Thomas-Scott Gordon's affadavit on the demolition of the WTC

I first heard of Thomas-Scott Gordon while listening to Jim Fetzer's RBN radio show, Non-Random Thoughts. He has released an affadavit chronicling his experience interfacing with what he believes to be some sort of covert team tasked to do the initial groundwork for the eventual take down of the WTC.

This affadavit has been posted online here, and here. It has also now been published by "The Liberty Proclaimer", a newlsetter out of NY. (You can contact "The Liberty Proclaimer" via snail mail at: 3450 State Route 4, Hudson Falls, New York (12839) or email at: libertyproclaimer@hotmail.com )

Read it and make up your own mind.

AFFIDAVIT:

"The destruction of the World Trade Center, as witnessed on September 11th, 2001, was the result of an elaborately planned, Controlled Demolition." This is the conclusion of thousands of witnesses and hundreds of forensics experts. Given due consideration, these findings imply, that *US MILITARY* personnel are responsible for crimes that led to the murder of an estimated 3,000 innocent Americans.

As a living witness to these actions, as I have described herein, I do hereby officially charge those responsible, both for the execution, and for the '9/11 cover-up,' with the crimes of: Conspiracy, Treason, Genocide and Murder. Additional criminal charges also apply.

My sole objective in composing this document is to publicize the *initial phase* of this covert operation at the World Trade Center, dating back to 1987.* While I was employed by the WTC Architects of Record; Emery Roth and Associates, AIA, New York City, where I discovered both physical samples and written documentation concerning potential hazards with the physical integrity of the Twin Towers. After witnessing these events, I publicly expressed my concern for a thorough public safety-inspection of the Twin Trade Towers, to other architects and contractors.

To date, not one of our staff, nor the 40-or so full-time employees of the WTC building engineering team has spoken-out publicly, or provided a testimony under oath. A thorough investigation of these parties, named herein, will provide disclosure as to precise nature of these events as I have described. This shall serve as a complete legal record of my direct exposure to these *pre-existing physical, materials conditions* at the Twin Trade Center, that collectively support the *financial motivation* which had prompted the New York Port Authority, AND operatives within NORAD, (or NSA) to engage in this seditious act of "espionage."

No similar information has been provided by any other witness(es) that I am aware of, and no individuals have provided details that would serve to dispute my claims in any way. I remain hopeful that others, more closely connected with this property, and ideally, those having access to the City of New York Buildings Departments, will continue with the points of research as suggested by the information in this document.

Continued...

Thanks for the reminder about this story, n/a

Fetzer demolished by Dunn in Exchange on Pentagon

This link is to final responses in an exchange between Fetzer and Dunn on the Pentagon hit in The American Thinker. It's not pretty:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5875&search=fetzer

Why do you keep posting this Dunn vs. Fetzer garbage...

Shouldn't you be off in Iraq killing women & children by now?

I agree that Fetzer is spewing garbage and I don't know why he

I agree that Fetzer is spewing garbage and I don't know why he or Dunn aren't killing children in Iraq. You'll have to ask them.

well that's

15 mins of my life I wont get back, I read that whole spew and found Dunn to have NOT successfully refuted ANYTHING at all.

The whole argument from BOTH sides are mostly assumptions anyway, although at least Fetzers assumptions have some validity and basic common sense backing them up, Dunn's does not.

Whether or not a 757/767/A3/Global Hawk or anything else hit the Pentagon is really moot point.

What I think matters most is how did ANYTHING manage to hit the Pentagon?
Especially considering it was known for over an hour the damn plane was headed towards it (assuming of course that it indeed was a plane) and that the Pentagon has automatic ground to air missile batteries and allegedly "America was under attack" then there is no logical explanation as to how even a freaking dirt clod could hit the Pentagon let alone something as huge as a 757 leisurely lumbering along taking its sweet time doing a spiral around it before it slams into it.

That is not an unprovable assumption that is fact.

media line "America under attack"

A very good argument: How soon did the news channels show "America under attack" as their coverage banner? Wasn't this even before the Pentagon was hit. The media was faster to understand what was happening than the billion dollar early-warning radar systems.

the $

Maybe that's where the money went.

But Seriously...

If you didn't think Dunn refuted Fetzer, you didn't read the article.

I read it

Top to bottom.

One assumption does not refute another assumption no matter how much you want it to.

That is why I just stick to what can be provable with the available evidence, or what is strong circumstantial & accumulative evidence.

What Assumptions?

You've got me: What assumptions does Dunn make? He shows that Fetzer's fabrications about an A-3 are nonsense. He exposes Fetzer's falsehoods about the imaginary defenses of Washington, D.C. Dunn knows the subject inside and out; Fetzer is blowing smoke.

it is all

assumptions on both sides there is no real evidence from either one of them really.

Nunyabiz your deluded or full of it. Dunn hammered Fetzer into a

Nunyabiz your deluded or full of it.

Dunn collapsed Fetzer into a pile. By refuting Fetzers foundational points Dunn took out Fetzers legs and like a real controlled demolition, Fetzer collapsed into a heap of bullshit ... at least on the Pentagon issue.

that is

what you may believe, however doesn't change the fact that one assumption does not refute another.

you believe Dunns assumptions, good for you.

I dont because it makes no sense, I dont really believe all of Fetzers "assumptions" either.

I read the whole thing

I read the whole thing and there is little doubt that Fetzer messed up.

It seems you are trying to make excuses for the professor who really lost credibility years ago with his Kennedy conspiracy crap. Dunn did an excellent job in completely make a fool of Fetzer.

You'll never be able to explain why Fetzer went to great lengths to claim a 757 did not hit the Pentagon then went off the deep end by claiming that no one wanted to shoot down a 757 with passengers!

Obviously you must know Fetzer screwed up. Your welcome to explain how a 757 morphed into an A-3 if you are so convinced Fetzer didn't screw up.

We truthers need some more entertainement.

How about this? There are 2

How about this?

There are 2 titanium made engines on a 757, yet only ONE engine was found at the scene. Where did the other engine go???

The strongest metal known to man just vanishes???

I'll start it out there!

Question

Why not start out by learning something about the subject? There is an enormous amount of information on Screw Loose Change, on 911myths.com., and in the Popular Mechanics book.

you mispelled

DIS-information.

Yes there is a lot of it on those sites.

Thanks for the admission.

So you admit that there was a 757 engine found in the wreakage.

Thank you for that admission, RemoveBush.

End of subject.

I'm just not real sure about that right now...yeah...

I don't think that Fetzer got "demolished" at all. He just didn't get the last word. Dunn got some jabs in but for Fetzer's stronger arguments, Dunn just took the "I'm too sophisticated to respond to your conspiracy theory claims" approach to denigrate the man since he couldn't fight his points.

Dunn's logic is flawed in several places. Here's an example:

<<“Shooting it [the airliner] down,” writes the McKnight Professor, “would be the obvious thing to do. You would lose all the passengers and the plane, but you would not also lose the personnel and property at the target.”>> -Fetzer, quoted by Dunn, followed by:

An odd statement coming from a man whose case all along is that no passengers were ever involved. That’s what a police detective would call a “tell”. The Professor’s lucky I’m not a detective, don’t you agree? - Dunn
-----------
Dunn's little comment at the end was cute and all (not to mention condescending), but his point here is completely illogical, to the point of seeming desperate (and coming across as a pompous ass). Fetzer mentions “the passengers and the plane” by way of pointing out how the “official” account doesn’t add up even if one were to concede that 757 DID hit the Pentagon, meaning that the only reason you would NOT shoot down the plane is if you WANTED it to hit the Pentagon.

Gamesmanship

The fantasists are engaging in gamesmanship, if not outright trickery, when they refer to Mineta's testimony. We're not supposed to know that the plane Cheney was talking about, the one to which the shoot-down order (yes, it was a shoot-down order) applied, was NOT the plane that had EARLIER crashed into the Pentagon. But we do know that.
Anybody ever figure why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy would want a plane to hit the Pentagon?

Because it it the symbol of

Because it it the symbol of our military. By hitting this building the perps were saying that the military is nothing special.

Besides.... A little odd that they hit the only spot in the building that was mostly vacant, and recently upgraded. And that this was where most all of the bean counters were who was responsible for that 2.3 TRILLION dollars that were missing on 9/10/01.

They needed to get rid of those people as well since someone was/had used this money for something.....

Creative

The yarn about a "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars is a good one. Did "they" get rid of everyone? How do "they manage to hit only Democrats? How come the bean counters work in vacant offices? They nailed 100% of them? Wow, I'm impressed.

Yarn??? It's a fact!!!

Yarn???

It's a fact!!! Rumsfeld announced on 9/10 that the DOD was missing 2.3 TRILLION dollars!

I don't expect you to know this though, because Rush did not tell you about it!

I've seen more and more

I've seen more and more references to this lately. Anyone have a source?

Here you go... Right from

Here you go...

Right from the horses mouth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKJNxdmX6Y

Thanks!

Thanks!

Of Course!

How silly of me. So, to prevent anyone from finding the missing 2.3 trillion dollars, they flew a plane into the Pentagon. That's pretty sharp thinking. I must mention this idea to my accountant.
I don't listen to Rush.

I Get It Now

So, Rumsfeld called attention to a big accounting problem and then had second thoughts. Flying a plane into the Pentagon stops the investigation into the waste of taxpayer money (What! The government wastes taxpayers' money--what will they claim next?)...uh, how, exactly? What am I missing here.

Here's the deal

Just release ALL the tapes................Ill decide for myself...........YEAH I THOUGHT SO!

I doubt this is not made up.

I doubt this is not made up. It sounds like a novel, and has too much speculation that doesn't belong into and 'affidavid', like when he's saying "in 1996 the internet had deregulated the financial market" - By 1996 the internet was just beginning to have an impact! Especially banks were slow to adjust. They e.g. didn't have Windows yet in 1996 but OS/2. This is pure speculation and personal opinion.

Your realize it only takes

Your realize it only takes the stamp of your local Notary Public to create an affidavit?

Too many people from strange places are attempting to set the overall narrative to 9/11.

 The narrative is quite simple and doesn't need to be sexed up for the american public.

 

just my 2 cents. 

Dear 'debunkers'

I am both excited, and depressed to see my name in print and my story in circulation. Please understand that I am not completely happy with my attempts to formulate comprehensive text, or to recite my story sufficiently for radio audiences.

I'm am not interested in promoting myself, and I hope you can see from my site that I'm not selling anyone anything either. Last May I had a complete break-down, something I could hardly afford to share with my up-scale clients. Google: "Terminator Seeds." -That lists all the key clients! You tell me, should I continue to help them, or kill them outright?

The 'Law' states that I am "an accessory to the crime." My only option here has been to spread the story widely, both for my immediate protection, and to assist those who actually are here to do the hard research. I should be proud that there are those who say: "Tom's way-out there!" It is quite true, but it also befits my chaotic path through life as a fine-artist. I never took on a job that wasn't imminently challenging. And every day has been a challenge. Rather than explain myself in intricate detail, I finally posted my resume. Not that I have achieved anything, but few people would have taken the same risks, and even fewer would have found solstace in their comparable failures.

Today, Dr. Bill Deagle and Jim Marrs were discussing the urgency and the importance of making '9/11Truth' our only priority, so I piped-in. Like them, I don't have a positive outlook for November, and we certainly have no time to keep arguing amongst ourselves. War is serious business, so please accept that this has never been about me. I actually did receive a blocked call from a US Army General with the Intelligence Dept. He's the one who said I had to get this double-notarized and filed with the Secretary of State. He also suggested I not say another word to you. But, I have to believe that each of us are here because we love our Country, and we must all try our best to preserve it for each other.
__________

You are correct, I did not mean 'deregulated,' but rather 'de-centralized.' Prior to this you could not operate very far away from the centers of the Exchange, as I had learned from William - (what's his name) publisher of Investor's Business Daily. He complained about this with regularity, while I was simply trying to get him to push a 'green' agenda for Southern California, which he scoffed at in 1993.

Dear Tom

I want to say thank you.What you did took balls,and it helps put the whole 9/11 thing into perspective.
It's people like you that define patrotism.
I LOVE AMERICA,& I WANT HER BACK
WE THE PEOPLE ,FOR THE PEOPLE

Dear 'debunkers'

I am both excited, and depressed to see my name in print and my story in circulation. Please understand that I am not completely happy with my attempts to formulate comprehensive text, or to recite my story sufficiently for radio audiences.

I am not interested in promoting myself, and I hope you can see from my site that I'm not selling anyone anything either. Last May I had a complete break-down, something I could hardly afford to share with my up-scale clients. Google: "Terminator Seeds." -That lists all our key clients! Please; you tell me, should I continue to help them, or just kill them outright?

The 'Law' states that I am "an accessory to the crime." My only option here has been to spread the story widely, both for my immediate protection, and to assist those who actually are here to do the hard research. I should be proud that there are those who say: "Tom's way-out there!" It is quite true, but it also befits my chaotic path through life as a fine-artist. I never took on a job that wasn't imminently challenging. And every day has been a challenge. Rather than explain myself in intricate detail, I finally posted my resume. Not that I have achieved anything, but few people would have taken the same risks, and even fewer would have found solstace in their comparable failures.

Today, Dr. Bill Deagle and Jim Marrs were discussing the urgency and the importance of making '9/11Truth' our only priority, so I piped-in. Like them, I don't have a positive outlook for November, and we certainly have no time to keep arguing amongst ourselves. War is serious business, so please accept that this has never been about me. I actually did receive a blocked call from a US Army General with the Intelligence Dept. He's the one who said I had to get this double-notarized and filed with the Secretary of State, and he also suggested I not say another word to you. But, I have to believe that each of us are here because we love our Country, and we must all try our best to preserve it for each other.

I don't know.

This guy has posted a decent amount before on here and I dont mean to bash a fellow blogger, but he just sounds like a dead-end lunatic. I will cut him some slack if any of it has to do with the dyslexia he says he has. Put it this way, RIchard Andrew Grove is smooth enough that I believe he might not be disinfo, but TS is so out there that I just don't think he does the movement any good.

Us truthers have to be

Us truthers have to be careful with those that promise to be the long awaited 'whistleblowers'. I have one good example:
Remember the McNiven story? (http://www.rense.com/general63/TWIN.HTM , http://www.codenamegrillfire.com)
McNiven claimed he had been involved in devising a plane 'just like 9/11', including planes crashed into the WTC towers. It all sounds like genuine until you read the details of what else he claimed: that they had in 1976 predicted the WTC to collapse from the jet fuel fires, and the best one: calculated the time for it to be about an hour of the fire burning - a total LIE.

The accounts of TS Gordon

The accounts of TS Gordon and Andrew Grove do seem to reinforce eachother for the most part, which I think is enough to consider them 'whisleblowers' for now. Other than Col. Schaffer, none of the current whisleblowers had much direct involvement (ie Sibel Edmonds), just enough to realize what had been taking place once the attacks unfolded.

All the reports of pre-9/11 tructural weakening in the towers are very interesting if confirmed, because they have been so entirely ignored in official accounts. Will this evidence ever be used against CD? Or, like many aspects of 9/11, does it lead to many dark places that the Whitehouse would prefer the press doesn't poke around in? If the former is the case, we will need these people's help when Popular Mechanics starts going off about the melting of the 'elastic dampeners; or something.

speaking of Grove, whatever happened to his film...

"Blowing the Whistle"?

http://www.8thestate.com/?page_id=45

"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."

Delayed

Delayed, due to his legal issues, is my understanding.

PsyOps arlready working against the truth

From this so called "document" by Brent Blanchard for implosionworld.com

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20...

Pure garbage.

Imposionworld report: Crafty double-talk

That "Imposionworld report" is crafty double-talk that is easily exposed/refuted, but it will still be cited by other frauds all over the place.

OCTers eat that sucker up:

OCTers eat that sucker up: "See, this expert debunked it all."

To, me these "debunkings" are a bitch to answer because they are pretty thorough. Especially the NORAD one.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/FST-D1.pdf
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf

The NORAD comment claims

The NORAD comment claims AA77 wasn't found on primary radar until 5 minutes before it crashed. Then why was Cheney listening to an aide tell him the plane is 50 miles out, 40 miles out, etc. and asking if the "order" still stands? Sorry, but if NORAD didn't know about 77, the Secret Service sure did. And they had access to FAA radar.

Protec Refutes Loons

Ignormauses and liars are complaining about the Protec paper that utterly destroys their fabrications. Clinging to an absurd faith in their nonsensical cult, they pray that someone, somewhere will produce the juju necessary to defeat the evil science that exposes them as fools.
Sorry, gang, you lose again. Just as J.R. Dunn destroyed the charlatan Fetzer, the Protec paper blows another fantasy out of the water. Calling solid facts "nonsense" reveals you to be an agenda-driven fool, but the facts remain to mock your pretensions. The pernicious and incredibly stupid conspiracist house of cards has collapsed in a, you should pardon the expression, controlled demolition.
A hint: you can't refute science with your falsehoods.

please make your points

please make your points without stooping to useless insults, and post links as references too if you can.

Links

A reasonable request. The Protec paper can be found here:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20...

Dunn's trouncing of Fetzer appears in two articles on americanthinker.com.

Typo

Typing the word "ignoramuses" as I did makes me look like one. Sorry.

so what...

Even if the towers were not demolished, we have enormous amounts of other evidence linking 9/11 to the US government. Your confusion of science and science of confusion could perhaps have killed the movement a couple of years ago, but it's too late for that now. Way too late.

Correction

Your claim of "enormous amounts of evidence linking 9/11 to the US government" is somewhat inaccurate. In reality there is ZERO evidence--none, nothing, zilch, zip, nada. Apart from that, you make an excellent point.

Is a Refutation of Protec Forthcoming?

Perhaps we will find out why a paper written by experts on controlled demolition is "pure garbage." Just kidding, of course.
The hopelessly deluded fantasists are the frauds.

Hi, some questions for

Hi, some questions for you.

Why is Sibel Edmonds is being gagged if she says she knows how the 9/11 attacks were financed and that high-profile Americans are tied to the crimes?

Why didn't the 9/11 Commission address the fact that the head of Pakistani intelligence wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta if the same guy was meeting with our congressional intelligence leaders on the morning of 9/11?

Why did the 9/11 Commission bother publishing a report based on NORAD testimony when they now admit in a new book that NORAD lied to them so much so that they seriously considered requesting a Justice Department investigation?

Who was coordinating the wargames that miraculously occurred at the time of the attacks and left us so open for attack?

How come the Flight 93 coroner couldn't even find a body part or drop of blood, yet in the Maoussaoui trial they produced this mint condition bandana?
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/red_bandana.jpg

Why does the government deny that 3 of the 4 WTC black boxes were found, as reported by two firefighters?

Why did an intelligence operation (Able Danger) monitoring some of the hijackers destroy the equivalent of a quarter of the records in the Library of Congress.

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Why Not Discover the Answers?

Why not check out 911myths.com and read the articles that address your questions? That site offers information without pretending to settle every issue. If you find errors, tell us about them.

How about a site of sceince??

You keep pushing 911myths, but do you realize that this person does not contain ANY sceince background????

He is a SOFTWARE developer from the UK.

Provide some links of sites from people who have reall investigative ability! Not to say that a softwar engineer cannot, but they are not like a sceintist or another type of engineer.

How about providing someone who provides evidence by the Sceintific Method??

Just writting "our take" and then giving an opinion is not PROOF!!!!

Where is the EVIDENCE and data through experimentation to support the THEORY they are pushing???

Let's see some sites from you that provide this type of evidence, and I'll look at it.

Background is Important?

The guy who operates 911myths.com is careful about referencing his sources. But let's see how much you care about scientific backgrounds. NIST employed over two hundred researchers, all of them with impeccable scientific credentials. Now, they don't count because their findings disprove the conspiracy fantasies. Possibly all of them are members of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.

The problem is just like the

The problem is just like the link below....

When you have people who rely upon the government for their jobs, this leads to them saying what the government wants them to in order to continue receiving that money...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/21/jackson-scandal/

It is WELL KNOWN that the government would CUT fundting for anyone who does not toe the line.

Unless it is a COMPLETELY independant investigation then it is not believable.

It's like a police officer investigating himself for a shooting he did on a suspect that died.

What do you think the outcome would be??

Clarification

In other words, the two hundred researchers at NIST arrived at conclusions other than the ones they published. They suppressed damning evidence and thereby made themselves complicit in mass murder. Is that correct?
Keeping in mind that no one has spilled the beans, would you care to do the math? Let's assume that an average person has a 50% chance of keeping a secret. If five of them share that secret, they will keep it .5 to the 5th power, or .03125. That's a little better than 3% of the time. We'll pretend that our 200 researchers are all Gordon Liddys. Nobody has less than a 90% probability of keeping the secret (yes, that would mean they're not humans, but let's pretend). A conspiracy of 200, all of them with a .9 probability of staying mum fails to leak ...oh, gee. The secret gets out 99.999...% of the time. How inconvenient!

would you risk being called

would you risk being called a "nut ball conspiracy theorist"?

would you risk being fired from your job?

would you risk being sued?

would you risk your family calling you crazy?

would you risk some hateful person being violent towards you?

I think this explains the lack of whistleblowers, although there are some brave ones

Wrong

You're blowing smoke. NIST presented a comprehensive, exhaustively researched report. Are you claiming that it is a total fiction? How creative these people must be to invent something that agrees perfectly with the available evidence.
Why don't independent researchers point out the flaws? You're claiming that a criminal guilty of a heinous crime is going to sue an honest researcher in a court of law? I don't think so. There are no whistleblowers because there are no whistles to blow. If there were, someone would have revealed the facts. Conspiracists are called nut balls becuase they disregard evidence and science, distort people's words, and make up fantastic, implausible theories. They do not have evidence for their beliefs. They have an emotionally-driven agenda, which is no substitute for reason.

I think no NIST researcher

I think no NIST researcher dares say it due to worry that he might be wrong and risk everything. Kevin Ryan said something and was fired immediately. You know what happens to anyone who speaks out. They are toast. No one wants to touch this. The guy at DOD who said something was fired immediately. I suspect some of them have doubts but are not willing or to talk openely because 100% irrefutable evidence does not exist.

That's right! Anytime

That's right!

Anytime someone brings up something about this, the first thing out of someones mouth that refuses to listen to it is "you just hate Bush".

So now, with that being the manner in which someone would be ridiculed do you really think that they would come forward??

Just look at how this administration attacks people with different views. Now imagine being targeted by them.

They could send the IRS, FBI, NSA, etc. to dig up anything they want on you. Hell they can even label you as a "enemy combatant" and your gone!

So they black ball your, you lose your job, your source of income, and your home. Do you see ANY incentive to come forward at this point in time??

Sorry, but I would keep my mouth shut too to protect my family until I knew it was safe for me to say something.

So YES! They do have that ability to keep people quiet. Sibel Edmonds ring a bell???

Sorry, Ain't Buyin'

The two hundred researchers at NIST are not being silenced. They stand by their work. Their job is to explain the collapse of buildings and they have done just that in this instance. If they are suppressing something, then why can't any independent researcher point out the flaws in their work? Why do the independents reach identical conclusions? Structural engineers and physicists reject the claims of the conspiracy fantasists.

Could that be bacause the

Could that be bacause the "independant" investigator cannot get access to the information they need.

No one has been able to gain access to the Blue Prints for the WTC's.

I guess the MOB is just a fantasy??? I guess they never existed? I guess that the gangs that existed many years ago are just an imagination?

And I guess that all those people who could have walked down to their local police station and report them are just standing by their work????

Sorry, but FEAR of losing EVERYTHING is very real and powerful.

There have been Structural Engineers, Sceintists, Engineers, and others that have spoke out but they get ridiculed and fired from their jobs for doing it.

Care to explain what benefit someone has to come out and lose their job, house, and possibly their family in the long run?

Without a REAL investigation, EVERYTHING is just theory! Still waiting for your evidence to the DATA to support your claim. Where is the experiments that support the hypothesis presented? Without this, you and everyone else, is just making a hypothesis.

Only by Experimental data can ANYONE say 100% what happened. Show me the sceintific data.

Nope

NIST conducted a very real and extremely thorough investigation. You don't like the conclusions because they disprove the silly conspiracy theory that you want to believe in. What data are you waiting for? I have downloaded and waded through almost three hundred pages of the NIST report. Anyone can do the same (nist.gov). You want charts, graphics, specifications--it's all there. No structural engineers have "spoken out": they all regard this conspiracy stuff as nonsense. The only scientist who opposes the rationalist explanation is Steven Jones, and he has been suspended pending an examination of his methods. Jones also believes that Jesus Christ visited the Americas.

Excuss me!!! You are either

Excuss me!!!

You are either EXREMELY Ignorant, or your are just STUPID. i don't know which, but here is what NIST said.

"In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 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 show 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."

In order to RULE out a hypothesis, you have to TEST that hypothesis.

Maybe you missed that little FACT!

Sorry, but not testing for something does not mean that it did not happen!

Obviously, you have ZERO engineering experience or sceintific ability to even understand this SIMPLE little concept!

Charts, and graphs are meaningless without the supporting data for a sceintific community to look at! They have NOT released their information.

I wonder why???? Could it be that they would be torn to pieces if someone independant got their hands on it?

Provide something with substanance! Not just HYPOTHESIS! Provide computer models, that's right NIST won't release them, how about 1/100 model? How about taking another building that is out dated and destroying it by similar meas as the WTC to see if they collapse in a similar way?

I know your gonna say "they can't fly planes into the building to do this", but they can plant explosives and large amounts of jet fuel to simulate the crash. So YES they can perform Sceintific Methods to prove their hypothesis.

Where is the REAL data, not just some calculations that can be modified to get the outcome one desires? Where is this data, because I have YET to see it or hear of ANYONE independant get access to it.

Semantics

You seem to be having trouble with the verb, to find. When NIST says it "FOUND" no corroborating evidence for alternative theories, that means its investigation turned up no evidence. Simple, huh? It does not mean that they never considered the possibility, or else they would have said that they didn't look for alternative explanations. After they examined recovered steel and conducted chemical analyses, they FOUND no evidence for explosives.

Where do you come up with

Where do you come up with this????

NIST says themselves they never investigated CD.

Yet you come up with they investigated it and found no evidence to explossives being used.

What now YOU know more than NIST?????

NIST NEVER addresses this or even investigates the possibility, this is by their own admission.

Once again, real slow. Y o u c a n n o t e x c l u d e a h y p t h e s i s w i t h o u t t e s t i n g f o r it !!!!!!!

I notice you NEVER answer my question about credentials?

Your comments clearly show you have ZERO engineering experience, so I'm already guessing your answer.

There is NO data to support anything but CD!

Or so they say

When the government let the NTSB(thats questionable) test the steel( now remember, FEMA wasn't allowed on this site, except the WTC 7 site) do you think they just let the NTSB pick and choose which steel Beams to check? Or did they choose it for them?
I don't suppose the NTSB was curious about the molten metal pooling in the basement. Water had to be sprayed on the rubble for six weeks to keep the heat down.
Just how does jet fuel melt steel untill it becomes molten?
It's not jet fuel..it does not burn that hot
That means something else had to melt the steel ,

good lord

you have to consider the source! It is the NIST! Do you really think they were going to turn out an unbiased report?? You are assuming that the NIST went out determined the do a REAL investigation. Was the 9/11 investigation a thorough investigation into the facts behind what happened that day??

I'm sorry, but if you believe the conclusions of the NIST or any other organ of the government involved in investigating the facts behind what happened on 9/11, then I'm not sure why you are here other than to act as a generic debunker.

Ain't buyin your's either

I don't know you or what you do for a living but let me pose one question for. Would YOU risk your job, reputation, and public ridicule if you had the chance to expose corruption in your place of business?

Thats ridiculous pomeroo

The Manhatten project involved thousands and they kept it a secret. Whos anus are you pulling these numbers out of anyway?

Canard

This canard gets trotted out often enough, but the answer is painfully obvious. The Manhattan Project was not a criminal enterprise. Carefully selected teams of scientists worked on a top-secret project which remained a secret until atomic bombs were used against Japan. The secret could not have been kept indefinitely. Secrecy was maintained by dedicated researchers who understood that they were making an epochal discovery, one that served the interest of national security. The conspiracists' madness pretends that a thousand or so people, spanning a broad spectrum of industries and occupations--scientists, engineers, journalists, air traffic controllers, the FAA, FEMA, NORAD, police and fire departments, the owners of the World Trade Center, people who worked at the Pentagom, eyewitnesses who saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon, the controlled-demolition industry, etc.--are perfectly willing to sell their souls (for what?), be complicit in an unprecedented crime, and stand reality on its head.
When you see Osama bin Laden talking with some of the hijackers, and your fantasy compels you to pretend that it's an actor who looks exactly like him, do you ever feel that you're losing your mind?
There are vast historical forces in play. The tide of radical Islam threatens Europe as well as America. You seriously want to wrap yourself in a cocoon and delude yourself into thinking that none of this is real, that America is an puppet-master pulling everyone's strings? Wake up before it's too late.

You believe...

Only 19 people pulled it off. Why do we have to believe, "a thousand or so people, spanning a broad spectrum of industries and occupations--scientists, engineers, journalists, air traffic controllers, the FAA, FEMA, NORAD, police and fire departments, the owners of the World Trade Center, people who worked at the Pentagom, eyewitnesses who saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon, the controlled-demolition industry?" had to be involved?

Why couldn't it have been just a few? You're the one dictating that SO MANY people would have had to of been involved... what do you have, a "Conspiracy Theory?"

___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

NIST

did not "Find" because they did not "Look"

simple as that, same with the 9/11 Omission Report

Jon Gold 3

Ronald Wieck 0
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Ronald Wieck

Is just a big ZERO.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

mandrake

ugh, go away neocon. some of us are on here to escape that BS that we are surrounded by 23/7.

I open to the Protec paper being correct but there have been

I open to the Protec paper being correct but there have been common counters amoung "truthers" to points it raises which the paper doesn't address. Example: the impact and the fires would have set off pre-positioned charges in uncontrolled ways so that a controlled demolition would not have been possible. I believe Jones research on the use of thermite, thermate and super-thermite avoids this objection.

In either case, one has to be open-minded when looking at this and being open-minded means being open to the possibility that one is wrong.

Greening Critiques Jones

Dr. Frank Greening critiques Jones's work in his paper on thermite:

http://911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

His other papers, also highly technical, are available on 911myths.com in the section, WTC (Demolition).

You are correct about the importance of retaining an open mind. Bear in mind, however, that everyone in the controlled-demolition industry rejects the claims of the fantasists, who damage their case by arguing dishonestly. As I have shown on another thread, the fantasists cite authorities as supporting their fabrications when, in fact, the truth is quite different.

You strike me as a reasonable sort, so I ask you to read the Popular Mechanics book, and check out 911myths.com and debunking911.com. There are technical papers available on jod911.com.

Here's an idea, pomeroo.

I'll read the PM book, and check out 911myths.com and debunking911.com while you go watch 9/11: Press for Truth.

Then we'll both come back here and find ourselves in agreement that we will never sort this out on a blog and that we need an independent investigation to get to the truth.

How does that sound?

Uh, uh

Sorry, but I've watched too many crock-umentaries produced by the 9-11 Fantasy Movement. I can only take hearing the same thoroughly debunked canards recycled for the hundredth time and I get real bored. When people pretending to be asking for answers drown out the answers by repeating the questions, well, let's conclude that the truth doesn't interest them.

I could make the same claim

I could make the same claim about the PM book and your suggested websites but instead I am offering to thoroughly examine them if you do the same of the material I am suggesting.

You obviously know nothing about 9/11: Press for Truth because it is extremely well grounded in fact. It does not propose theories or fantasies but follows documented facts and asks questions. Why not give it a go?

Correction

It can't be obvious that I know nothing about 9-11 because I have learned a great deal about the subject, although I do not claim to be the ultimate authority. The reason I'm here is that I believe that some of the members of this list might have a genuine interest in truth. If they are exposed to nothing but the deceptions and falsehoods of the fantasists, they can't possibly make an informed judgment.

Correction...

He wasn't saying you know nothing about 9-11, he was saying you know nothing about the documentary "9-11: Press for Truth." I can see how the punctuation caused the confusion.

That doc is based only on articles published in the mainstream media...it doesn't really mention controlled demolition, Pentagon theories, etc... it focuses more on the omissions of the 9/11 Commission and the reluctance on the behalf of the White House to cooperate with or even allow an investigation.

Thanks, Flarney

I got lazy and neglected to italicize or link the title. Sorry about the confusion, pomeroo. I was not saying you know nothing about 9/11. I happen to think most members of this site, in spite of whatever beliefs and conclusions individuals have already reached, have a genuine interest in the truth. Going on the assumption that that includes you, I suggested you watch the film, which you can do here. online, for free.

So, are you going to watch it?

Apology

Yup, you're right--my mistake. I'll take a look at the documentary, but I happen to agree that NORAD made some clumsy attempts to cover their asses. The jihadists exposed serious flaws in our defenses. A lot of people share in this tragedy. But there was no conspiracy. We have real enemies who want to destroy us.

Glad to hear it. I look

Glad to hear it. I look forward to hearing what you think of it.

what truth are you talking about?

you dismiss reasonable people as fantasists. that is, anyone who does not believe as you do. personally, all I needed was a pair of functioning eyeballs. it's like the rodney king beating - caught on tape - it's all right there, can't be refuted.

then why are you here?

then why are you here?

PM's book

I read the PM book "9/11 Myths" and I thought it was pretty flimsy. For instance, it did not address the speed at which the towers fell, which to me is one of the more glaring pieces of CD evidence that was "hidden in plain sight."

Brad Reagan, the editor of the book, did a radio interview with Thom Hartmann a couple of weeks ago (Sept. 6th, I think) and when asked to explain how it could be that the buildings fell at free-fall speed, all Reagan did was confirm that, indeed, the buildings did fall at free-fall speed and then he moved on to another topic. Weak.

Free Fall Fallacy

The most thorough discussion of the free fall fallacy can be found on debunking911.com. There is also a section on 911myths.com. Dr. Greening has an entire paper devoted to the topic, available in the section, WTC (Demolition).

LOL

Well the only explanation as to how a building of that height could possibly collapse in 10 seconds is either it was explosives or the Laws of Physics somehow were altered that day.

In reality it is scientifically impossible for those buildings to have collapsed at or even near freefall speed from simple gravity.

No fallacy involved.

Nope

They didn't collapse in ten seconds. See debunking911.com. Be cautious about labeling things as scientific impossibilities. No serious researcher regards the collapse of the Towers as a mystery.

Oh really?

So all the video is an illusion then eh? LOL

K if we can not even agree the damn things collapsed in 10 seconds give or take a second when you can see and count it yourself from several videos then there is no point in pretending to discuss this any further.

That is where absolute fact is denied, once you reach that point there is no hope for rational discussion.

The site you list if I remember correctly said something like 12-13 seconds right?

K lets make it DOUBLE that... 25 seconds.

Still totally IMPOSSIBLE for those buildings where more than 80% of the structure was completely unharmed to have simply given ZERO resistance and flop to the ground even in 25 seconds let alone 10-13, just not possible, especially when it has never happened in all of history yet miraculously happens not once, not twice but THREE times in the same day?

LOL end of discussion, you have brainwashed yourself into what you WANT to believe, basically the very same phenomena that happens with religion.

The persons "wants" to believe for whatever reason some god exist even though there is not a single shred of evidence to prove such a fairytale, but that doesn't matter at all as that person will accept ANYTHING no matter how far fetched & ridiculous to prove their conclusion.

If one starts out with a conclusion and goes backwards from there seeking only what agrees with their conclusion then there is no sense in discussing it with them as fact simply dont matter.

As you don't have the

As you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about, this discussion is pointless. Suffice it to say that hundreds, indeed, thousands of structural engineers and physicists (The American Society of Civil Engineers, the researchers at NIST, FEMA, Dr. Frank Greening, Dr. Thomas Eagar..the list goes on and on) disagree with you. You don't understand the subject and are unwilling to study it. Let me quote some wise words:

"LOL end of discussion, you have brainwashed yourself into what you WANT to believe, basically the very same phenomena that happens with religion.

The persons "wants" to believe for whatever reason some god exist even though there is not a single shred of evidence to prove such a fairytale, but that doesn't matter at all as that person will accept ANYTHING no matter how far fetched & ridiculous to prove their conclusion.

If one starts out with a conclusion and goes backwards from there seeking only what agrees with their conclusion then there is no sense in discussing it with them as fact simply dont matter."

Unfortunately, you don't hear what you're saying.

Suffice it to say that

Suffice it to say that hundreds, indeed, thousands of structural engineers and physicists (The American Society of Civil Engineers, the researchers at NIST, FEMA, Dr. Frank Greening, Dr. Thomas Eagar..the list goes on and on) disagree with you. You don't understand the subject and are unwilling to study it. Let me quote some wise words:

i find it somewhat odd that all of these people disagree with 'us', but yet they had an incredibly hard time coming up with a realistic model for how the collapse happened.. (and in reality still haven't modelled the collapse itself)

i hear ppl argue all the time that all the engineers know how it happened and all completely agree, but yet 3 different scientific studies came up with 3 different explanations for how they happened.. but yet they are all sure that they disagree with 'us'..

NIST report - truss failure theory
FEMA report - pankake collapse theory
Silverstein report - column failure theory

all three are drastically different, but yet they are all in unison and have no questions because it is so obvious how it happened?

the majority of engineers haven't even looked into the collapses.. i say this because i know of one person who asked 8 different university structural engineer professors, and only 1 of the 8 had even seen a video of WTC7.. you cant just assume they all agree because they haven't stated otherwise.

Dratically Different?

NIST explains that it examined the earlier theories and found them less helpful than the one they settled on, which supersedes them. There are no "drastic" differences in any case, just a matter of emphasis.

ahhhh

1000s now is it? Umm K

Just face it, you want to believe the OCT and you are going to come hell or high water, that's fine.
Go right ahead.
I have been doing this long enough to know when the person on the other end is hopeless.

This is something that only you can decide for yourself and at the point you are at I would say even if Bush and Co came out today and fully admitted everything you would probably deny it for quite awhile.

Its called Cognitive Dissonance.

Huh?

Why do I have to like everything Bush does to recognize utter bullshit when I see it? I reject the conpiracy fantasists' nonsense because it is based on nothing. Those who promote it frequently resort to distortion and outright lying.

Pomeroo

"If one starts out with a conclusion and goes backwards from there seeking only what agrees with their conclusion then there is no sense in discussing it with them as fact simply dont matter." -pomeroo

Funny, that's exactly what the 9/11 Commission did.

pomeroo, looks like

pomeroo,
looks like debunking911.com is wrong then, because even NIST says they both collapsed in 10 seconds.

10 seconds for one tower, 9 seconds for the other. Check the NIST FAQ.

See how easy it is to refute the garbage on debunking911.com?

How can you trust a site that doesn't even admit the obvious time that the towers fell, as confirmed by seismic data as well as visual data.

No serious researcher?

Shouldn't you qualify that to "No one you consider a seious researcher". Forgive me for making this observation but your obviously very closed minded, so your idea of what amounts to a "serious researcher" is inherently limited.

From reading your posts you are of the impression that the collapse of all three buildings was not due to controlled demolition. By that logic then you are implying that you believe that for the first and only time in history three buildings on the same day that had non-symmetrical impact damage and fire damage that was localized collapsed in perfect symmetry - east, west, north & south sides all going down in perfect synchronization, and this happened to all three buildings in an uncontrolled manner. How can anyone believe something like that? If the collapse were truly "uncontrolled" than that is how it would have looked - uncontrolled!! The collapse would have been asymmetrical, not symmetrical. How do combine an "uncontrolled collapse" with a symmetrical descent? You can't, it's impossible!

Unless of course

True, unless of course, if this affidavit is to be believed, the WTC buildings were already compromised... and were (unbeknowns to everybody) in danger of or coming to the point at which they would be in danger of, collapsing due to the structural corrosion mentioned here. If they were already weakened...

The bottom line is

They have an excuse for everything.

eg. The smoldering rubbish pile is caused by burning hydrogen emanating due to chemical reactions.

A given observation, eg squibs, smoldering, freefall can be "explained" with a variety of theories. But since the experiment is not repeatable, we cannot easily judge the quality or likelihood of these theories.

I mean, consider in a court of law, where the prosecutor shows the picture of a man who has been shot. If the police were NOT there to testify, the accused could claim the police shot the man. It's a possibility. But what's the probability?

To find this out we need experiments. And expert advice. I cannot tell you how probable it is that piston action of collapsing towers will cause a squib. My gut says it will not. But my gut does not count in court. This is to me, the really frusterating part of this whole exercise.

towers

I think it would be very helpful to see a grid of where all the phone calls were coming from in the buildings. If UL states the fires must have been in excess of 2,000`F, I find it highly unlikely that we would be hearing from people near this inferno. I would love to see an accurate diagram from someone with knowledge of the towers as to where this inferno would be according to the NIST, where the fireman were located, and where the phone calls of the people were coming from. IF the NIST is correct in saying the structural steel began to melt because it had reached that 2,000+/- peak, all of the running molten metal below the ground weeks later would indicate that A LOT of steel was melting prior to the 'pancaking', not just a little. So where are the tons of melting steel as the building is burning? Which floor? Any calls from that floor? Why are the windows not melting? Why are people hanging onto steel? Why is there so much smoke? Why is it burning, oxygen deprived, weeks later?

No Melting Steel

The steel was weakened; it did not melt.

but there was molten steel

but there was molten steel weeks out, structural engineers and others reported it, even in journals.

Of course there couldn't be by the government's explanation, but there was.

Information Available

Again, you choose not to familiarize yourself with the information that's available. 911myths.com and debunking911.com have a great deal of material on the melted "steel."

Umm no

They have bald faced LIES that is not "information".

The fact is that molten steel was present for 5-6 weeks after and they ONLY explanation for that is Thermate, end of story.

Carbon based fires did not cause it.

Not molten steel. Molten

Not molten steel. Molten iron.

Molten iron is one of the end products from the thermate process.

Desperation

When a fantasist starts talking about "baldfaced lies" he's conceding defeat. You pretend that people are suppressing information and replacing it with fabricated junk. Hey, that's exactly what your side does!

NIST and Popular Mechanics suppress nothing. In fact, PM exposes the whole fantasy movement with their statement of purpose. They explain that they are not debating politics. They seize on specific statements by the tinfoil-hat brigade and examine their validity.

When a loon raves about the Zionists controlling the White House or his latest Halliburton fantasy, he's talking about unicorns and space aliens. What he says is nonsensical, but hard to test. When he gets pinned down, as Fetzer did, about the characteristics of specific aircraft or the principles of flight, he can be refuted.

The disinformation emanates entirely from your side. You reject the findings of real scientists because they are inconvenient to your politics. Period.

ROTFL

You are hilarious, when I start talking bald faced lies means simply that the BS you are listing is just that.
Bald faced lies and easily proven to be.

Now how that is "conceding defeat" can only be explained by the psychotic mind of a Neofascist nutbag like yourself.

YOu need to get a grip, im actually embarrassed for you its hard listening to someone so utterly out of their mind.

towers

Okay, so I went to the web sites that you mentioned, read the pages on molten steel, and I still am not satisfied. It is my personal recollection that there were incredible fires underneath the 110 stories of debris, and I believe the videos and statements thereafter have merit. How about an investigation? When scientists disagree, they investigate further, when people disagree on something so incredibly important, an investigation is warranted. It is not about winning or losing, it is about the truth so either way we have nothing to fear (and please don't tell me they already investigated...that would be outright lying).

towers

So you are basically stating that structural steel was 'weakened' while it was standing, later turning to molten metal under the rubble pile after the collapse.

Implosion company article

I read the article from the Implosion company, I wasn't too impressed. They spent the first part stating their creditials then went into how they looked at the available videos & photos and from there they made the leap to their conclusions. They conveniently left out any details as to how they arrived at any of their conclusions. Something about making it understandable to everyone, or something to that effect. It seemed pretty lame to me. Right when I'm hoping there going to explain to me why.....they don't. This kind of stuff is perfect for the crowd that looks for research that proves their beliefs. Good research answers questions by providing detail. It looks at the facts and trys to find the truth. Poor research like this, omits the details jumps to the conclusions and gives the people who need it, food for their beliefs.

hardly

""everyone in the controlled-demolition industry rejects the claims of the fantasists,""
------------------------------------------------------------------

Totally false

and please are you seriously trying to peddle the Popular Mechanics myth here?
That article is nothing but bald faced lies and distortions.

IF as you claim Controlled demolition or explosives of anykind were not used and these 3 buildings miraculously just collapsed due to just fire damage and gravity all at an amazing 10seconds or less after just a few floors burning for under an hour.

Then maybe you could pull an answer for this question out of your hat to.

How did over 1150 human bodies get completely vaporized, over 1700 others wind up in such tiny fragments (some 20,000 or more tiny pieces) that they were collected in test tubes and obviously only identifiable by DNA, over 500 Bone Fragments were found on top of and in an adjacent building several hundred feet away, & only 12 bodies I believe were left intact enough out of close to 3000 where they could be identified without DNA and I think most all of those were because they were not even in the buildings they were splattered in the streets from falling debris or possibly a jumper.

and remember to keep an open mind.

Comments

The notion that the Popular Mechanics article consists of "lies" is a bizarre one. A publication that has been in business for over a hundred years has a reputation to protect. If they print rubbish, experts will call them on it. Popular Mechanics is not a political journal: they are not pushing an agenda. The reason no one has refuted anything in Popular Mechanics is that they employ highly qualified specialists who get it right.

Incidentally, we have been talking here about the Popular Mechanics book, recently published, that amplifies the original article.

Again, please consult the NIST report, 911myths.com and, in particular, debunking911.com for details on free fall and the mechanism of the buildings' collapse.

strawman

arguments, any magazine can be bought out for a few million and used for propaganda which is exactly what has happened to PM.

give my question a whirl and see if you can dream up something to refute it.

I have read NIST 911myths and many MANY other such sites and they offer nothing whatsoever that refutes the facts.

Reality Check

Nobody "bought out" Popular Mechanics. You are living in a dream world. The canards you mention are not facts at all. The facts are available in the NIST report; on sites such as 911myths.com, debunking911.com, screwloosechange.blogspot.com, jod911.com; and in the Popular Mechanics book.

sites like 911myths and

sites like 911myths and debunking911 aren't even consistent with NIST. Debunking911 swears the towers didn't collapse at free fall speed.

looks like debunking911.com is wrong then, because even NIST says they both collapsed in 10 seconds.

10 seconds for one tower, 9 seconds for the other. Check the NIST FAQ.

See how easy it is to refute the garbage on debunking911.com?

How can you trust a site that doesn't even admit the obvious time that the towers fell, as confirmed by seismic data as well as visual data.

How Obvious Is It?

There are differences of a few seconds in the estimates of the collapse times for the Twin Towers. Most researchers acknowledge that a precise number is difficult to obtain because the clouds of smoke make it very difficult to determine exactly when the collapse stops. Nothing is refuted by a small variation in estimates.

yes, a lot is refuted.

yes, a lot is refuted. There is confirmation from seismic data.

It refutes the argument that it didn't collapse in free-fall speed.

Correct

Yes, and only the conspiracy fantasists pretend that the Towers fell at free fall speed.

no, pomeroo, facts and

no, pomeroo, facts and physics do.

10 and 9 seconds for a 110 story building is that speed, and that is exactly what NIST has to say, because that is the facts.

Ridiculous apologists like you don't like to deal with facts like "time" or "seismographic records"

Wrong

Your complaint is with Lamont-Doherty laboratories. They contend that the fantasists insist on misinterpreting their data, which prove that explosives were not used in the WTC. You can check 911myths.com for more on the seismic data.

You need to argue more effectively

Pomeroo, I admire your persistence in standing up for the truth. I don't have time to do it myself.

Can I suggest you take more time in composing your responses and get better sources?

Bad debunking is as bad as not debunking. You're losing undecideds to the other side.

Listen to this Wise Sage

Like Yoda said, a Jedi warrior must conquer the dark side.

Pomeroo, I am your father.

Suggestions

I'm open to suggestions. The sources I cite are excellent ones. While I'm enjoying myself, I really can't spend the whole day and night here. The amount of time I've spent already is excessive. What arguments of mine do you find particularly ineffective?

Ahhh

Like ALL of them

You Can't Please Everyone

My purpose is not to change YOUR mind: You are unpersuadable. You are totally impervious to evidentiary reasoning. Reality remains as it is, the jihadists are out there, but you simply don't care. Your intense desire to blame the American government, against logic and reason, for an attack conducted by foreign enemies is purely emotional in origin.

Most of your "science" is

Most of your "science" is theory too. You have no WAY OF DEFINITIVELY PROVING that fire came down those elevator shafts, or hydrogen burned in the rubble increasing temp. It's a theory, but since neither you are I were there how do you know what REALLY happened?

Now you could do experiments like throwing burning fuel down elevator shafts, but who is going to?

So what it boils down to is YOUR OPINION on the PROBABILITY vs. my OPINION ON THE PROBABLITY.

Don't try to push your theories as fact cause they ain't.

Nope

The NIST report is the product of over two hundred researchers spending several years to examine the evidence, create computer models, and formulate conclusions that fit the known facts and accord with recognized scientific principles. The fantasists offer opinions invented out of whole cloth, unsupported by any evidence, by people with no expertise in structural engineering or physics.

Asa Daniel Moynihan put it: "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

you should clarify 'to

you should clarify 'to examine the evidence' to instead be 'to examine the evidence only up to the point of the initiation of collapse'.

in fact they avoided the whole issue, they didn't bother modeling the collapse itself, but merely seeked to prove how it could have started.

a similar thing is now happening with WTC7 which has been outsourced, but the company the research was outsourced to can only analyze floors 8 and above..

selective analysis in both cases.

how many millions of dollars

how many millions of dollars did PM spend to come to the conclusion that fire came down the elevator shaft?

they have NO EVIDENCE to prove it.

ITS A THEORY

THAT"S ALL

Just like THERMITE is a THEORY

Wrong!

Wrong!

First, NIST did NOT even follow their own procedures! Their own procedures state that they are to investigate ALL possibilities.

Second, they did not use "scientific principles" because they have REFUSSED to allow other scientists to review their computer models and other data they presented.

Clearly, you have no idea what your talking about!

As a Engineer, if I was to tell my boss that he would have to trust me that this product was not going to kill anyone and that I have found it to be safe for the public without any data I would be laughed at or fired.

Now if this product was a safety item, oh say in a car, I better have data to support that statement. Otherwise, I won't be a engineer for that company and probably any other company.

Given that they NEVER investigated CD, this flies in the face of scientific principles. Just blowing it off because you don't believe that to be the case is NOT following the scientific method. In order to make a statement that CD was not possible, you need to test for it! PERIOD!

They did/have not.

Get Real

Who are you kidding? NIST has publsihed THOUSANDS of pages on their investigation. You think they're withholding something? When they say that they found nothing supporting the view that explosives were involved, they mean that they found nothing. Is that a difficult concept? Nobody has found anything supporting the view that explosives were used. The entire controlled-demolition industry regards your fantasy as ridiculous. The collapse obviously proceeds from the impact floors, not below. The so-called squibs begin as thin plumes of ejecta and then expand--exactly the opposite of what explosions would look like.

ever heard of Hearst

ever heard of Hearst publishing? yellow journalism? you should read about it sometime, might give you a better picture into the state of our media today.

straight from Wiki:

"Hearst's use of "yellow journalism" techniques in his New York Journal to whip up popular support for U.S. military adventurism in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898 was also criticized in Upton Sinclair's 1919 book, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism. According to Sinclair, Hearst's newspaper employees were "willing by deliberate and shameful lies, made out of whole cloth, to stir nations to enmity and drive them to murderous war." Sinclair also asserted that in the early 20th century Hearst's newspapers lied "remorselessly about radicals," excluded "the word Socialist from their columns" and obeyed "a standing order in all Hearst offices that American Socialism shall never be mentioned favorably.""

Really?

It is "totally false" that everyone in the controlled-demolition industry rejects the claims of the fantasists? This is certainly news. Could we have a name, please? Try to avoid offering someone who turns out to regard the conspiracy liars as crackpots and frauds.

he's not american his

he's not american his opinion doesn't count!!

is what OCTers would say

is what OCTers would say

"A publication that has been

"A publication that has been in business for over a hundred years has a reputation to protect."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you referring to the reputation of Hurst publications? Who's shady reporting in the early 20th century led to the coining of the term "yellow journalism".

As for explosives in the towers, well George W. Bush even mentioned them in his speech last week.

On Friday September 15, President George Walker Bush gave a press conference, and near the beginning of the conference he says;

"...He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping..."

In referrence to information obtained by KSM.

But wait, I thought the buildings suffered from a progressive collapse intiated by plane impacts, and the following fires that weakened the floor truss system?

Who Can You Possibly be Fooling?

I doubt that even here anyone is fooled by your clumsy effort. Bush never said that the terrorists placed explosives in the buildings and no one thinks he did.

well

That is exactly what King Geroge said however.

Wrong

Bush did not say that terrorists planted explosives in the WTC and nobody thinks he did.

OK

Then since we know Bush is talking about KSM, and we know KSM is a so called terrorist right?
We also know KSM did not get involved with AlQeada until 1997 so that means he must have been talking about 9/11 right?

So, what part dont you understand?

Jowenko

There has been much discussion of Jowenko at James Randi's forum. He is not a crackpot and he doesn't support the fantasists's notion that WTC 1 & 2 were brought down by explosives. Someone showed him a picture of WTC 7 and he said that it looked like a controlled demolition. Here is one comment:

"Jowenko didn't study the collapse, he was just asked by a Dutch TV program what he thought the collapses LOOKED like. They first showed him the footage of WTC1&2 collapsing and he told the program that it didn't look like a controlled demolition. Then they showed him the WTC7, which he had never heard about, and he told the program it LOOKED like a controlled demolition.

I think it's mostly due to that the footage he was shown doesn't show the whole WTC7. "

LOL

Yep that must be it.

Lets just agree to disgree because lets be honest there really isn't anything no matter how damning that will change your mind.
You for some reason WANT to believe the OCT, welp go right ahead, myself I see WAY more than enough evidence to convict every damn one of these treasonous bastards to swing from a tree.
and i WANTED to believe otherwise but there just isn't any evidence I see that lets them off the hook.

Disingenuous

I'm afraid you're not leveling with me. Jihadists carried out a well-planned attack against America. They are extremely proud of their accomplishment. I can't and won't speculate on your motives for absolving them of this terrible act, but they are not rational. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that members of the American government were complicit in these attacks. The premise itself is absurd.

if you

want to call Bush and Co "Jihadist" that is fine, fits them pretty well.

pomeroo, stop with the

pomeroo, stop with the selective disclosure, I'm sure you are aware that people asked him about that later, and it backfired.

From that forum:

Quote:
I then called Jowenko Inc posing as a reporter for the Washington Post (my bad, but hey I figured I might get an on-the-record comment) To my amazement I was put right thru to Mr. Jowenko. He's a very nice gentleman who speaks great english. I told him that WTC7 burned extensively and had a gaping 20 story hole in it...I told him just about all I knew of the building from my own research. The fires fed by fuel tanks...the arangement of the columns to accomidate the pre-existing Con-Ed substation....

The guy then went on the record saying that he thinks that "due to the intelligence operations housed in that building it was brought down by a controlled demolition"

got a link for that?!

got a link for that?!

I can't find it now, I

I can't find it now, I copied it from a blog put up on here sometime last week, I didn't copy the link though.

actually it was from loose

actually it was from loose change forums. here's the link to the randi thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884

and here's the link to the loosechange thread that was talking about it:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13827

not to mention

His statement concerning the 2 towers did not take into account that we know for certain that indeed massive explosions went off in the basement of both buildings right before the planes even hit. and right before the collapse started.
We have eyewitness accounts and video to prove it.

so his only reason to disbelieve those 2 was thrown out the window.

The movie "9/11 Mysteries" shows this very well.

I also

Noticed how you just ignore what simply can not be explained by any other possibility except explosives.

let me try again just to remind you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How did over 1150 human bodies get completely vaporized, over 1700 others wind up in such tiny fragments (some 20,000 or more tiny pieces) that they were collected in test tubes and obviously only identifiable by DNA, over 500 Bone Fragments were found on top of and in an adjacent building several hundred feet away, & only 12 bodies I believe were left intact enough out of close to 3000 where they could be identified without DNA and I think most all of those were because they were not even in the buildings they were splattered in the streets from falling debris or possibly a jumper.

and remember to keep an open mind.""

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
or maybe someone else can explain this for me because to me this is once again yet another irrefutable fact that can not be explained away.

That is what I figured

This is always the question that can not be answered with Reich wing pabulum.
I will take this as OWNED on this one fact.

I have Filet & Lobster waiting cya all later.

Oh and Im going to cook it on my BBQ grill that is made out of very thin cheap steel fueled by natural hardwood Mesquite charcoal that I guarantee will be burning longer and hotter than either of the WTC buildings and my cheap little BBQ wont collapse on me. :)

You can always spot the defeated debunker...

by the boring, predictable terms they use. Ultimately, they always resort to namecalling, such as "tin hats", fantacists" "loons" and the all time favorite "conspiracy theorists".

pomeroo, I've read a number of your snide, insulting and essentially, empty posts. You have failed miserably to make a solid point. Whenever anyone challenges you with facts or pertinent questions, (such as dz, above) you dodge them and go for the easier targets. If you're only here to distract or divide, you will eventually fail, as you have with me. I will not being responding (or even reading) your "efforts" anymore...
and I believe many here will soon become bored with you as well.

You forgot pomeroo's new

You forgot pomeroo's new pejorative conspiracy "fantasist." Hadn't heard that one before today.

Yep, bored; that's a good word for it. The only thing left that I will read from pomeroo is a review of 9/11: Press for Truth.

Terminology

I prefer "fantasist" to "liar" as not everyone holding these absurd beliefs understands why they're false. It is possible to be sincere and wrong. Such people do not deserve to be called liars. Fetzer, on the other hand, is a flat-out liar.

What's your background?

What credentials do you have in engineering or the physical sciences to warrant your bald assertion that controlled demolition is an absurd belief?

Credentials

What do credentials matter to you? You accept the nonsense invented by people who have none and you reject the findings of physicists and structural engineers. You may have noticed that I tell you where I get my information. I don't make it up and I'm not a research scientist.

A background in the sciences

would help you more objectively evaluate the technical and not so technical analyses you cite to.

Keep in mind that those in academia rarely bite the hand that feeds them. Steven Jone's, unfortunately, became all to aware of that.

In industry, engineering jobs are increasingly being shipped overseas, leaving more competition in the U.S. In an era where many employers use background and google searches before hiring, it is typically not a good idea to put your reputation on the line for an issue which might be perceived as negative and anti-American (a common ad hominem label applied by the likes of people such as yourself).

Not to worry though. The dam is breaking. You will continue to see an increasing number of scientifically rigorous treatises dealing with the issues of 9/11, and particularly the science of the fallen towers.

Just remember, it's been more than 5 years since 9/11, and NIST still can't figure out what the hell happened to building 7; that's what happens when you try to prove a flawed hypothesis.

Empty Rhetoric

My posts have provided links to support the statements I make. Fantasists have no facts, only fabrications derived from an emotional need to blame the government for an attack committed by enemies of America. I have no idea of what I'm supposed to be dodging, and neither, I suspect, do you. When someone claims that explosives are the only explanation for something that has been explained in great depth, I am forced to give up. There is a reason why the controlled-demolition industry rejects the fantasists' claims. For the same reason, structural engineers and physicists reject them. Against all evidence and logic, agenda-driven cranks embrace ithem, but in doing so, they place themselves outside rationality.

One Mo' Time

It has been explained in great detail and explosives were not used.

And you know that how? NIST

And you know that how?

NIST did not test for explossives, so where is the proof?

If a cop says that he had to kill the man in self defense, do the investigators just say "OK, case closed"?

No, they investigate ALL options. What ever turns up is what is more probable.

Since NIST did NOT investigate CD, by their own admission, you cannot say "explosives were not used." You have ZERO proof!

Not Quite Certain

As there were no explosions, massive or otherwise, before the planes hit, what you know is less than certain. There is no video proving anything of the sort and eyewitness accounts, well, you don't believe the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon. There is a discussion of those "eyewitness" accounts on 911myths.com. The fantasists have a funny way of changing what people said.

Keep Reading

Well, I don't know why you want to make Jowenko appear nutty. He hasn't responded to Mark Roberts, who sent him the material he needs to make a more considered judgment. If, after reviewing the relevant information, he still wants to buy into the craziness, then I'll have to alter my opinion of him. You might ask yourself why anyone would reject the use of explosives in the Twin Towers but admit the possibility of their use in a building nobody outside NYC ever heard of.

Where are you coming up with

Where are you coming up with this information that "nobody outside NYC ever heard of"???

Where is your evidence? Lack of someone stating that they heard explossions is not evidence that they did not exist.

Were back to the "If I say something I will lose my job" position.

Show me where a people are asked if they heard explossions before the attack, and they say NO!

Please show me these answers from people in NYC.

Lack of admission does not mean they did not exist! They do not equate to being the same thing.

No Explosives

A falling skyscraper produces sounds of explosions. Most of us get that idea. If people running from the collapse say they heard what sounded like explosions, they did. What they heard, however, was not the product of explosives. There were no explosives. The task of wiring those two buildings would have been nearly impossible and the collapse itself looked nothing like a controlled demolition.

yet in 2 different videos we clearly hear

a massive explosions BEFORE any collapse.

100s of eyewitnesses state they heard massive explosions BEFORE the collapse.

It looked exactly like demolition.

When have you ever witnessed a high rise steel building collapse BTW?

You are being OWNED here and dont even realize it.

Really?

I explain why controlled-demolition experts state that the collapse of the WTC looked nothing like controlled demolition, and you think you can counter by telling me that it looked like controlled demolition. We can go back and forth on this, but it didn't look anything like controlled demolition to people in that industry.
I don't realize that I'm being "owned" because nobody has placed the slightest bit of pressure on me. As a college debater, I know what it feels like to go up against a better-prepared, more knowledgeable opponent, believe me. With all due respect, I'm not getting that feeling here.

I dont

really bother debating someone that refuses to accept ANY evidence from ANY source whatsoever.

Just pointless waste of my time, there is NOTHING I could say or do or link that would make any difference at all and you know it.

Still a bunch of LIP

Still a bunch of LIP SERVICE!

Where is your proof????

Where is the SCEINTIFIC Evidence that proves no explossives??

You just don't get it!!!

Also, sound travels slower than visual......

There were explossion sounds before the collapse, so given that the sounds did not happen at or after the collapse is more EVIDENCE to the fact that explossives were used.

Explain how sound can move faster than visual motion???

I'm a Engineer, and this is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

What are your credentials? I have a BS, with 10 years Engineering experience.

What?

Of course there were sounds coming from the buildings: They were burning; trusses were starting give way; exterior supports were buckling. Really, now!

Again, the collapse started at the impact floors. The videos reveal that quite clearly. Do you want to maintain that the conspirators placed charges on the precise floors struck by the planes?

was no need top place charges

on those exact floors, plus Thermate charges could have been placed on those floors or near and even if they went off it would not have been an "explosion" just a high heat cutting charge.

Other charges could have been shelded.

I Get the Idea

I begin to get the idea that you are, let me put it charitably, very young. No, no one placed charges on the EXACT floors hit by the planes. You see, that would have eliminated the necessity for the planes. Try to ask yourself why no one in the controlled-demolition industry takes these fantasies seriously. Why do they all insist that the collapse of the Twin Towers DID NOT resemble a controlled demolition?

"Why do they all insist that

"Why do they all insist that the collapse of the Twin Towers DID NOT resemble a controlled demolition?"

Because, usually, with *civilian* CDs (controlled demolitions), they start the implosion + disolution of buildings from *below* ? That way they can better utilize gravity, and need less explosives? (This is pure speculation -- I'm not a demolition expert in any way)

And with the Twin Towers, they started demolition (*had* to start, in fact... to make it look *less* like a CD) roughly at the "storeys of airliner impact". Couldn't rely so much on gravity, had to use *more* explosion power, had to risk more "explosion-like" appearance and horizontally ejected steel columns flying away?

WTC7 again looked *exactly* like a classical, civilian CD. On *all* video material that is out there. And that is the reason why some experts rooted in the CD industry even publically spoke out and now insist that WTC7 resembled CD 100%....

Now, assuming that Twin Towers were completely "in the dark"; assume we had no videos, no pics showing their "collapse", only the narrated stories from eyewitnesses. We had only the WTC7 videos, and our strong suspicion for CD at WTC7.

What are the beneficiaries of WTC7 collapse? Who profitted from it? Who would have to be investigated for WTC7 alone? Who was the owner? Who were the tenants? Who are the suspected perpetrators at WTC7? How long before 9/11 day would the charges for the WTC7 have been planted? And what light would that shed on the Twin Towers' downfall?

I can understand you do not want to support a real (scientific and criminal) investigation into the Twin Tower collapse. But would you support one for WTC7 alone?

Jowenko does NOT believe WTC 1 & 2 were controlled demolitions

Jowenko does NOT believe WTC 1 & 2 were controlled demolitions but thought WTC 7 was and was very surprised when told that WTC 7 came down the same day as the twin towers. Earlier in the show he is featured saying that WTC 1 & 2 looked nothing like controlled demolitions.

That is because

They weren't, they were UNcontrolled Demolitions.

The thugs that blew up the 2 towers did not need to abide by normal CD rules, they DID blow up the basement first and then the top down but the explosions were much more than needed in order to make it appear more chaotic and slightly less "controlled".

Silly

There were no explosions in the basement. There were no explosives in the buildings. It looked nothing like a controlled demolition. The buildings collapsed from the impact floors, as is obvious from the videos. The squibs are the product of air being forced out (where else can it go?), not explosions. Look at them: they start as a plume and then spread--exactly the opposite of an explosion. This is what everyone in the controlled-demolition industry thinks.

So where did the cores

So where did the cores go?

If the floors "pancaked" down, which NIST refutes, then what happened to the core? What caused those 47 4" steel columns to collapse?????

The floors falling on one another would NOT pull the cores down. So what did?

There was actually

2 HUGE explosions in the Basements of which both seismic, eyewitness and video evidence all corroborate, your denial of this fact means nothing.

also how does one get "squibs" some 30+ floors below the collapse? You cant so that rules out what was impossible to begin with which is gravity collapse at freefall speed.

and again explain to me what happened to the bodies.

No Explosions

There were no explosions in the basement and the bodies were for the most part incinerated. The squibs were compressed air and the Towers did not fall at free fall speed. Reality is stubborn.

So

All those people are just lying then right?

The guy that had the skin blown off his arms and was in a coma for weeks, the guy that was down there and saw people blown to bits, the total destruction of B3 BEFORE the plane hit and these maintence guys & firemen are for some strange reason just lying.

and Bodies did not just incenerate because 20,000 tiny fragements were found get it?
500 of which were found on rooftops far away from the buildings get it?

Try again

Sung to the tune of "On the Road again"

OWNED again
Just cant wait to get OWNED again.
The life I love is making up lies for my Reich Wing friends.
And I cant wait to get OWNED again.
Going to websites that I've never been.
Seein' evidence that I will deny over & over again.
And I cant wait to get OWNED again.

OWNED again
Like a band of phychos we go down the highway
We are the worst of liars
Insisting that the world be turnin' our way
and our way
Is to be OWNED again.
I just cant wait to get OWNED again
The life I love is making up lies for my Reich wing friends.
and I cant wait to get OWNED again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be the ballad for all you Neofascist truth deniers because none of you ever make a valid point, all you do is spew easily debunked Reich wing crap.

Boys and girls, this thread

Boys and girls, this thread is hilarious!

I adore the invective and personal attacks. We just can't get enough of this theater.

Please increase the frequency of the ad hominum attacks, damn I'd even pay you guys for more. It's that entertaining!

You are my new clowns. You are my entertainment. You are funny! I can't wait for more.

You are all priceless!

This is Mild

Are you new to these debates? You should see what goes on at The Conspiracy Smasher. Look, I'm entering into an arena where I don't expect many people to be receptive to my views and frankly, I have no complaints about my treatment here. I've had fun.

actually I kind of laugh

actually I kind of laugh when I hear some of the things I am called. I don't care. The OTHER person is getting emotional and ruining his/her health by getting angry.

Not So Bad

Okay, Nunyabiz is a goofball--in my opinion, a kid. But I've been on sites where there are half a dozen clowns every bit as silly. I'm telling you, this is pretty tame.

Uh huh

Im 47 years old with a Master of Science in Environmental Science from Stanford.

T-S Gordon mentions one "Kurt Sonnenfeld"....

...and some more Info about that same Sonnenfeld I found here:

Kurt Sonnenfeld - FEMA's WhistleBlower?"
( http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060913_KurtSonnenf... )

What light does the combination of both stories shed on each one? I'm confused now...

Identity

Hey, this has been a good debate. My thanks to all of you. I'll try to stop in again and we can slug it out some more. I wanted to identify myself, as I really don't appreciate people hiding behind impenetrable nicknames. I'm Ron Wieck, the guy who interviewed Les Jamieson on "Hardfire." I wasn't trying to be sneaky. For some reason, I couldn't log-on under 'Ronald Wieck,' so I created a new account. Yes, I own pomeranians.

nice to "meet" you

nice to "meet" you

Civility

Likewise.

and still

you ignore my question, you could at least admit you have no answer because you know damn well there is only ONE answer to it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How did over 1150 human bodies get completely vaporized, over 1700 others wind up in such tiny fragments (some 20,000 or more tiny pieces) that they were collected in test tubes and obviously only identifiable by DNA, over 500 Bone Fragments were found on top of and in an adjacent building several hundred feet away, & only 12 bodies I believe were left intact enough out of close to 3000 where they could be identified without DNA and I think most all of those were because they were not even in the buildings they were splattered in the streets from falling debris or possibly a jumper.

and remember to keep an open mind.""

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explosives were used of this there is positively ZERO doubt.

its amazing the things that

its amazing the things that are attributed to a 'gravitational collapse' eh?

Yep

Sure the hell is, simply amazing how gravity atomized 1150+ bodies and blew 1700 others into tiny fragments about the size of a fingernail .
Then scattered at least 500+ tiny shards of bone several hundred feet across the street to the top of buildings.

Then somehow managed to turn 100s of tons of reinforced concrete into talcum fine dust to boot.

Yep that gravity is something else, they should just make "Gravity Bombs" instead of Nuclear

Not to mention

the obvious debris actually flying upward and outward during the collapse, apparently defying the very force that caused their demise.

Gravity was funny on 9/11.

Invention

You are inventing your own myth. Who doesn't understand that the bodies were incinerated? Another canard is Hoffman's phony pulverized concrete. See Greening pulverize Hoffman on 911myths.com.

ROTFL

Yep all the phony pulverized concrete that really didn't cover all of Manhatten completely, that was all just what an Illusion? ROTFL

I guess all these Firemen & EMTs Police etc are not really dying either right?

You are really making a total fool of yourself at this point.

Whatever helps you sleep at night

Go wrap yourself in the comfortable blanket of 9/11myths.com

Inability to Respond

Wrap yourself in your groundless myths. You can disparage 911myths when you can refute the conclusions reached there. You are unable to cast doubt on anything the real scientists, structural engineers, and demolition specialists say, so you take the easy way out and dismiss everything that is inconvenient to your politics. Well, that's what fringe extremists do.

you

are going to look really stupid once another 25% of the American public finally wakes up so that 75% of the public gets behind 9/11 truth.

This is going to happen and there is nothing that is going to stop it.
This administration is GUILTY of Treason and they are going down.

Pointless

You are not asking a serious question. Terrorists flew fully-fueled jet airliners into buildings, starting extensive fires and weakening the structures. The buildings eventually collapsed. Under the circumstances, there could be no expectation of finding intact bodies.

They were NOT fully

They were NOT fully fueled.......

They only fuel planes with the necessary fuel to reach their destination with some reserve.

Sorry, but not FULLY fueld.

Maybe you need to do some more research???

moot point anyway

The majority of the Kerosene burned up OUTSIDE of one building and Kerosene is so quick to evaporate that virtually none was left in either building within a couple mins.

This btw means NOTHING as far as explaning how those bodies vaporized and blew into tiny fragments some scattering hundreds of feet away from the buildings.
and I would have full expectations of finding the vast majority of bodies fully intact, squished/mangled yes, blown into tiny fragments or completely atomized, blown onto rooftops across the street? Not a chance in hell.

You're Joking

Planes starting from Boston headed for the West Coast can be considered fully-fueled when they reach NYC. But, you already knew that.

except

for the fact that they flew around all over the place for over an hour. LOL

Hummmmmmm?

Would'nt you think the insurance companies would like a closer look at this?

From what I understand the

From what I understand the primary company that insured the towers "re-insured" them with competing insurance companys. So in actuality, the primary insurance company may not have suffered a loss at all, maybe even profited.

Actually

That is where Cheney and Halliburton come into the picture.

''Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Inc., and, reportedly, the Bush family are surprisingly well acquainted with asbestos-related concerns. On December 18, 2002, CBS News reported that Halliburton "has agreed to pay about $4 billion in cash and stock to settle hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims against it." Reportedly, Halliburton inherited its asbestos liability from Harbison-Walker, a unit of Halliburton's subsidiary Dresser Industries, and from Halliburton's Kellog Brown & Root subsidiary. The Port Authority in 1991 filed suit in U.S. District Court against insurers in the hope of recovering funds to help pay for needed asbestos-abatement work at the WTC and one of the region's airports. In the suit, "Port Authority of NY vs. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.," the Port Authority sought between 500 million and 1 billion dollars from the insurers.]

Blowing up the WTC cured Halliburtons billion $$ lawsuit, cleared the building which was an albatross, took care of all the evidence against several criminals about to be indicted by the SEC just for starters.

Sure

Complete and utter nonsense.

Hi Pomeroo...

How are you today? That's nice...

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liair0918,0,1285569.stor...

According to an internal EPA report released in 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency was directed by the White House in the days after Sept. 11 to amend its news releases by adding reassuring statements and removing cautionary ones. Tests later revealed that dust from Ground Zero had high levels of fiberglass and pulverized asbestos.

Kaufman said the new document shows that former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman -- in addition to the White House -- was responsible for manipulating information and deceiving the public.

Debunk that please.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Trolls don't have talking

Trolls don't have talking points for this yet, Jon. It won't be long, though. Soon enough, they will swallow hook, line and sinker whatever excuse the Party comes up with for sacrificing the heroic first responders.

If they didn't care...

About the 1000's of people who spent their time digging for their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, fellow firefighters, police officers, EMTs, port authority workers, and so on... then why should we believe they gave a DAMN about the first 3000?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Because, to them, bombing

Because, to them, bombing the shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq is the way you honor the dead. Investigating who really killed them is nonsense, only blind vengeance and blood lust will honor them.

Why on Earth...

Would you want to investigate the murder of 3000 people?

That's crazy. We welcome the 'attacks'. We have no need to figure out why and how they happened. We love it when our people die.

I'm being sarcastic in case you couldn't tell.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Better yet...

Let's "pretend investigate"...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Let's...

Put a member of this Administration in charge of the 9/11 Commission even though the family members asked for his resignation... phhh silly family members... It sure will help that he's an expertise at creating "public myths."

Then, let's put 5 Democrats, and 5 Republicans as the window dressing. They won't ask the tough questions. Our man on the inside will make sure of that.

Then, we make sure that if they ask the tough questions, we play stupid.

Neither the President or the Vice President will testify publicly, under oath, without each other, and no recordings...

We'll accept testimony even though we know it to be false.

We'll omit things that point to the Administration and others.

It'll be just fine...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Scandal

You're conflating a real scandal with the fake ones invented by the fantasists. Unquestionably, the collapse of the Towers dealt a devastating blow to the economy of NYC, and, by extension, to the national economy. 9-11's impact on several industries stopped an ongoing recovery dead in its tracks and midwifed a recession for which Bush, predictably, got blamed. If the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy wanted to start a war (silly, but let's play along), they achieved their goal when planes hit the WTC. Knocking down the buildings had no benefits for the Bush administration, only drawbacks. Yes, it is shocking that people were encouraged to return to downtown Manhattan when the air was still toxic. But that demonstrates how hard the economy was hit and how desperate the government was to return things to normal. Whitman and everyone involved should be held responsible for the reprehensible decision to ignore health risks. The idea that Bush wanted those buildings to fall is absurd.

................................

"Whitman and everyone involved should be held responsible for the reprehensible decision to ignore health risks."

Including the White House?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Who is in charge of the EPA?

Who is in charge of the EPA? I can't remember....

Let him answer...

Including the White House?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Almost an hour...

Click Here
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Jon Gold 1

Ronald Wieck 0

This is a game to Ronald.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

pomeroo, because you profess

pomeroo, because you profess to be a concerned citizen and not a troll, I encourage you to read the words of the modern day prophet George Orwell. I know the chances are slim, but maybe if you read 1984 you will understand what is going on in the 21st century.

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself - that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become uncounscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word "doublethink" involved the use of doublethink." pg. 31

Orwell

Without wishing to appear condescending, I can assure you that I have read much of Orwell, including '1984.' You might look into 'Why Orwell Matters' by Christopher Hitchens.

Condescending...hahahaha

The thought of being looked down upon by someone who buys the OCT is laughable. You "get" Orwell yet you buy what the Party feeds you. Thanks for the laugh.

And you cite that neo-con ThoughtCop Hitchens as your authority? I welcome this debate.

Confusion

What "party" is feeding me the NIST report, the Popular Mechanics book, Dr. Greening's papers, the Protec report--oh, forget it.

Hitchens is a man of the left, a lifelong socialist, who understands the nature and threat of radical Islam, something you are clueless about.

You don't welcome debate. You want to ignore every substantive point I make and pound me over the head with your factoids and myths.

What "party" is feeding me

What "party" is feeding me the NIST report, the Popular Mechanics book, Dr. Greening's papers, the Protec report--oh, forget it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exhibit A that you don't understand a word Orwell wrote.

Hitchens is a man of the

Hitchens is a man of the left, a lifelong socialist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last time I checked, he was a neo-con whore.

However, his past work does qualify him as a bona fide "gatekeeper."

Ignorance is Bliss

The last you checked anything was by reading the ravings of some uninformed loony-leftist on the net. Hitchens is no neo-con.

I guess...

You didn't watch the debate between Michael Parenti, and Christopher Hitchens, or the debate between George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens, and I bet you didn't read what Juan Cole had to say about Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens IS a "Neocon."

And why have you ignored my question above?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Jon Gold 2

Ronald Wieck 0
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Definition

You haven't the vaguest idea of what a neo-con is. Neoconservatives are former liberal Democrats who grew disenchanted with their party's weakness on national security issues. Born in the late 1970s and led by people such as Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, the neoconservative movement has two goals: first (the more realistic of the two), to move the Republicans away from their instinctive isolationism toward a more interventionist foreign policy, in the style of Teddy Roosevelt; second (this one is impossible), to return the Democrats to their interventionist, pro-democracy roots, as exemplified by FDR, Truman, and JFK.
Juan Cole is clueless. Hitchens remains a committed socialist who, nevertheless, grasps the threat to the West posed by radical Islam. Members of the 9-11 fantasy movement have their heads buried so deeply in the sand that if Muslim terrorists were slitting their throats, they'd die believing their killers were George Bush and Dick Cheney in disguise. Such stupidity is frustrating to observe.

If...

Hitchens isn't a "Neocon", then what was he doing debating their points to Michael Parenti and George Galloway?

And... I'm more than familiar with the phrase "Neocon."

I fight against them everyday.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Also Ronny

"Such stupidity is frustrating to observe."

I agree.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Wrong, as Usual

No, you disagree. You revel in your ignorance and inability to think critically. You ignore the massive contradictions inherent in your absurd fantasies and pretend that screaming loudly will make them vanish.

Show us some errors in the Protec paper.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You're already resorting to name calling, and haven't even answered several of the questions I posted for you, and you dare ask anything of me?

Ronald... I pity you. I really do.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Wrong, as Usual

No, you don't pity me. You stand in awe of me as someone immeasurably brighter and better-informed than yourself.
I don't ask anything of you, because you are capable of so little. Who doesn't know that you have no way of responding to anything the rationalists have produced? You can't find an error in the Protec report; you can't find errors in the NIST report; you can't disprove any of Dr. Greening's findings; you can't refute any of the conclusions of the Popular Mechanics team. In short, you have nothing but the bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies you peddle to simpleminded suckers who hate America.

I have no idea what questions you're asking me. I'll take a stab, though. Who do I blame for exposing people to toxic air in downtown Manhattan? I think the blame can divided fairly evenly among the Federal Government, The City Government, the State Government, and Wall Street.
You conveniently ignore the fact that the economic crisis caused by the collapse of the WTC makes your fantasy completely implausible.

So you're saying...

Money is more important than people?

You're a sick bastard.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Clueless

You're a loony-leftist who is clueless about basic terms in political discourse. You "fight" against neoconservatism? By distributing semi-literate flyers filled with idiotic drivel that has been debunked over and over? Yeah, the neo-cons are really losing sleep over you. You'd cut a brilliant figure in a debate with Krauthammer.

Ronny, Ronny, Ronny...

Again with the name calling. Don't you have anything else in your arsenal?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You think your little

You think your little history lesson makes you look smart, but it only reveals your ignorance. No lectures on the definition of neo-con needed here, my friend. Damn, I hate being smarter than all of these OCTers, it is like torture listening to them parrot their masters.

No Need for Hatred

My history lesson isn't necessary to make look smart: I AM smart. I sincerely doubt that you had the slightest idea of what neoconservatism was all about before I informed you.
You needn't hate being smarter than the rationalists as you are demonstrably not.

who understands the nature

who understands the nature and threat of radical Islam, something you are clueless about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Party said that Oceania (US) had never been in alliance with Eurasia (AlQaeda/Iraq). He, Winston Smith (Truther), knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four (twenty) years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated (terrorist sympahtizer). And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed - if all records told the same tale - then the lie passed into history and became the truth (9/11)." pg. 30

You don't welcome debate.

You don't welcome debate. You want to ignore every substantive point I make and pound me over the head with your factoids and myths.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your "substantive points" are doublethink, my friend - newspeak.

Our "factoids" and "myths" are the heresy truth you seek to supress.

"Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." pg.30

Absolute Truth

You act like a teenager who has just read Ayn Rand for the first time and thinks he's discovered absolute truth. No one would be more contemptuous of the mindlessly irrational and profoundly anti-scientific drivel churned out by the conspiracy fantasists than the clearheaded George Orwell. Your "heresy truth" is a farrago of bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies. In five years of this idiocy, the fantasists have uncovered NOTHING. They have raised ZERO serious questions about the conclusions of a broad spectrum of researchers, physicists, structural engineers, demolition specialists, and avionics techs. You label "doublethink" hard data and informed analyses that refute your emotionally-based myths.
Show me the errors--actual, verifiable errors--in the Protec paper; in the Popular Mechanics book; in Dr. Greening's papers; in the NIST report. Until you do, I will remain unconvinced by the propaganda disseminated by people who really don't have the goods.
Everything your side offers amounts to evasive dismissals of inconvenient evidence. It's the easiest thing in the world to proclaim loudly that you are Galileo offering truth to a blind and stubborn establishment. Your problem is, Galileo really did offer truth. Your side is intellectually bankrupt and peddles snake oil.

Gotta love that irony.... It

Gotta love that irony....

It took you all night to come up with a reply, and that is the best you can do? Keep citing your sacred sources of authority - just because you keep repeating the same sources over and over again doesn't make them infallible. Indeed, people far more qualified than I have ripped them to shreds. Don't ask me for a cite, do some research. Not that it would matter, you obviously want to believe the OCT so bad that nothing could persuade you. Not even a skyscraper imploding due to fire alone. Not even military strain anthrax. Not even terrorist funding from Pakistan.

You wish I was just a teenager you could marginalize instead of one of the growing millions of American adults who call bs on the OCT. I was just trying to interject some literary and philosophical references to a mind-numbing pissing contest of scientific arguments. We can see how well that went over. You counter with Ayn Rand, big surprise. Go read some Strauss while your at it...

These f'ing OCTers are so smug about their superiority to "conspiracy nuts" but easily revealed for the shallow, empty souls they truly are.

Superiority

The superiority of the rationalists to the fantasists is, obviously, intellectual. Believers in the absurd and baseless fantasy that the American government attacked its own institutions for the rather meager payoff of ousting the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are devoid of critical thinking skills. The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy wants a war with Iraq so they somehow neglect to make A SINGLE ONE of their imaginary hijackers an Iraqi or an Afghan. Sure. Nothing ridiculous about that.

NOBODY has ripped to shreds the scientists, engineers, and other experts who reject your silliness. NOBODY in the fantasy movement has cast doubt on ANYTHING the real researchers have concluded. Your nonsensical beliefs have been thoroughly debunked. You have absolutely no facts to support the myths you promote. In your dream world, hard facts can be screamed away by ignorant liars who lack an understanding of basic science. But science wins in the end. Your side has nothing.

The rationalists are also superior morally. By their muddleheaded attempt to absolve committed enemies of this nation of a terrible act, while slandering members of the American government, the fantasists reveal themselves as moral idiots, in the Greek sense--unable to make fundamental distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil.

why is that

"utter Nonsense"?

This is documented fact, yet you still sit and deny it.. LOL

You are basically just a troll at this point, a sad little troll.

I see no reason to respond to your nonsense any further at this point, once you start denying cold hard FACT then you are beyond help.

Hot, Soft Factoids

So far, many of your "facts" have proven false. Now, some lefty has conjured up another Halliburton fantasy and we're supposed to take it seriously? Why?
To ask you for evidence would be comical.

Yeah

Look it up yourself.

Look up the Asbestos problems for WTC through the entire 90s, the lawsuits etc and the Billion dollar projected clean up.
Obviously no link I list you will accept and there are 100s so take your pick and look it up yourself if you actually care to know.

The Port Authority owned it and sued the insurers in order to try and get help for the Asbestos abatement they lost, so they sold to "Dresser Industries" which is a subsidiary of halliburton, obviously Cheney knew of the Abestos problem he inherited.

Little info about Dresser.
When Dresser went public in the 1920s, it turned to W.A. Harriman & Co., whose president was George Herbert Walker, grandfather and namesake to former president Bush. Prescott Bush, the former president's father, helped organize Dresser and select its new president, H. Neil Mallon. Prescott Bush eventually sat on the board and by 1941, still held 1,900 shares of Dresser stock. Mallon was so close to former president Bush that he described him in his autobiography as "surrogate uncle and father-confessor." One of his sons, Neil Mallon Bush, is named after him. After World War II, Mallon employed George H.W. Bush and Dresser executives expected him to take over the company, according to journalist Darwin Payne, who wrote a history of Dresser. Instead, the former president left to prospect for oil.

Deny all you wish, it is easy to check these facts so all you can do is deny the facts, makes you look foolish however.

Then we have this happening just before 9/11, a coincedence? Coincedences like this dont happen.

""THE WTC'S CHANGE TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP--JUST WEEKS BEFORE 9/11

On July 24, 2001, private investors (Silverstein Properties, with minority partner Westfield America, Inc.) took control of the WTC under a 99-year lease.

In "Waking Up From Our Nightmare," Paul and Hoffman note that the WTC's estimated value at the time was 8 billion dollars. [8]

According to professor of economics Michel Chossudovsky, the lease called for payments to the Port Authority "amounting to 3.2 billion dollars in installments" payable over 99 years. With several hundred million dollars being provided by mortgage holders, Mr. Silverstein put just 14 million dollars of his own money into the deal. [9]

Quoting from a May 20, 2002 article in The New Yorker, Chossudovsky notes that "Explicity included in the [lease] agreement was that Silverstein and Westfield 'WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURES IF THEY WERE DESTROYED.' " [9] [with emphasis added]

Paul and Hoffman add that "Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that 'THE LEASE HAS AN ALL-IMPORTANT ESCAPE CLAUSE: IF THE BUILDINGS ARE STRUCK BY "AN ACT OF TERRORISM," THE NEW OWNERS' OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LEASE ARE VOID. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings...destroyed and damaged in the attacks.' " (The American Reporter's article was titled "No Fraud, but Huge Profits Seen in World Trade Center Attacks.") [8] [with emphasis added]

It's also reported that Mr. Silverstein is "a large contributor to Democrat and Republican office-holders."

Halliburton is made up folks

Nothing to see. We can all go home now.

Dick Cheney's not really getting rich off the imaginary company he sent to Iraq.

"According to Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure report, the vice president's Halliburton benefits include three batches of stock options comprising 433,333 shares."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

$28.10 (today's closing price) * $8.94 (July 2002 price) = $8,302,660.28 bump for Dick since 2002.

It's good to be both Vice President former chief executive officer of Halliburton (1995 through August 2000). Those "lefty's" are always meddling though.

You know damn well an honest man would have withdrawn those options before the Iraq contracts were finalized, in order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. But, greed knows no bounds.

Did you say...

Halliburton?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I don't...

F_ck around. ;)
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Among Other Things

You don't read or think, either.

More insults...

Poor Ronald. He doesn't have a prayer and he knows it.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Ronald...

Tell me everything you know about Dick Cheney's "Energy Task Force."
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Hello Again

Hey, Andrew, when I asked you to show us the errors in the Protec report, you ran so fast we mistook you for a skyhook missile. Undoubtedly, you want to correct that omission, right?

Looking Forward

You can find the answer to your question by wading through the many posts on this bloated thread, but I'll spare you. I explained that I was unable to post under Ronald Wieck (probably something I was doing wrong) and opened a new account to save time.

Let's hear about all those errors in the Protec report.

Falsehoods

You were not unimpressed: You were chagrined. The puerile and absurd fantasy you promote was exploded by the paper. If a hack job is a thorough, well-reasoned explanation of why the fantasists' myths about controlled demolition are nonsense, then it was a hack job. You have found no inaccuracies or evasions for two reasons: 1) you are not competent to do so (what do you know about controlled demolition that top professionals don't?); there are no inaccuracies or evasions, just hard facts.

Funny

You have a sense of humor. I don't read Danish, but I understand that some Dane claims to buy this conspiracy drivel. He has, of course, done no research of his own. The article in German mentions Fetzer, which makes it impossible to take it seriously. Europeans, in general, are receptive to all sorts of anti-American hogwash. A poll showed that more than 30% of German university students don't believe that Americans landed on the moon, a theory that, until this nonsense came along, ranked as the dumbest conspiracy theory of all time.
I am not qualified to give my own opinions on a subject pertaining to controlled demolition. I note, however, that no one in the controlled demolition business in this country regards the conspiracists' claims as anything other than utter nonsense.

Pomeroo... What's your point?

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I see a steady-stream of nonsense and obfuscation here, all of it appears to be window dressing.

It's one thing to be smart, and yet another to show consideation of your audience in your public discourse. Like Andrew, I am not impressed with anonymous posters as a rule, and I do not resort to name calling or pidgeon-holing anyone, unless they really do F*-up, like Hufchmid, married to the Murdoch family no less.

Never let it be said that PopularMechanics is devoid of official government oversight. (I know an idiot who has every issue going back to the topic of 'flying cars.') After talking to Robert Fulton, I really couldn't take my friend Mike seriously again. 'ASTRA,' from NASA, obviously spouts the 'official' line on everything, and it is so painfully obvious that most of their editorials are written for the same audience, with the primary goal of threatening foreign competetors.

You Have a Point

Your point is a good one. Ad hominem attacks and delliberate obfuscation muddy the waters. All I ask, really, is that people make specific statements. Show me what you consider to be errors in the sources I cite and maybe we can all learn something.

Molten Irony

(dz: I apologize in advance for violating the rules regarding personal attacks and profanity and will take no offense if you choose to edit or delete this post. All I ask is that you don't ban me. P.S. Any chance of getting that killfile module installed?)

pomeroo,

In what is, as far as I can tell, your first post on this site as "pomeroo" you wrote:

Matthys Levy regards the controlled-demolition fantasists as crackpots. He disavows the use of his out-of-context remarks as support for a theory that he rejects totally. The dishonesty of the conspiracy liars is once again on display.
Perhaps one of the True Believers here will point out a few errors in the Implosion World paper (just joking--of course no one will, as there aren't any). In five years of deranged shrieking, the liars have produced much bogus science, many distorted quotes and a blizzard of outright falsehoods, but not a shred of evidence for their insane beliefs. The jihadists who brought down the Towers were real, as are their ideological brethren who continue to work for the destruction of this country, abetted by ignorant, agenda-driven fools who are impervious to reason and logic.
(Emphasis mine)

From the moment you arrived at this site in your current incarnation you have repeatedly committed all the acts you accuse everyone else of committing. I tried hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when you showed up a couple days ago but upon reading more of your posts it quickly became clear that you are nothing more than a fucking troll who feigns desire for skepticism, intellectual curiosity and polite debate but who actually comes from a rock-hard faith-based position and includes in nearly every post personal and generalized attacks on anyone and everyone who dares to question the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 you hold so dear.

Two days later you have the audacity to write a post like this. Whether you are just pretending to have not seen all the errors in your sources that people have pointed out or you have blocked them out subconcsiously, I don't know. It really doesn't matter. The end result is the same. Your words ring hollow. They are molten irony.

Please spare us your company for 84 minutes and go watch 9/11: Press for Truth. Then come back and enlighten all of us about the errors that you currently presume comprise that film.

Set the Record Straight

I do not feign skepticism: it is a stance I have maintained for my adult life.

The views of the fantasists are based purely on faith, a misguided, profoundly wrongheaded faith that America and all of its works are evil. My views are grounded in real science and hard evidence.

Nobody has pointed out the errors in my sources, the simple reason being that those sources present accurate information and sound reasoning. Again and again, the fantasists pretend that they have refuted real science. Nobody ever gets around to showing the refutations, but we should accept on faith that they exist. I continue to proclaim that the fantasist emperor is naked.

Five years, and you've produced absolutely nothing but a load of bogus science and outright falsehoods. There is no such animal as the "official" position. The positions of all serious researchers, whether members of agencies such as NIST and FEMA, the coalition of civil engineers (ASCE), or independent academics and demolition professionals, happen to coincide because they all respect the principles of honest inquiry that your side is so contemptuous of.

Incidentally, I note that you are not at all embarrassed by the dishonest citing of Matthys Levy and Mike Taylor, both of whom reject the nonsense they are portrayed as supporting.

wow..I didnt know anything

wow..I didnt know anything about that..time to go do some research ..thx

Research

After you do your "research," presumably reading the ravings of some leftwing loon who fabricates nonsense, what will you know? That we started two wars and plunged the economy into a recession so that Halliburton stock could rise? Really, it is necessary to grow up at some point.

what

exactly do you hope to gain here by denying what is documented fact?

Merely makes you look like a total idiot.

Bad Track Record

Your "documented facts" have a habit of turning out to be falsehoods. Some convoluted asbestos lawsuit somehow validates this conspiracy craziness? Sorry, not a chance.
Get back to me with concrete objections to the sources I continually cite.

Further above, pomeroo wrote

Further above, pomeroo wrote this:

"Why do they all (he talks about experts from the demolition industry) insist that the collapse of the Twin Towers DID NOT resemble a controlled demolition?"

I'm pasting my response below the line once again, so he has a fair chance to respond (if he wants), in case my original remarks above are burried too deeply in 270+ comments....


Because, usually, with *civilian* CDs (controlled demolitions), they start the implosion + disolution of buildings from *below* ? That way they can better utilize gravity, and need less explosives? (This is pure speculation -- I'm not a demolition expert in any way)

And with the Twin Towers, they started demolition (*had* to start, in fact... to make it look *less* like a CD) roughly at the "storeys of airliner impact". Couldn't rely so much on gravity, had to use *more* explosion power, had to risk more "explosion-like" appearance and horizontally ejected steel columns flying away?

WTC7 again looked *exactly* like a classical, civilian CD. On *all* video material that is out there. And that is the reason why some experts rooted in the CD industry even publically spoke out and now insist that WTC7 resembled CD 100%....

Now, assuming that Twin Towers were completely "in the dark"; assume we had no videos, no pics showing their "collapse", only the narrated stories from eyewitnesses. We had only the WTC7 videos, and our strong suspicion for CD at WTC7.

What are the beneficiaries of WTC7 collapse? Who profitted from it? Who would have to be investigated for WTC7 alone? Who was the owner? Who were the tenants? Who are the suspected perpetrators at WTC7? How long before 9/11 day would the charges for the WTC7 have been planted? And what light would that shed on the Twin Towers' downfall?

I can understand you do not want to support a real (scientific and criminal) investigation into the Twin Tower collapse. But would you support one for WTC7 alone?

Hopeless

"They" don't exist.

The collapses proceeded from the impact floors because that's where the planes hit the buildings.

Seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty laboratories refute the notion that there were explosions apart from the collapses themselves.

Mr. pomeroo, you're doging the questions

Mr. pomeroo, you're doging the questions.

Let me repeat the most important one for you. It's about WTC7 (you know it also "collapsed", in the afternoon of 9/11, without an airliner ever having it it?)::

"I can understand you do not want to support a real (scientific and criminal) investigation into the Twin Tower collapse. But would you support one for WTC7 alone?"

I was undecided, but this debate in swinging me...

Mr. pomeroo, just so you know: I was undecided, but this debate was instrumental in swinging me towards all "conspiration theories" that suppose controlled demolitions for WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

Your poor performance (albeit you're a very industrious poster), Mr. pomeroo, in this debate did not help at all keeping me on the side of the of The Presidential Truth Ministry. I'm really starting to see through it now....

I read all of the posts so far, many of them twice. Some posts (and other blogs and stories on this side) made me read other material, and watch some videos on YoutTube and Google. I'm glad I did this.

Hitting a nerve??

Ive been reading this site for months,and posting comments ,now ,and then.
I' ve never seen such arguing.Did we hit a nerve?

Bullseye

Yes, we hit a nerve. Sites like this indulge the unrestrained imaginations of cranks and True Believers, those who are impervious to any evidence that is inconvenient to their political views. I intruded and in my self-appointed role as gadfly observed that in five years of screaming, the 911 fantasy movement has come up with precisely nothing to counter the views of serious, rational researchers. People here have deep emotional investments in the nonsense they spout. They can't entertain the possibility that they've got it all wrong, for two reasons: 1) only extremely flexible, powerful intellects are capable of such ruthless self-appraisal; 2) their beliefs stem from a hatred of America, not from the self-evident realities of the jihadist attacks of September 11, 2001. America must be wrong. If it is the victim of an unprovoked attack, they will move heaven and earth to stand reality on its head. The movement should properly be called the 9-11 Truth-Be-Damned Movement.

What time...

Did Dick Cheney arrive at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

What Do You Make Of This Ronald?

"We took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress. Now it's beyond the campaign, so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over. Mr. President, you knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. Didn't do anything to harden our border security. Didn't do anything to harden airport security. Didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement. Didn't do anything to round up INS and the consular office, and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people. What did you do? Nothing so far as we can see."

Bob Kerrey - 9/11 Commissioner
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Tell Me Ronald...

If our Government couldn't be trusted to give a "full and complete" accounting of the attacks, then why on Earth should I trust anything you, an internet "Conspiracy Debunking" troll, and a magazine called Popular Mechanics have to say?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

We should make a collection...

Of all of the questions Ronald refuses to answer.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

The dog that didn't yap.

I think collecting those questions would be a very interesting project.

Logic 101

Gee, if I were teaching elementary logic to children, I might have to point out that the government is less trustworthy than the team of specialists assembled by Popular Mechanics (who are not driven by political agendas as, for example, you are) and a paragon of honesty like myself. Of course, the brighter ones would have figured that out very quickly.
Don't you feel silly?

What's that Ronald?

"the government is less trustworthy than the team of specialists assembled by Popular Mechanics?"

Do you have a Conspiracy Theory or something about our Government?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Confirmation

Gee, it certainly is a confirmation that the jihadist hijackers were real and your conspiracy fantasies are bullshit. But then, every sane person already knows that.
It is pure Democratic boilerplate that there were warnings sufficiently specific to warrant action. Kean rejects the notion in his new book.
I do not advocate letting the Bush administration off the hook. Clinton was seemingly oblivious to the threat of a terrorist attack here and Bush, granting his good intentions, got off to a very slow start. The wall between the FBI and the CIA was one of those insane liberal ideas that nobody accepts responsibility for, but every Democrat in Congress will, provided no one is looking, vote to maintain.

Did I...

Ever say the hijackers weren't real? You must be confusing me with others of this movement.

I see... so we're supposed to assume that Bob Kerrey was lying to us, but Thomas Kean wasn't. The same Thomas Kean who was Co-Executive Producer of the latest propaganda film run by ABC that was riddled with lies. You're trying to make this a partisan issue, and it's not.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

As a matter of fact Ronald...

The Democrats sitting in Washington D.C., and Bill Clinton, are scum.

With VERY few exceptions, and the same goes for the Republican side of things.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

However...

Here's a Republican talking about the same kind of information.

They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it.

Senator Richard Shelby
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Good Guys

Are there any political leaders, other than Marxist totalitarians like Castro and Kim Jong Il, who are admirable?

Is Ron Paul

A Marxist Totalitarian?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Real Terrorists

Okay, we agree that the hijackers were real. Now, were there really fifteen Saudi nationals? Why, pray tell, were there no Iraqis or Afghans? Inquiring minds want to know.

You Think...

I was involved in the planning stages of the operation or something?

Oh, I see, you're saying that if this was their doing, why didn't they make the hijackers Iraqi or Afghani to make it easier to invade both countries...

Well gee Ronald, they really didn't have to did they? Spewing lies about connections between Iraq and 9/11 was good enough.

I guess you didn't see yesterday's poll that said, "Nearly A Third Of Americans Still Believe Saddam Personally Involved In 9/11" even though that's a crock of shit.

As a matter of fact Ronald, there are people in the United States, at least according to this poll, that believe some of the hijackers WERE Iraqi.

The fact that ONE person thought the hijackers were Iraqi shows that they didn't need them to be.

I guess you knew that though, as smart as you claim to be.

___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

No Point

Neither of us knows for sure the exact time of Cheney's arrival. It is irrelevant. Your wholly fabricated conspiracy nonsense remains absurd.

What?

Ronald... according to the 9/11 Commission Report that you have so much confidence in, he arrived at 9:58am.

How can it be that "neither of us knows for sure the exact time of Cheney's arrival?"

Are you saying the 9/11 Commission lied to us?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Same Book

Yes, I have the same book. Let's try again: neither of us knows the exact time of Cheney's arrival. Quite possibly, the quoted time is correct. Neither of us will ever know.
You have no point to make.

But where...

Did the 9/11 Commission get their "quoted time?"
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

A Tough Time

This is deep stuff, and I may be going out on a limb, but I'll guess that someone looked at his watch.

You're funny...

Here's what the 9/11 Report said.

The Vice President remembered placing a call to the President just after entering the shelter conference room. There is conflicting evidence about when the Vice President arrived in the shelter conference room. We have concluded, from the available evidence, that the Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58. The Vice President recalled being told, just after his arrival, that the Air Force was trying to establish a combat air patrol over Washington.

What available evidence? Obviously, as you already pointed out, "neither of us knows for sure the exact time of Cheney's arrival." The 9/11 Report itself says that there is "conflicting evidence about when the Vice President arrived."

If the time that they used came from Cheney's "watch", why on Earth should we believe what Cheney has to say, especially considering the following:

Around 9:35 on the morning of 9/11, Cheney was lifted off his feet by the Secret Service and hustled into the White House bunker. Cheney testified to the 9/11 Commission that he spoke with President Bush before giving an order to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner that appeared headed toward Washington. (The plane was United Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field after a brave revolt by the passengers.) But a source close to the commission, who declined to be identified revealing sensitive information, says that none of the staffers who worked on this aspect of the investigation believed Cheney's version of events.

And the fact that he and his friends lied us into war, etc...

Why should we believe the acount of Cheney? Especially considering the fact that he wasn't under oath, not in public, not recorded, and not without George W. Bush?

___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

What a Mystery!

Ooh, gasp, maybe Cheney arrived at 9:57! Or, God forbid, 10:03!! Uh, surely there is a point to this, but you'll admit that it's well concealed.

The loony-left's Big Lie, cheerfully adopted by saner, cynical Democrats, about Bush and Cheney "lying" us into war has been exposed many times. The intelligence services of Russia, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, and our own CIA all believed that Saddam was in possession of WMD. Nobody, except Mark Ritter, who was paid $400,000 by Iraq, said otherwise. You want us to believe that Bush, sitting atop personal approval ratings in the seventies, invaded Iraq promising to find weapons that he KNEW weren't there. Maybe he counted on the Democrats in Congress and his pals in the media to give him a pass. Sure, politicians try to lose elections and water runs uphill. What preposterous humbug!

It Certainly Is...

And the "point" I'm trying to make Ronald, is that the Commission did not give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11 which was part of their mandate as a Commission. In fact, they did such a bad job, that in regards to something as important as Cheney's actions on 9/11, someone who was supposedly "taking charge" from said PEOC, we have anywhere from 9:10 and 9:58 as the time he arrived there.

I would like to put him on the stand Ronald and question him about his activities that day. If that's ok with you. I feel I, the families, and the entire world deserve a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks on 9/11.

Is that ok with you?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

No

No, wasting the Vice-President's time on a snipe hunt is a pointless exercise in ideologized grandstanding. Fixing the flaws in our national security apparatus requires a sense of purpose that the left, its collective head buried in the sand, lacks. Every measure proposed to thwart the jihadists is vigorously opposed by the left. I get the idea that leftists hate America, but what is supposed to happen to them if a dirty nuke gets detonated here? Maybe hating George Bush confers immunity against radiation poisoning?

Let's make sure...

We understand what you're saying "No" to...

I said,

I feel I, the families, and the entire world deserve a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks on 9/11.

Is that ok with you?

I omitted what I asked of Cheney because that would be expected in a new independent investigation, and doesn't need to be said.

Is that what you're saying no to? A real independent investigation that really does give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11?

I just want to be clear.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Since...

You're not answering the question, I'll assume that a "real independent investigation that really does give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11" is what you're saying "No" to.

Ronald "pomeroo" Wieck. You are a coward. If ignorance is bliss, you are probably the most blissful person I know.

I'm done wasting my time with a worthless troll.

Good day to you.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

No answer

Jon Gold,

Pomeroo is right and you are wrong. You have never backed up your claims and Pomeroo has been more than reasonable in giving you every opportunity.

You have been defeated by the truth Mr. Gold.

Who Investigates the Investigators?

Who could conduct a serious investigation that would pass muster with agenda-driven extremists? Over two hundred researchers at NIST worked for years to produce a comprehensive report, and fantasists, without discovering any errors, refuse to accept it. Hurling smears and accusing people of complicity in a heinous crime saves the trouble of examining the science. It also dispels any notion that you're serious about the truth.

Any investigation that found your fantastic and implausible charges to be groundless would be condemned as part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. You start from a dubious premise and cling to it despite all the evidence that contradicts it.

Who is qualified to conduct your ideal investigation? Marxist professors, theologians, and literary theorists? We'd have to exclude all the structural engineers, physicists, and demolition experts who reject your nonsense.

You don't really ask questions. You simply reject all inconvenient answers.

What's That?

If this is offensive to anybody, let me know, and I'll take it down.

"You don't really ask questions."

Such bliss... I envy you.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I Like It

You just gained a lot of points with me. Whatever I may think of your politics, that's a funny picture! Not bad, not bad at all.

You...

Just showed how little you understand the movement.

It's not about politics. It's about right and wrong, and unfortunately, you are well versed in wrong.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

It's about politics.

The 9/11 Truth Movement has always acted politically to achieve plotical ends, right or wrong.

If it was about right or wrong, then you would admit that there is no scientific evidence to back the claims of controlled demolition, no planes, or that Bush was responsible.

You are on record that you have no interest in the truth at all Mr. Gold.

Feeble

Why undermine your own position by posting such a feeble response? If this is what you've got, let's agree that your house of cards has collapsed. The bogus science you promote has been convincingly refuted. Your side has been caught in numerous lies. If it's a matter of right and wrong--and it is--your side is demonstrably wrong.
Of course, it's all political. The whole point of this nonsensical conspiracy theory is to smear the American government and give our fanatical jihadist foes a pass.

It's never ok.

It's never ok for you to make claims for which you have no evidence. You have claimed "9/11 was an inside job" but have never backed it up. You have claimed that the towers were "blown up" but you have presented no evidence. You have ignored the NIST investigation which you cannot refute.

You have given no credible reason why there need be another investigation to confirm what is already known.

You are only interested in your political ends Mr. Gold.

yeah

your'e right. it's never okay to makes claims for which you have no evidence: sorta like claiming Iraq had something to do with 9/11. if this were political, we would be hanging on Hillary's hemskirts and keeping out mouths shut. get real.

Waiting

Some day, we will find out who in the Bush administration actually claimed that Iraq had something to do with the jihadist attacks of 9-11. We've been waiting for years, and the suspicion grows that it's just another leftist canard.

"pomeroo" get a clue! Hey

"pomeroo" get a clue! Hey that rhymes lol. You do realise that your name is an anagram for "more poo", kind of appropriate seeming it's what you bring in each of your posts.

Dangerous Ground

You don't want to get me started on anagrams. I'm pretty good at word games.

One class act begets another

As the dust was settling...

Les Robertson served as the only standing spokesperson for the Architects of record. That's a shame, and I really doubt it looked good to Les' closest friends either...

Aside from being "an accessory to murder," Les is a wonderful guy with a golden reputation for fair-play. He's recognized by at least 8,000 people around the country for his work on superstructures, and any firm would be proud to have him onboard.

Were any of this a simple matter of 'truth,' or 'politics,' Mr. Robertson would have called me down for my claims years ago. After all, he's probably been responsible for about 25 of my favorite buildings, from NYC to LA. The conversation would go something like this: "Tom, I've worked for the Roth's for 26 years, while you worked there, like 2 fucking months. Who the hell are you to claim to be, (and I quote): "the sole spokesperson for the World's #1 Architectural firm?" -You're just a goddamn photographer!"

So?

Great buildings tend to attract a lot of attention, and there are zillions of choice details concerning the WTC that have gone completely un-touched by the research community. As with our daring Senators and Representatives, I can count on one hand, the names of ALL of the actual architects who have dared to broach the subject of 9/11. At least TWO of them were total fakes, with Zero mechanical engineering experience, and lots of marketing background. See, after the first 5, to 600 projects, we tend to read like-minded professionals just like an open-book. As you can see, I fear no one, and they certainly have nothing personal to fear from me. Each of us have a niche where we belong, and the creme-de-la creme always rises to the top! For instance, Andrew, (our humble resident Brit,) might be highly impressed to learn that I know Sir Richard Rodgers personally!

I won't lie and tell you that he thought very highly of my work. I also won't pretend to know the first thing about London, but, I guarantee that Sir Rhodes would be most impressed to hear what I have to say to Mssrs, Robertsoahn and Mme. Silverqueen, while I'm giving it to them hard, right up the proverbial arse!

I just want the assurance that Alex Jones will be present with his steady-cam for this historic coming show-down. There will come a trial, by judgement day! -Be there, or be square, baby!

-TS Gordon

Ps.: 'Lady Live', go find yourself a nice billboard and show us all you've got.