to send Bolton to the UN
America Lost
Hitler's Gestapo
Fascism
NIN: 'You make this all go away'

STFU criminal!!!

STFU criminal!!!

"Damn, you people aren't the

"Damn, you people aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, are you?
Anonymous | 05.19.06 - 6:58 pm | #"

It's not that for me.....

I enjoy a good challenge. That's why I am an Engineer, because I enjoy things that are not easy.

"The conservation of energy

"The conservation of energy argument in favor of controlled demolition of the towers and building 7 is irrefutable. Anyone with that has done undergraduate studies in engineering can easily see that."

I don't see the whole world jumping on your bandwagon. Why is that?

"The argument made by truthout and John A that the fact that not all scientists (or structural engineers or whoever) have publicly endorsed the CD theory automatically means those same scientists endorse the official version is a logical fallacy. I'm sure anyone with a brain can see that."

I'm sure those with brains can see we made no such argument.

"Truthout is obviously a shill. He has offered nothing to this debate. Truthout's questions are similar to those that would be asked by a newbie."

You just gave yourself away as a troll. Nice try.

Yeah, but your arguing with

Yeah, but your arguing with a shill who is impersonating John Albanese!!! That's just wrong!!!

"CAN'T YOU PEOPLE TELL WHEN

"CAN'T YOU PEOPLE TELL WHEN SOMEONE IS BULLSHITTING YOU???"

Yes, it's very, very easy.

truthout, you are a criminal

truthout, you are a criminal & a talking bowel movement!

"Seve B, "I second that." So

"Seve B,

"I second that."

So much for intellectual honesty, T-Bone. And I thought you said you were a religious person.

YOU ENJOY COVERING UP THE

YOU ENJOY COVERING UP THE MURDERS OF 3,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE MOTHERFUCKER???

OR DID YOU HAVE A PART IN

OR DID YOU HAVE A PART IN IT???

"truthout says-"stay silent

"truthout says-"stay silent always, let the government do its job, nothing to see here."

You have a wild imagination.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 6:20 pm | #
no, this is what most here think of you actually.

"Since you are on the other

"Since you are on the other end of the spectrum regarding 9/11, anyway you can give us an opinion on why we went to war in Iraq and your opinion on the "War on Terror"?."

There's not much relevance to physics and structural engineering.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 6:18 pm | #
once again the douchebag doesnt answer a simple question. you guys ever notice that most shills NEVER can answer a direct question. stick to the script huh jackass?

"But you have yet to provide

"But you have yet to provide the evidence mathmatically proving that the building CAN fall in that amount of time."

I don't need to prove anything. YOU do. I have the evidence of the tiimes the towers fell. So do you. They are nowhere near freefall times wqhich is what YOU claimed.

"Just to SHUT YOU UP, here are the calculations with some very nice graphs as well.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/ Bi...liardBalls.html"

I guess you missed that she was already debunked for making the wrong assumptions.

The more you post the more you reveal no knowledge of physics.

truthout, what happened to

truthout, what happened to your fellow shill who was impersonating John Albanese?

"no, this is what most here

"no, this is what most here think of you actually."

That's sad. I feel your pain.

"I don't see the whole world

"I don't see the whole world jumping on your bandwagon. Why is that?"

"The argument made by truthout and John A that the fact that not all scientists (or structural engineers or whoever) have publicly endorsed the CD theory automatically means those same scientists endorse the official version is a logical fallacy. I'm sure anyone with a brain can see that."

I'm sure those with brains can see we made no such argument.

"Truthout is obviously a shill. He has offered nothing to this debate. Truthout's questions are similar to those that would be asked by a newbie."

You just gave yourself away as a troll. Nice try.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 7:01 pm | #

This is the best truthout has to offer - a self contradictory post. On the one hand he argues that because "the whole world" has not jumped on our "bandwagon", that the whole world must agree with the official version. Then in the very same post he claims not to have made the logically fallacious argument that those that do not publicly agree with our version automatically agree with the official version.

RB - Stop wasting your time. Let someone else that wants to polish their debating skills take the reins of they so desire. If not, this thread should die.

Finally had a chance to

Finally had a chance to watch it. Good work Dem Bruce Lee styles!

"no, this is what most here

"no, this is what most here think of you actually."

That's sad. I feel your pain.
truthout | 05.19.06 - 7:12 pm | #
my pain? i said thats how they feel about YOU, not me. read slowly next time buddy. try and keep up.

dz... was that John

dz... was that John Albanese?

dz... was that John

dz... was that John Albanese?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 8:22 pm | #

i would like to know also....

wow. i bash Micheal Moore on

wow. i bash Micheal Moore on a pretty regular basis, but his comments on the Pentagon were pretty good.i never knew he said that.

Truthout, "So much for

Truthout,

"So much for intellectual honesty, T-Bone. And I thought you said you were a religious person."

I don't see what my comment has anything to do with my religion. As a person who tries his best to be honest everyday I am a little offended at your implication, but I'm not going to hold a grudge. I was seconding his comment to ignore you since you avoided my question. I have seen you do this before, now that I think about it. I am new here but I had followed some posts for awhile before I started posting. You seem to want to control the content of the conversation. I could be wrong about you, but I asked you for an opinion and you didn't want to have a dialog, which is fine. I will just choose to not have a diolog either. Seems fair to me. May God bless you. Peace.

It's hard to believe anyone

It's hard to believe anyone could believe the pancake theory. There's so many problems with it. The building that was hit second was the first to come down, just as the fires were dying down.

The max temperature from jet fuel is around 1300 degrees. Steel doesn't start to melt until 2,700 degrees. Each building was 1,300 feet tall, having 47 steel core columns and 240 steel columns around the perimeter. To even weaken that much steel you'd need a much larger and hotter fire than what occurred on 9/11. To "pancake" a floor would require the simultaneous breaking of hundreds of joints in both the core columns and the perimeter columns. If you managed to accomplish that somehow you'd have to bypass Newton's law of Conservation of Momentum. Which would mean each succeeding floor would absorb some of the energy of the floor above it, thus slowing the descent. This is a physical law that works in interactions of all objects in the universe. If the towers had pancaked there is no way that all of the truss's would miraculously give at the very same moment for each succeeding floor! Pancaking would have resulted in the buildings falling to the side, as there would have been truss's on floors that would have given or held at different times than the rest of the floor. Pancaking wouldn't have come down in it's own footprint and it would have taken alot longer to come down. It probably would not have been as clean as fall of the towers were.

what does everyone make of

what does everyone make of this?

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

DHS... don't quote me on

DHS... don't quote me on this, but I believe that John Judge is looking through the same type of information. I remember talking to him on the phone, and he was talking to me about extra passengers on 77... the counts didn't match, etc...

Does anyone know what

Does anyone know what Truthout's opinion is regarding 9/11? What does he think happened?

t-bone, dont waste your time

t-bone, dont waste your time with truthout..

he is a shill of some sort...

This is by far the best film

This is by far the best film questioning 9/11 for the following reasons. It removes all the glitter (upbeat soundtracks), sensationalism (conspiracy theories that sound far out to the mainstream), and overinformation. Instead, "What's the Truth" focuses on main issue with a rawness and pinpoint precision needed for the masses to get off their ass and learn the truth. The silence during quotes is perfect. Let the words (ala the TRUTH) speak for themselves. The speech by the mother was profound. The retired leiutenant's speech was simply amazing.

I believe this is the film that the 911Truth Movement needs to stand behind. I do not mean to discredit all the other great works done, but so far, this has the best chances of reaching the masses. This can be the crack in the dam that will open the flood gates.

Truth to Power,
Jako

OT: I'm confused about

OT:

I'm confused about something. Is "Take Back 9/11" and "The Laws of Physics Do Not Fail" the same movie?

Does anyone know what

Does anyone know what Truthout's opinion is regarding 9/11? What does he think happened?
T-Bone | 05.19.06 - 9:22 pm | #
he doesnt get paid to think.just ask him a basic question like the one above. or any shill for that matter. they are good at staying on message, but not so good at answering basic,direct questions that involve opinion.

shills shills shills don't

shills shills shills

don't you people ever get tired of calling each other shills?

its so fucking retarded

now people claim i'm a shill, because i just won't give you a 100% endorsement on controlled demolition?

what are you - Jesus freaks?

why do you think people refer to 9/11 activists as "conspiracy theorists?"

because you speculate and confuse facts with opinions.

controlled demolition is a dead end. it is an intellectual cul-de-sac. it gets this movement nowhere.

americans need to understand what "government complicity" means - and HOW it could have happened. They need to be educated about the facts of 9/11 - not force fed opinions and theories.

ultimately it does not matter if controlled demolition is true - or not. the evidence is gone - melted down into battleships that are designed to kill and bomb poor people. the evidence is gone - and like the magic bullet we can debate endlessly whether Kennedy was shot from the front or the back.

what DOES the film show?

lets all circle-jerk talking about some grainy video of supposed 'squibs" that can be counter-debated in numerous ways - while our government sharpens their knives and plans more attacks against Iran - maybe using nukes.

yes - lets sit our fat asses on this message board and call each other shills and spies and agents and retards. i'm SURE the neo-cons are LOVING it.
]
yes - lets talk some more about the melting point of steel - and the recent video release from the Pentagon DESIGNED to FUEL more conspiracy theories. the damned video shows NOTHING>

don't you get it? its intentional. its perfect. its sock puppets for the 9/11 sheep to play with while the real criminals turn the final screws on their diebold machines and give themselves more tax breaks, and steal everything that isn't fucking tied down, before the whole shithouse burns to the ground.

what will it be next time? a nuke in Boston?

yes - lets insult each other over physical evidence and the true and inner deep meaning of teh phrase "pull it" while silverstein has failed to lay one god damned brick for a 9/11 memorial in NYC.

yes - lets INSIST we are all experts and shills. that's all i see on this board - experts and shills - shills and experts. its a funny sideshow for those of us who were in NYC that day and WATCHED people jump. we really appreciate your valuable input.

now tell me - am i John Albanese?

Dem Bruce Lee Styles, I

Dem Bruce Lee Styles,

I viewed the wmv version.

The one-hour montage "9/11 Revisited" got us over the hump for garnering interest in 9/11 truth via the demolition-possiblity theory. Now it's "What's the Truth". This is a fine survey that covers a heck of a lot points on the demolition possibility, and in a captivating style. Just as "Everybody's Gotta learn Sometime" to my mind presents non-demo evidence that rises to an indictable level, "What's the Truth" is currently The Tool to present demolition-possibility evidence that rises to an indictable level. That's all most of us ever claimed to be doing; indict the official conspiracy theory. Get us to a real investigation where the proof one way or the other may come. I am very impressed and grateful for this finely crafted ammunition to add to my belt. I jotted down feedback along the way as my thanks:

Too-long intro? maybe, maybe not!

WTC7, at 19:30, you skipped the first part of the penthouse collapse! Back it up 2 seconds!!

The silent background reminds me of 2001: A Truth Odyssey :) Just me and the sound of my breathing....

At 24:15 academic paper titled -- "Why Indeed Did The WTC Building's Collapse?"
Lose the apostrophe.

Exquisite choreography of pictures with soundtrack. Particularly noticed during the Forbes interview ~41:00.

At 48:22 perfect condisions sp. conditions

Excellent pacing throughout; just when you're hooked on one speaker or subject, the film moves on.

From 1:06:40 to 1:07:40, the entire segment of family-of-Manny Torres is inaudible due to low volume (wmv version).

At 1:21:08, I urge deleting the text "If you disagree with the Iraq War... of the willing. Then", leaving only "It is vital that you research... and do the same." Ie, it's vital period, regardless of whatever views on other things.

Consider adding these witness clips:
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.glass.blew.out.wmv

The one that amazes me the most, "Bomb in the building" from CameraPlanet (permission? I emailed them a month ago and never got a reply)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928

Exquisitely excellent outro, last six minutes :)

Great job, thanks again!!!

nice FrankV. If i can add

nice FrankV.

If i can add one more thing, DBLS...

WMD's or WMDs? I think it should be the latter.

yes - lets INSIST we are all

yes - lets INSIST we are all experts and shills. that's all i see on this board - experts and shills - shills and experts. its a funny sideshow for those of us who were in NYC that day and WATCHED people jump. we really appreciate your valuable input.

now tell me - am i John Albanese?
John Albanese | 05.20.06 - 1:10 am | #

so is LC2 hurting the 911 tryth movement??? HAHAHAH!!!!

your film is nothing but lihop and that just doesnt fly these days...

what are you thoughts on DRG and Jones???

is anyone in this thread hurting the movement by thinking that it was CD that took down the towers??? have you seen the videos of them falling!!!???

just because you were in ny on 911 doesnt mean anything to me... sorry...

That's not John Albanese of

That's not John Albanese of EGLS, damn it!

Does anybody have a torrent

Does anybody have a torrent for this movie?
It keeps stopping from that podcast link...
It would be good to post it at conspiracy central:
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/

That is John Albanese. I

That is John Albanese. I agree with him on many points, and just because I agree with him on many points doesn't mean I don't care about this movement, and this country, and it certainly does not make me a "shill".

What John is trying to talk about is the fact that there are many people within the movement who are on the "fence" regarding Controlled Demolition. I was until Professor Jones came out, and even still, I only refer people to his work because I know that I am not an expert.

There are people within the movement who see the idea of Controlled Demolition as the "Holy Grail". If you don't believe in Controlled Demolition, you are automatically labeled a "shill". Is that right? Is that the kind of unity we should have as a movement? I think not.

Those people on the "fence" are probably terrified about voicing their opinions on the subject because they don't want to be labeled, or shunned, and pushed away from something they believe in.

I have news for you ladies and gentlemen. There is more to 9/11 than the theory of Controlled Demoltion.

There are facts that actually can be verified quite easily that show complicity. There are facts that when put together, lead us to the real culprits of 9/11.

I'll take a suspect over a theory any day of the week.

Thank you John for your honesty.

Holy crap, now someone must

Holy crap, now someone must be impersonating Gold! I can't believe Albanese & Gold would spew the same bullshit!

"Holy crap, now someone must

"Holy crap, now someone must be impersonating Gold! I can't believe Albanese & Gold would spew the same bullshit!"

Whomever you are Anonymous, you're wrong. That was John Albanese, and this is me, and I'm saying that you shouldn't automatically push someone away who isn't completely convinced that Controlled Demolition was used on 9/11. If we're going to push people away just because they don't agree with one theory, then this movement is never going to get anywhere.

Anonymous - I am indeed John

Anonymous - I am indeed John Albanese - and you can email me at johnalbanese@nyc.rr.com to confirm it.

and in answer to another poster - my film is not LIHOP. it is not MIHOP. it is not speculative. it does not take a formal position.

although- the clips from V for Vendetta CLEARLY asks the MIHOP question - and much of the evidence presented clearly supports this position.

ultimately, if you want MY opinion (which is worth NOTHING) i am a MIHOP believer.

and regarding controlled demolition - i am 50/50 - agnostic.

i understand that there is some compelling evidence that supports this theory. it is just not conclusive - and much of the junk science circulating is not helping the situation.

i also live in NYC and as a 9/11 activist for years now i have had the opportunity to personally meet and talk to the firemen and police - who were there - who saw the damage to WTC7 - and saw the towers 'bowing' and 'failing' and who personally believe that controlled demolition is horse shit.

furrthermore, the stubbornness of some of the advocates of controlled demolition is stunning.

let me give you one example:

how many times are people going to quote the eyewitnesses seeing flashes and hearing explosions?

and how many time must it be explained that a modern day skyscraper has electricity surging through it, with transformers and electrical substations etc etc. This was not an inert object that collapsed. It was a modern day building surging with electricity and plumbing and air pressure and gas tanks and all sorts of things that we cannot even probably imagine.

Have you ever seen a transformer explode?

gee - ya think those flashes and explosions could POSSIBLY be explained in some other way? POSSIBLY?

could an electrically LIVE building - in the process of collapsing - POSSIBLY experience some strange power surges and electrical short circuits and explosions?

of course its possible. in ffact - its probable.

yet - no matter how many times you explain this to people, they STILL will quote the eyewitness accounts of flashes and explosions - as if it is definitive proof that the ONLY explanation is controlled demolition.

did you ever stop to think that all these theories about the pentagon and pods and flashes and holograms and explosives and junk science and seemingly legitimate yet unproven science are merely being created to distract the sheep from the real crimes?

what did you think of the new Pentagon video released? doesn't it seem DESIGNED to FUEL more conspiracy theories? its almost laughable.

when 9/11 activists chase physical evidence that no longer exists - like the magic bullet that has been debated for decades - who benefits?

and look at how anyone who disagrees with controlled demolition is accused of being a government shill.

is that believable?

could someone like me - who just released a film exposing nearly every aspect of the 9/11 government be a shill?

what are you going to do now anonymous? accuse me of betrayal? attack one of your own? accuse me of being a spy or shill? attack someone who is trying to educate people on all the things in my movie - because i won't take a POSITION on Controlled Demolition?

again - i am 50/50 on controlled demolition.

that's not good enough for you?

you need an absolutist position?

is this a fundamentalist group here?

do you think you are helping the people of New York who are FIGHTING to find justice for the victims families by dividing us in this way?

when i sit with members of victims families - or with a middle aged woman who is half blind becuase of damage to her eyes from fibers embedded by the collapse - and she can't get financial support - and her kid had to be pulled from the private school he was attending because her business went under (all a true story) - tell me...... when i sit with these people ad vow to continue fiighting at my own expense to educate people on Huffman and San Diego and John O'Neil and the history of false flag operation - tell me - am i a shill?

do all of us here in NYC a favor and grow up a little. pose your questions. continue to PUSH as hard as you can to find teh truth - even on controlled demolition - but, stop this petty infighting and accusatory garbage that is dividing us. it is unseemly and disrespectful to people who sacrifice much for this movement.

Jon, answer me in the

Jon, answer me in the current thread,^ if that's you.

Incidentally, I am not

Incidentally, I am not 50/50... I'm more 70/30 regarding Controlled Demolition. Some days it may even reach 90/10. Depending on what evidence people bring forward.

However, I am 100%, TO THE

However, I am 100%, TO THE BONE MIHOP.

And DBLS... Excellent movie.

And DBLS... Excellent movie. I know people have commented on the fact that no music doesn't influence people's emotions, etc... but I do think it helps to enunciate when something "important" is happening... something you should focus on, etc...

agreed.

agreed.

John Albanese, no doubt, I

John Albanese, no doubt, I do respect you opinion and your concern about the possibility of the towers being brought down by controlled demolition, sounding too wild. I also think, discounting the evidence for it, that it sounds wild, of course it does. But it's what probably did happen, and it is a crux issue. The collapse of building 7 canÂ’t be explained away as officially described, as official documents themselves admit that their "best hypothesis, has only low probability of occurrence". Without going into all the detail, even if the building was a raging inferno, which is wasnÂ’t, for the building to fall neatly into it's own foundations, and not experience any substantial frictional resistance, that alone is a direct evidence for controlled demolition. Uncontrolled collapses to not happen like that. The building was damaged by the collapse of the towers, and it did have fires in it, like many other buildings in the surrounding area. But for a chance collapse to occur so uniformly like that, the probabilities are astronomically almost infinite.

"did you ever stop to think that all these theories about the pentagon and pods and flashes and holograms"

^ I complete agree with you up until that point;

"and explosives and junk science and seemingly legitimate yet unproven science are merely being created to distract the sheep from the real crimes"

The reports of explosives are from the firemen, rescue workers, world trade enter workers themselves. And I've got to say I think the only junk science that's really damaging is from FEMA and NIST, which at the significant parts is nonsense, but yet has been accepted as adequate by some who donÂ’t question the collapse of the towers as suspect. Dr Jones' paper raises significant doubt about the collapses of the three buildings on 9/11, I recommend you check it and see if you can understand were all this is coming from;

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

John Albanese, what happened

John Albanese, what happened to wtc 7????

do you think that there are no shills here on blogger on in the movement????

DBLS - well - we could go on

DBLS - well - we could go on discussing this for hours - but i'm sure you've already heard the counter arguments.

in fact - once again - you mention the sounds of explosions dispite the fact that i just posted a rather elaborate post regarding the nature of skyscrapers, power surges, the volume of electricity that was live in those buildings, etc etc

so - when i talk about junk science i suppose i am talking about the cherry picking of information where you IGNORE these facts - that a collapsing building with live transformers etc etc would CERTAINLY be an explosive situation.

further, you make assertions about the astronimical odds of certain events occuring, as so many advocates of CD do, but, even the work of Dr Jones has not been widely accepted in the scientific community, with adequate peer review.

so - i accept the limitations of my education, and acccept that i am not a physicist.

it is kind of silly that you are recommending i read Jone's work when i have reviewed it and debated it so many times.

and lastly - when you say building 7 was NOT a raging inferno - that is somewhat insulting since there is existing quotes from firemen on the scene that directly contradicts that. i suppose i could yet again look it up and post it.

but again - junk science involves cherry picking information - while IGNORING other information - to get the outcome one desires.

there are in fact no firemen in NYC that support the controlled demolition theory. in fact, the FDNY is somewhat hostile to the idea - considering the loss of life they sustained and the fact that so much disinformation has been spread on the issue.

and i would be careful to suggest that these firemen are scared to talk. these men lost 300 of their friends and family on that day - and there is not a gag order that would keep these men silent if they believed their friends were BLOWN up intentionally.

again - i RESPECT your response - but, framing all of your answers such that is is "astronomically" impossible or that the physics confirms this theory is simply your OPINION based on limited research - and it is a FACT that the scientific community does NOT seem to share these same sentiments.

someone here asked me what

someone here asked me what happened to WTC7

i don't know

and either do you

we have evidence that seems to indicate controlled demolition

and we have evidence to the contrary

John Albanese, respectfully

John Albanese, respectfully and in the spirit of debate, I utterly disagree with you on this issue. We'll just have to see how history records what happened to the towers. But we do need a truly independent investigation either way to get the answers for all the suspicious issues regarding 9/11. So differences of opinion like this need to be put aside, otherwise we are all just dividing ourselves, which is an joke. I am personally convinced because of the issues surrounding building 7, that thereÂ’s something very wrong with the official 9/11 story. And I know many others are convinced by that also, but on the other hand there are those who are not, who alternatively may be convinced by one of the other numerous and similarly valid concerns that surround the attacks. So each to his own, but in my opinion the collapse of the Towers and WTC7 is an extremely strong case.

DBLS - i agree 100%. and

DBLS - i agree 100%. and i've been told that my film makes the perfect companion to LC2 or your film because together we cover all the bases. some people are compelled by the physical evidence - and other compelled by the history.

the most IMPORTANT thing is that all the sniping and accusations stop. we should all at the very least agree that we are on the same team.

DBLS - i agree 100%. and

DBLS - i agree 100%. and i've been told that my film makes the perfect companion to LC2 or your film because together we cover all the bases. some people are compelled by the physical evidence - and other compelled by the history.

the most IMPORTANT thing is that all the sniping and accusations stop. we should all at the very least agree that we are on the same team.
John Albanese | 05.20.06 - 12:44 pm | #

^ Exactly bro, thatÂ’s precisely what IÂ’m saying!!

and we have evidence to the

and we have evidence to the contrary
John Albanese | 05.20.06 - 12:04 pm | #

where and what is it???

youre digging yourself in a fat hole.... good luck getting out..

inside - if being objective

inside -

if being objective is digging a fat hole - i'm happy to be in it.

look - i could just as easily talk to the no-planers who will respond to me with the same amount as arrogance and rightious indignation as you.

its soooooo obvious there were no planes.

whatever

you are proof that counter arguments can be presented to you over and over and over and over again - and you will simly ignore them. you only accept evidence that supports your belief system.

are you telling me that no one here has ever provided reasoned and balanced arguments to explain some counter points of view?

what would you have us do - insider? debate ytou day after day while you show no intellectual honesty by acknowledging the existence of counter evidence?

i already talked about reports of explosions - and how they can POSSIBLY be explained by transformers throughout the building experiencing massive power surges as the structure failed.

but of COURSE you simply will NOT accept even the POSSIBILITY.

so - i'm just curious how you define intellectual integrity?

i'm digging myself a big fat hole?

naaa...... i just resist the tinfoil hat absolutists who treat their limited knowledge like dogma that must be repeated like a fundamentalist religion..

LOL again - i am 50/50 on controlled demolition. LOL!! i just won't line up and buy into your belief system.

i live in NYC and we have a groupd here called "Jews for Jesus". i've attempted talking to these people. they claim that i am going to hell simply for not accepting THEIR belief system.

you sound an awful lot like them

Albanese - I think the best

Albanese -

I think the best point you make is the sentiments of the firemen. They know a helluvalot more about buildings and fires than anyone here. They were there. They lost hundreds of lives when the buildings collapsed. Yet, they do not support controlled demolition.

What you failed to mention is that Dr. Jones' own physics department associates do not concur with his study. So, the physics is not as definitive as some here claim.

Many people take Dr Jones'

Many people take Dr Jones' work at face value in that it sounds very authoratative and scientific. And he might be right. But, when people say that teh physics have been PROVEN I wonder of they understand what "peer review" and scientific rigor entails.

The physics just is not yet definitive on this issue yet. Yes, we have one physicist who has made a scientific assertion. Very good. I hope there are more. But, so far there is a strange vacuum of support from the vast majority of scientists WORLDWIDE on his paper.

When his paper came out I was excited. I read it and it certainly seemed important and scientific. But, again, i just do not see the peer review of his work to make a conclusive statement on this at this time.

^^^^Caution: Lying Shills at

^^^^Caution: Lying Shills at Work, Above^^^^

"do all of us here in NYC a

"do all of us here in NYC a favor and grow up a little. pose your questions. continue to PUSH as hard as you can to find teh truth - even on controlled demolition - but, stop this petty infighting and accusatory garbage that is dividing us. it is unseemly and disrespectful to people who sacrifice much for this movement."

You know maybe you should take your own advice to heart? Your very emotional about this, that's understandable but your doing the same thing your accusing others of.

Anonymous - I'm curious

Anonymous -

I'm curious exactly when you mean when you call me a lying shill?

what does that mean?

where am i lying - and how exactly am i shill.

you were on this board earlier accusing me of not being who i claim to be - so i responded with my email address so you can confirm my identity.

yet - here you are again- like a drive by shooting - attempting to assassinate my character while adding no substance to the issue at hand.

can you clarify what shill means? and can you show how i am lying?

i really am sincerely curious why this sort of personal sniping goes on here.

"Albanese", you said at your

"Albanese", you said at your premier of EGLS that you donÂ’t talk about controlled demolition or other scientific evidence because that is not your forte.

Now I see that you someone using your name in this thread is bashing much of the compelling scientific evidence that we do have.

Also, you're/they're pretending to speak for the fireman about what they witnessed and what they can & can't say.

Furthermore, you also posted:

Don't you people see that no matter how serious and scholarly any film is, someone like Nico will switch the topic of the comments board to some absurdist theory like 'fake planes' or 'mini nukes'?Its clearly a disinformation tactic. Unfortunately i do not know what the solution to this problem is. I guess i would just suggest not engaging these people since they in all probability are not even REAL people.John Albanese | 05.19.06 - 10:55 am | #

But you know Nico Haupt is a real person because elsewhere you said at St. Marks Church Haupt accused you of threatening him; on a different occasion you said you offered to buy Haupt a meal because he looked sickly.

SO WHAT'S UP WITH ALL THIS???

Anonymous i can tell you

Anonymous

i can tell you what's up. you sound like you are simply getting yourself worked up over a bunch of my human foibles and blogger nonsense.

you're doing a forensic analysis of my posts like its the Zapruder film. LOL!

lets put this in perspective. this is just a message board to shoot the shit. you seem to be taking all of this too seriously.

why are people wound so tight?

i said at St Marks that i don't talk about controlled demolition becuase it is not my forte. correct.

but the truth is that i would not talk about controlled demolition at St Marks because it always seems to conjure up immature emotions from immature people who get all upset when i refuse to advocate the theory.

people attack me for not 100% believing the CD theory.

you are a perfect example of that.

but is this a debate board - or not?

i am unsure what your beef is with my Nico comments - but - yes - i think his particular brand of 'research' is a disinformation campaign - whether intentional or not - whether by design or not - that ultimately hurts this movement.

holograms?

puh-leeze!

but i do stand 100% behind every comment you attribute to me on Nico. and yes he did speak at st marks before my film was shown and claimed that i was threatening his life- and he was seeking legal action.

there were hundreds of witnesses - so, if you have a problem with this - please speak up - i can have Father Frank Morales talk to you about what we all heard.

and lastly you take umbrage with my references to the FDNY. you think the FDNY advocates the CD theory? ok - prove me wrong. if i'm wrong - i'm wrong. prove it. but be polite about it.

but - the bottom line is that you appear to be upset.

maybe i am not who you WANT me to be. maybe i do not BELIEVE all the same things about 9/11 that you do. so? we're all part of the same family movement to expose the real criminals behind 9/11. my movie stands on its own. i did NOT bash CD in my movie. i left it alone. but i'm not going to be cowed on a message board from sharing my opinions.

sorry - i'm 50/50 on CD - and dat's dat.

so - drop the hysteria and accusations and be a friend.

IMHO What's the Truth? - 1hr

IMHO

What's the Truth? - 1hr 26min Video by Dem Bruce Lee Styles

stops all doubts on WTC demolition.

a landmark! YOU MUST show this to everyone.

Like you, I find the NO

Like you, I find the NO PLANE theories astonishing. But...

After reviewing MARCUS ICKE GHOST GUN for the umptieth time.. and still cannot find fault with the CAREFUL CONCLUSIONS... (namely that the IMPACT VIDEOS of UA175 was certainly faked!)

I noticed another thing.

the big piece of aircraft that is ejected from the opposite side of the building ...in the NO PLANE reality it must have been a PLANTED device, synchronized with the impact. Some sort of SFX, like in Hollywood.

But when you look closely it seems the synchronisation failed, it is ejected with a delay, it cannot have come from the Boeing ...

Jon, we can agree that Nico

Jon, we can agree that Nico is a lost soul with his holograms/blue screens. (That's not why I mentioned him.)

No one can force you to believe in controlled dem. if you truly don't. But you look like disinfo when you go out of your way to disparage it. What's wrong with just saying you're not sure? And Jon, you must've been born yesterday if you think the firemen haven't been intimidated/gagged into silence, just like the media.

Re: Passengers on Flight

Re: Passengers on Flight 77

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm

One could make a film/documentary
JUST ABOUT THE VICTIMS of AA77...

imagine how many wasps-nest you'd trample on doing that, haha

A reasonable discussion is

Anonymous i am 50/50 on CD

Anonymous

i am 50/50 on CD and just trying to demonstrate where my doubts lie - and demonstate that there should be open debate on the subject.

but i disagree that the firemen are afraid to talk. there was just TOO much loss of life on that day to believe that these brave men would be silenced - and the families silenced - by a gag order.

it would be great if a fireman would be willing to speak - with his identity protected. maybe we should launch a campaign to encourage them to step forward if we guarantee that we would protect their identity - and video tape them in aninterview with their voices modified.

it might be worth launching such a campaign

why do people keep hammering

why do people keep hammering the "freefall speed" issue. I see no conclusive position from the physics community on this. if it was so OBVIOUS that the laws of physics were violated - there would be consensus on the issue.
there isn't.
some of you want to claim there is.
but there isn't
John Albanese | 05.19.06 - 5:07 pm | #

"I just get tired of all the speculation and almost desperate attempts to prove demolition.
John Albanese | 05.19.06 - 3:09 pm | #"

...i already talked about reports of explosions - and how they can POSSIBLY be explained by transformers throughout the building experiencing massive power surges as the structure failed...
john albanese | 05.20.06 - 1:29 pm | #

someone here asked me what happened to WTC7
i don't know
and either do you
we have evidence that seems to indicate controlled demolition
and we have evidence to the contrary
John Albanese | 05.20.06 - 12:04 pm | #

you give us an example of simple math - adding 1/2 second for each floor of the towers.
Surely you are aware that that is not a scientific analysis of the physics involved. If it was that simple the scientific community would be unified on the issue.
They are not.
John Albanese | 05.19.06 - 4:34 pm | #

You deliberately BASH our scientific evidence way too much for me, if that's really you, Albanese.

You consider Dr. Jones’ work to be "desperate attempts.” I beg to differ.

“but i disagree that the firemen are afraid to talk. there was just TOO much loss of life on that day to believe that these brave men would be silenced - and the families silenced - by a gag order.”

DonÂ’t be naive with me on this John. Our entire mainstream media is silenced even without a gag order!!! Plenty of firefighters have spoken out re: explosions & other unexplained occurrences. There is fear & intimidation keeping them from organizing a movement.

Let's just "pull-it" my friend. I believe you are a fraud with an agenda to discredit scientific evidence in the truth movement.

Anonymous - you really show

Anonymous -

you really show an immature streak.

i never called Dr Jone's work 'desperate' - and your choice of words like "bash" is inflammatory.

what i DO call desperate is your posts.

i'm not bashing anything. i'm debating - and if you do not have the balls to do it in a mature and civil way ....that reflects more about you than me.

what this tells me is that you are not mature enought to even ALLOW people like myself to present opposing viewpoints - and that is exactly my issue and problem with certain aspects of the tinfoil hat brigade.

and once again you hang your hat on firemen hearing 'explosions"

this demonstrates that you do not care what the truth is. i posted - at length on this subject regarding transformers and power surges etc etc. many many many times.

my post was not BASHING anyone - it was reasoned and balanced - and demonstrates that the issue of explosions can be explained in other ways and is not a definitive proof of CD.

are you going to cry?

so here's what i think:

1 - you are not mature enough to debate this - and you almost reflexively lash out at anyone who cares enough to show how flimsy some of your talking points are. you really seek to embarass or silence all critics - but ultimately to discredit the movement by attacking fellow members for not sharing YOUR beliefs.

2 - you are dishonest in that you knowingly repeat the same accusations - without respecting opposing viewpoints. A brief review of this thread reveals that i have answered you multiple times on the SAME issues - yet you persist in not respecting opposing viewpoints. this is called "intellectual dishonesty"

3 - you have seeked to smear my reputation by alternately calling me a liar, a shill and NOT John Albanese. I have demonstrated that i am by posting my personal email address - johnalbanese@nyc.rr.com - so you can confirm my identity.

you can cry us a river anonymous...... waaaaaaa........waaaaaaa.......... John Albanese bashes our "science"............waaaaaaaaa ....... John Albanese is a shill..........waaaaaaaa....

but, as it stands now my film has been downloaded over 50,000 times of Google, with showings being scheduled all across this nation. you and your cronies from St Marks are immature disruptors who have time and time again cast negativity over the honest hard work of others, and as a result the national moveement at 911Truth.org has removed the northeast regional director from their contact list (look it up) - and St Marks church has been forced to right formal letters requesting that the more radical elements of your group cease and desist distributing anti-semitic literature.

i will happily post those formal letters here if you like.

so tell me - am i John Albanese?

here's my email johnalbanese@nyc.rr.com. email me.

and while you are at it - why don't you call NY Firemen cowards to their faces - since that is what you are implying.

at least i have the balls to identofy myself here and express my opinions fearlessly - as i have nationwide. my film is being widely being accepted and a positive development for the movement.

you are the one hiding like a coward behind an anonymous message board calling me "a fraud"

and another thing - did you

and another thing - did you even READ the quotes that you attributed to me in your last post?

i stand behind every one of those quotes - and II really wonder if you know how to read, because every one of those quotes is a talking point in a debate.

what YOU are saying is that you just don't want debate. you are a crybaby.

Albanese, or not Albanese,

Albanese, or not Albanese, you are a double-talking bullshit artist.
Stop bashing the scientific evidence in the 9/11 truth movement!

And you are a coward who

And you are a coward who calls me a fraud, a shill, a liar and a bullshit artist.

who has more dignity here?

by the way - check it out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3394177024449046186&q=everybody...

my film has been transcribed into Dutch.

i will express WHATEVER opinions i wish on the "scientific evidence" - and people can decide for themselves who is doing more good for this movement.

by the way - my film made the Google Top 100 list.

so - let me tell you how this is going to work out:

- the days of junk sciencee are over
- the failure of the tinfoil hat brigade is increasingly being viewed as intentional disruption to a legitimate 911 Truth movement.
- hate speech and anti-semitism and disinformation and bogus 'facts' WILL be exposed and actively combated.

so tell me - am i John Albanese - a double talking bullshit artist? i'm waiting for your email.

If you are Albanese, I think

If you are Albanese, I think your one in the same with S. King & truthout!

Whomever you are, stop bashing the scientific evidence in the 9/11 truth movement.

Anonymous - you are

Anonymous - you are obviously trying to bully Albanese into not expressing his opinions.

And you are mixing accusations and insults against him.

I think he is making an example of you, without you even realizing it. Your own lack of tollerance and childish accusations expose you.

Thank you Another

Thank you Another Opinion.

My work here is done.

Good riddance, shills.

Good riddance, shills.

You're welcome. You do

You're welcome. You do great work.

How can Albanese or anyone

How can Albanese or anyone doubt CONTROLLED DEMOLITION after watching
What's the Truth?????

They cannot have watched it.

Onle ONE argument could speak *for* the
pancake theory.

Stupidity, being born yesterday.

Whoever that was wants to

Whoever that was wants to promote 9/11 truth, but without a word on any of the scientific evidence. Ridiculous!

Thanks John Albanese!

Thanks John Albanese!

http://conspiracycentral.net:

NEW OFFICIAL NICK NAME

NEW OFFICIAL NICK NAME FOR

911_WTC_demolition_analysis--WhatsTheTruth-HowIndeedDidTheTwinTowersCollapse

The Thermite Movie

hehe..

This was a good one, does

This was a good one, does anyone know who made this? Do they have a webpage or something? I uploaded it to google, hope they don't mind.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989407671184881047