Debunking 9/11 Website Debunks Itself

Debunking 9/11 Website Debunks Itself
Middle school grammar, contradictory arguments befit proponents of the official conspiracy theory

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison | September 22 2006

A website which purports to disprove claims that there was government complicity in 9/11 and that the twin towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives is riddled with errors, middle school grammar and arguments that both defy common sense and contradict one another.

Since the 9/11 truth movement's success in attracting an increasing crescendo of positive media attention, a backlash of websites and videos have sprung up that attempt to reinvigorate faith in the official conspiracy theory of the government fairy tale - a yarn that has about as much basis in reality as Humpty Dumpty.

The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it."

The website is littered with misspellings, inaccurate terms and middle school level grammar.

As writers we all make the occasional typo but when an entire website is cluttered with jerky and difficult statements it betrays a certain lack of intelligence on the part of the author.

For example, the term "conspiracy theorist," in the singular is used throughout the website in phrases such as, "In every major event there are coincidences, false, poor record keeping and unconfirmed news reports which make it to the public. Conspiracy theorist live for this."

The author seems unable to grasp the concept of the plural.

"Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorist clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site?"

If a hall is filled one would presume the presence of more than one person.



hahahahahaha. Paul Joseph Watson is so underrated.

No wonder that jackass stays anonymous

The guy who started that site lost his mind after getting his ass kicked into the next universe on the physorg demolition debates.


Yup, and I'm proud to say

Yup, and I'm proud to say I'm one of those guys that did the ass-kicking. Have a read at

and you'll see my name in posts occasionaly throughout . I think you'll really enjoy the part where the gov't shills dance in circles trying to evade the issue of WTC 7's controlled demolition.

proof of explosions at wtc
the same guy, if you thought it was fake or altered...

and wtc7 explosions

Of course it's too easy to dismiss this as gas lines blowing up or something. Or a diesel tank for wtc7. As actual evidence of foul play it proves yes there were explosions but from what? The offical story allows for explosions by attributing it to other things than bombs, so now you get into this argument about the nature of the explosion itself and if such a blast sound is signature of natural gas or desil or only a high explosive.

Of course ask Willie Rodriguez where that explosion came from. I suppose a blast like this is what they were all talking about getting rocked by.

PJ should have charged this goon

a consulting fee.

One of Chi-towns widely read

One of Chi-towns widely read magazines has an incredibly EXCELLENT interview with Dr Griffin.

Hit 'em up with a thanks if you've got the time :)

Chavez also alluded to U.S.

Chavez also alluded to U.S. government complicity in 9/11, a subject he had raised in a previous speech.

"And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists."

If there was any doubt what Chavez was referring to here, it was washed away in Harlem as he further commented:

"To use arms with chemical weapons like they used in Fallujah, to kill all forms of life, to take planes filled with passengers and smash them into the towers ... the Twin Towers, that's barbarism," Chavez said.

based on this comment, it

based on this comment, it seems as if Chavez has moved on from thinking its possible that 9/11 was an inside job, to thinking its very likely. the media glossed over these comments and focusedon the "Bush is devil" stuff. big surprise.

Chavez and 9/11

Have you been able to find a

Have you been able to find a video of Chavez's speech? I've been looking but there seems to be some sort of blackout. If anyone's got it, thanks in advance!

Implosion world PDF and need some debunking

I think this website is one of the lower quality debunkingf sites out there. Paul watson should go after 911 (which has a lot more comprehensive info) and someone, probably steven jones or an explosives expert needs to debunk the PDF that implosionworld wrote recently. These are the new ammunition for the debunking community because the popular mechanics stuff isnt working for them anymore. The implosion world piece seems fairly credible, but id love to see an expert tear it to shreds.

"Stop giving attention to the "no plane theory" disinfo agents like Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, Shayler, killtown, CB_Brooklyn, webfairy, Holmgren, and others who are sabotaging this movement, either by sheer stupidity or intentionally." - V for Vendetta

""no plane theory" disinfo agents like...killtown"

Whoever believes that I'm a disinfo agent is a complete and utter moron.

I'll vouch for that

You did a lot of great work!

Thanks, man.

You are making the movement

You are making the movement look absurd with your no plane theories. Maybe you're right, but I highly doubt it. Making the rest of us look like kookies.

Ok Mr. "Anonymous"

Whatever you say.

I agree. I've already

I agree. I've already caught heat from people I've tried to talk to about 911. Many immediately ask me if I'm a "no planer". Drop that stuff for now. You're shooting the movement in the foot with that stuff. How many people are actually going to let a person go through a huge crazy explanation of "no plane" when we have a hard enough time getting them to look at anything. The "no plane" stuff ultimately does the movement more harm than good. If you want to believe that then fine. Just keep that info amongst fellow truthers and don't try and convince people of that.

Killtown, if you're good enough to be able to put together a magnificant site like you have then surely you're rational enough to realize the "no plane" thing in NO WAY furthers our cause. If what you say is true then it will come out in the end.

You guys aren't

You guys aren't "no-planers;" you're "no-brainers."

LOL. So your real life name

LOL. So your real life name is killtown?

You fucking retards are funny.

Look, everyone! My retarded

Look, everyone! My retarded mother named me Killtown.


The no-planers are not disinfo agents (there aren't any). They're simply the nuttiest nuts.

The Problem

The problem is that Steven Jones is a crackpot and no explosives expert takes the controlled-demolition nonsense seriously.

There is a rebuttal to Implosionworld's PDF

Jim Hoffman has posted the first draft of his rebuttal here

It's pretty good for a first draft. I recommned it.

Task for Hoffman

When do you suppose Hoffman will get around to debunking Dr. Greening's devastating critique of his pseudo-science? I was planning to ask Hoffman about that on "Hardfire" but he ducked out at the last minute.

I'm not familiar

I'm not familiar enough with the "no plane" theory to argue one way or another, but I will say this; my wife, her sister and I were on the Brooklyn/Queens Expressway, right across from lower Manhattan, and we all 3 saw the second plane make the hard bank and connect with WTC 2.

Now was that supposed to be a hologram according to these guys?
They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:

That's a good question. Did

That's a good question.

Did he know you were going to ask him about Greening's paper?

Did he say why he couldn't appear on your show?

Is Greening's paper peer reviewed?

What is it specifically about Greening's paper that you find so "devastating"?

I take it you are a libertarian. I find it odd that you seem so enthusiastic about the Bush/government version of 9/11.
I thought a libertarian would be unlikely to accept, never mind defend, the official government line about anything. Never mind an event in which the government may well be culpable for mass murder.

Why do you trust your government?

Do you find it odd that the government got to take charge in the investigation of 9/11 and in the process rule itself out as a suspect?

Why did Bush rule out an independent investigation if he had nothing to hide?

Do you find it odd that a mere pittance - a few million - was expended on the Bush investigation of 9/11, an event in which 2800 people died, thousands mor injured while some 60 million was spent on Clinton's (alleged) criminalities - criminalities involving no deaths?


"That's a good question.

Did he know you were going to ask him about Greening's paper?"

I suspect he was tipped off by a conspiracy fantasist on a libertarian discussion forum, but I can't be sure. I could be wrong.

"Did he say why he couldn't appear on your show?"

No, and he was unwilling to commit to another booking.

"Is Greening's paper peer reviewed?"

I don't believe it has been submitted yet. I'll ask Dr. Greening.

"What is it specifically about Greening's paper that you find so "devastating"?

In addition to correcting Hoffman's math, Greening catches him making unwarranted assumptions to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"I take it you are a libertarian. I find it odd that you seem so enthusiastic about the Bush/government version of 9/11."

I'm not really a libertarian. I'm more a traditional conservative with libertarian views on various social issues, particularly those concerning victimless crimes.

"I thought a libertarian would be unlikely to accept, never mind defend, the official government line about anything. Never mind an event in which the government may well be culpable for mass murder."

The so-called official government line is a body of knowledge arrived at independently by agencies such as NIST and FEMA along with a huge assortment of independent researchers.

It is wildly implausible that the government is culpable in a mass murder obviously perpetrated by determined, well-prepared enemies of America.

"Why do you trust your government?"

I don't. Nobody has cast any serious doubts on the findings of NIST. What grounds do I have for calling their work into question?

"Do you find it odd that the government got to take charge in the investigation of 9/11 and in the process rule itself out as a suspect?"

Nobody in his right mind ruled the government IN as a suspect after Islamic terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. The government came under withering, and justified, criticism for its manifest failure to prevent the attacks. There is plenty of blame to go around without fantastic conspiracy theories.

"Why did Bush rule out an independent investigation if he had nothing to hide?"

Independent investigations have a way of turning into ideological witch hunts. Let's find the problems and fix them, but nobody needs a bunch of partisan Democrats seeking to score cheap points by minimizing their own party's role in the disaster.

"Do you find it odd that a mere pittance - a few million - was expended on the Bush investigation of 9/11, an event in which 2800 people died, thousands mor injured while some 60 million was spent on Clinton's (alleged) criminalities - criminalities involving no deaths?"

But what about the money spent by FEMA? By NIST? Doesn't that count? NIST has released thousands of pages of material relating to their investigation. It's all available to the public.

Hi Pomeroo

Thanks for your reply.

Greening's been exchanging responses with Gordon Ross. Ross has yet to receive a reply from Greening to his latest response to him:

You still haven't told me what it is specifically about Greening's paper you find so "devastating". Vague, unproven assertions about incorrect math and "unwarranted assumptions to create a self-fulfilling prophecy" prove very little.

NIST and FEMA are hardly independent or impartial for that matter. Saying they arrived at their conclusions doesn't make it so.
NIST is a federal agency within the U.S. government. They are hardly going to produce anything incriminating of Bush and co. Bush is their boss.
That alone is grounds enough to call NIST's work into question.

Not to mention the fact that Bush/Giuliani had almost all the evidence shipped overseas before it could be examined as evidence in a crime scene always is.

It should be obvious than an independent agency or individuals with full subpoena power and a budget at least as big as the one Ken Starr was given, should be put in place to investigate 9/11.
If Bush and co. are really interested in a proper search for the truth of 9/11 they will set up a credible agency or team immediately and let them get on with it.

As for the independent researchers you cite, it's true that there are a number of them. They are balanced by the many independent researchers and former government officials who question the Bush version of 9/11.
Apologists of the Bush version have to account for the failure of the NIST and the Building Performance Assessment Team to convince an ever increasing percentage of the public, both foreign and domestic, that the Bush version of 9/1 is true.
Saying we're crazy doesn't help you. At least not in the long run. It never worked with me.

What proof do you have that independent investigations turn into ideological witch hunts? Ken Starr was thorough but I wouldn't call his investigation a witch hunt. I never really felt the democrats proved Ken Starr was doing anything but his duty. Given the obvious corruption and deceit of the Clinton White House, Ken Starr's investigation was bound to be long and involved.

As for partisan democrats forming the substance of the investigatory body, it was you who claimed that. Not me. Why not make it non-partisan? Why not make it an international team? Why not work to come up with an investigatory body that is competent and fair? If there's a will, there's a way and it would be a lot better than the inadequate investigations we've had now.

NIST and FEMA are hardly independent. Open you eyes man. NIST is an agency of the federal government. They answer to Bush. How can they possibly be expected to impartially investigate their boss or conduct an investigation that might lead to their boss?

FEMA is also an agency of the federal government also answerable to Bush and co. Again, it's unlikely they are going to come up with anything that incriminates their boss(es).
FEMA was tasked with the investigation and created the Building Performance Assessment Team. But it had no subpoena power. Why?
What is the point of carrying out an investigation that is not subpeona empowered?

What was need obviously was a truly independent, maybe international, team of investigators. Remember non-Americans were killed too. The team should be answerable to an independent tribunal perhaps set up at The Hague.

Why is it "wildly implausible" that the US government would perpetrate 9/11? You have to tell me why. Saying it doesn't make it so.
The US government had the means, had the motive.
They had the apparatrus of the key agencies - NORAD, the FAA, CIA, FBI and INS - at their disposal. BUSH and co. could tel them to do exactly what they wanted them to do.
Bin Laden had nothing but 19 guys with box cutters and had achieved no penetration into the agencies that failed prior to and on 9/11. None. He needed all of them to fail and that's what he got.
If he did why hasn't Bush and co, said so?

Bin Laden said he didn't do it. The FBI says they have no hard evidence to implicate Bin Laden in 9/11. When the US asked Pakistan to hand Bin Laden over Pakistan refused saying "prove he did it and we will turn him over to you”. The US gave no proof. The US still gives no proof that Bin Laden did it. Russert asked Powell when Bush was going to produce proof that Bin Laden did it. Powell said it would be about 3 weeks. 3 weeks came and went and no proof was forthcoming. Finally, Bush said they weren't going to give any proof. None. To this day we're still waiting for more than "Bush said so" to know for sure that Bin Laden did it.
Some of the Bin Laden tapes are obvious fakes.
Some of the hijackers are still alive. Their names weren't on the passenger lists. No arab names are on the passenger lists.
The 9/11 commission offered no proof that they even had box cutters. Although Davin from Popular Mechanics tried to say their DNA had been found at Ground Zero, the FBI has yet to positively identify any of the hijackers by DNA.
Please note too the silly story of how they found the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam. No one has yet to tell us how these passports survived the explosions, fireballs, additional fires and the collapse of the WTC.
How did the story come out that the hijackers were armed with box cutters? Where's the proof?

Why did the families of the victims of 9/11 have to fight like dogs for months to get Bush and co. to finally agree to the formation of the 9/11 commission? Why did they have to fight further still to get it subpeona power? Subpeona power it hardly used.

Why did the 9/11 commission, the definitive government investigation into 9/11, make no, repeat no, mention of the WTC 7 collapse?

Where are all transcripts from Air Traffic Control? Where are all logs and records from the FAA?

Where are the "black boxes" and the transcripts from all four crash sites? Why has the FBI not invited the NTSB into the investigation?

Why did Coni Rice say no one could have imagined anyone flying planes into buildings when in 2004, USA Today reported that NORAD ran drills in the two years preceding the attack in which simulated hijacked jetliners were crashed into targets including the World Trade Center.
There were also warnings prior to 9/11 that a 9/11 could or would happen.
Why did Condi Rice lie?

Why was the U.S., the world's greatest power, technologically, militarily and on almost any other index, so utterly unprepared for an attack on its soil?
The alleged hijackers employed no technology other than alleged boxcutters but were somehow able to score a 100% success ratio in their evasion of US and other nations' intelligence in their preparation for their (alleged) attacks in the years prior to 9/11, securing tickets undetected, boarding the planes completely undetected, scored a 75% success ration in their attmepts to commandeer the planes and scored a 75% success ratio in flying the planes into their intended targets with no, repeat no, interference from any US defence agencies.

Do you see why we question Bush's version of 9/11 and its defenders' attempts to rationalize it?

Greening's Critique of Hoffman

Here is Dr. Greening's paper on Jim Hoffman's article, "The North Tower's Dust Cloud." Some of you may have been unable to locate it or unwilling to make the effort.

The following material is intended to address a number of points that have
been raised concerning the material presented in F. Greening’s report Energy Transfer
in the WTC Collapse, issued March 1 2005. Most importantly, the December 2003
article by J. Hoffman entitled: “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud” is reviewed and
shown to be invalid.
J. Hoffman’s Expanding Dust Cloud Calculation
J. Hoffman, in his paper “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud”, argues that among
the energy sources and sinks involved in the WTC collapse events, the energy needed
to expand the dust cloud is by far the largest. I intend to show that while the
expansion energy in question is indeed significant, it is much smaller than Mr.
Hoffman’s estimate of 1012 to 1013 Joules.
On page 2 of “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud” article Mr. Hoffman makes a
statement that is an essential ingredient of his calculation but which, I believe, is
invalid. The statement, which I will call statement No. 1, reads:
Statement No 1
“Given that the Twin Towers’ dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic flows, ….. ,
it is doubtful that mixing with ambient air accounted for a significant fraction of their
On page 3 of his article Mr. Hoffman asserts that heat energy must have been
the driving force behind the dust cloud expansion and asks:
Statement No 2
“How did the mixing of the dust cloud with ambient air contribute to its size,
and how can this be factored out to obtain the volume occupied by gases and
suspended materials originally inside the building?’
Finally, on page 4, we read two additional statements on the same theme:
Statement No 4
“It appears that for at least a minute, the dust cloud behaved as a separate
fluid from the ambient air, maintaining a distinct boundary.”
Statement No 5
“The WTC clouds inexorably advanced down the streets at around 25 mph.
This is far faster than can be explained by mixing and diffusion.”
Based on these five statements, Mr. Hoffman concludes without proof,
that all the gas and dust in each dust cloud originated from inside the appropriate
WTC Tower. While it is self evident that all the solid material making up a dust cloud
was expelled from one Twin Tower, it is totally unreasonable to assume that all the
gas in a dust cloud came from within a Tower. But this is what Mr. Hoffman tacitly
does when he calculates his “expansion ratio” of 3.41, (See page 5 of his article). For
this expansion ratio, Mr. Hoffman concludes (via the Gas Law V2/V1 = T2/T1) that the
temperature of the dust cloud was over 700 C! Mr. Hoffman now proceeds to
calculate the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of the gas (air) and the dust
by 700 C and arrives at a value of 1.44  1012 Joules for the air and 4.06  1013
Joules for the concrete dust. The reporter mentioned by Mr. Hoffman, who found
himself inside the dust cloud produced by the collapse of the South Tower, would
surely have roasted to death after a few seconds in a 700 C dust cloud!
The problem with Mr. Hoffman’s analysis is that he treats the dust and the gas
in the WTC debris clouds in essentially the same way. This might have some validity
for an explosion, where the ejection velocities are in the 1000 m/s range, but not for
the relatively slow expansion of the dust cloud that was actually observed. The
expansion of the dust and gas from the WTC collapse was not caused by detonation
accompanied by rapid heating but by the piston-like action of each collapsing floor.
So, how fast was the expansion of the dust cloud? Mr. Hoffman states that the
dust cloud advanced at an average horizontal velocity of only about 10 m/s
immediately after a tower collapse. From Section 6.0 of my report it was estimated
that dust was expelled from the upper floors of a collapsing tower at a velocity ~ 20
m/s. The rate of expansion of the dust was subsequently retarded by air resistance, so
Mr. Hoffman’s average velocity of 10 m/s over the first minute of expansion is
reasonable. For dust ejected from upper floors, say 300 meters above the ground, a
vertical settling velocity of about 5 m/s is also quite reasonable for 60 m particles.
Thus dust formed at 300 m moving at 10 m/s would settle out after about one minute
at a distance more than ½ kilometer from the base of the tower, a trajectory which is
consistent with the extent of dust dispersion observed.
Let us now consider the energy imparted to the ejected concrete dust. Each
tower contained an estimated 48,000,000 kg of concrete. We will assume that 10 % of
the concrete, or 4,800,000 kg, was ejected as dust. For an ejection velocity of 20 m/s
the kinetic energy imparted to the dust is ½  4,800,000  (20)2 J = 9.6  108 J per
tower, or 8.7  106 J per floor. This is much less than the energy needed to collapse
the support structure of one floor = 0.6  109 J, (See Table 1 of my report).
We may also calculate the energy imparted to the gas that was expelled from
the collapse of one floor. Ignoring furniture and other office fixtures, the volume of
air expelled per floor was about 10,000 m3. This has an approximate mass of 12,000
kg at normal temperature and pressure. For an ejection velocity of 20 m/s this air
carries away only ½  12,000  (20)2 J = 2.4  106 J of kinetic energy per floor.
We may, of course, repeat these calculations for the higher ejection velocities
estimated for the collapse of the lower WTC floors, but the energy dissipated by the
ejected dust and gas will always be small compared to the energy available from the
conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy of collapse.
Additional Issues
The question has been raised as to how concrete sitting in metal pans on each
WTC floor could have been pulverized and dispersed. In answer to this question I
note that in the calculations given above I assume that only 10 % of the concrete was
dispersed as a fine dust. This may appear to be not enough material to account for the
vast clouds of swirling dust that were observed for each WTC tower collapse;
however, I would argue otherwise. First, concrete was not the only component of the
dust. Crushed gypsum wallboard, glass fiber and asbestos insulation were also found
in significant quantities in the dust fallout. But let’s consider what 10 % of the
concrete in one WTC tower represents. It is almost 5 million kilograms of material.
Spread over an area of radius 1 km it provides a surface coverage of
4,800,000/3,141,590 kg/m2 = 1.5 kg/m2. If we assume a density for the WTC concrete
of 1500 kg/m3, we have a layer of concrete dust 1 mm thick over an area of more than
3 km2. This, I believe, is close to what was observed after the events of 911.
I would add that 10 % of the concrete from each floor represents less than ½-
inch thickness of the 4-inch layer poured to form each WTC floor. I would also
suggest that the 50,000+ tonnes of material constituting the weight of the falling block
of floors would be more than enough to pulverize and disperse a ½-inch layer of
concrete from each impacted floor. The remaining 3-½ inches of concrete would also
be partially pulverized and wind up buried in the rubble pile that formed at ground
March 10th 2005: Additional Comments
1. First, I have explained what I believe to be wrong with Jim
Hoffman’s dust cloud theory in my addendum above. However, let
me say again, Mr. Hoffman ‘s calculation is flawed by his
assumption that the air in the WTC expanded to the size of the dust
cloud. To be honest I find this idea to be a little ridiculous for the
relatively slowly expanding WTC clouds, and something of a selffulfilling
prophecy! In order to explain how the air in a WTC tower
was expanded by a factor of 3.41, Mr. Hoffman simply invokes an
enormous heat input – one that he shows could not be delivered by
gravitational collapse; therefore it must be recognized that the need
for explosives is pretty much built into Mr. Hoffman’s calculation
by his unwarranted and unphysical assumptions.
2. On the question of references for the fracture energy of concrete I
used a number of sources, especially articles in the journal Materials
and Structures. Some good examples are:
A. Hillerborg. “Results of Three Comparative Test Series for
Determining the Fracture Energy Gf of Concrete” Materiaux et
Constructions (Materials and Structures) Vol 18, No. 107, 407,
F.H. Wittmann et. al “Probabilistic Aspects of Fracture Energy of
Concrete” Materials and Structures 27, 99, (1994)
3. On my estimation of the energy needed to collapse one floor, E1, I
agree that the value I use is not precisely known, but I show in my
report that this is not a serious issue because the collapse time is
insensitive to the assumed value of E1 over a wide range.
4. I agree that the crushing of concrete takes time and this should be
included in my calculation. However, a look at the physics of this
issue leads to the conclusion that the crushing of each floor was
extremely rapid and the time involved may be neglected as a first,
(and very good!), approximation. The impact of a rigid mass on a
hard solid object produces a longitudinal compression wave that is
reflected back and forth inside the object, dissipating energy. If the
energy is large enough, and the object is brittle, the object will
fracture. This type of destructive collision is discussed in detail in W.
Johnson’s book Impact Strength of Materials. It is also well studied
in the theory of pile driving – see for example E. A. Smith Pile
Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation in American Society of Civil
Engineers Vol. 127, 1145 (1962). A key fact about the impact of
objects made of hard materials such as concrete is that the effective
duration of the impact is very short because a longitudinal
compression wave travels at about 3000 m/s in concrete. Studies by
B. P. Hughes et. al of the impact strength of concrete using a
ballistic pendulum ( See Proceedings of the Inst. Civil Eng. Vol. 41,
731 (1968)), show that a 4 inch block of concrete struck by a 25 lb
gravity-driven hammer fractures from an impact that lasts about 0.4
milliseconds. At a descent velocity of, say, 10 m/s, the falling block
of WTC floors would traverse 4 inches (or ~10 cm) in 10
milliseconds. Thus I conclude that inclusion in my calculation of the
time spent in crushing a 4 inch layer of concrete would add no more
than 1 millisecond per crushed floor, or increase the calculated total
collapse time of a Twin Tower by only about 0.1 seconds!
5. Finally, let me say that although I have not done any calculations
for other WTC structures, the collapse of WTC 7 is a problem! I say
this mainly because WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft; therefore I
admit it is very surprising that this high-rise building should have
collapsed without being subject to an aircraft impact.

Cheap Shot

All of my statements are honest, which is more than can be said of your side. Dr. Greening regards the fantasists' myth concerning the use of explosives as nonsense. He has not satisfied himself with the exact mechanism of WTC 7's collapse.


Your reply contains too many errors, too much uncritical acceptance of debunked falsehoods, to allow a productive discussion.

Stating that FEMA and NIST are government agencies serves no purpose. Are you claiming that NIST employed over two hundred researchers, spent several years examining evidence and hammering out conclusions, released thousands of pages of material to the public, and it's all fiction? Do you see how preposterous that notion is? Wouldn't some independent physicist or structural engineer SOMEWHERE point out the flaws? Did NIST construct an entire alternate universe in which physical laws function to accommodate a prearranged outcome? NIST's findings are based on what happened on THIS planet. They make use of evidence gathered at the ACTUAL scene of the attacks. The fantasists simply fabricate whatever they require to advance their bogus thesis. NIST was constrained by reality.

It is a canard that evidence was removed before it could be examined. The last fires were put out several months after the attacks. Steel from the WTC was stored in New Jersey for years. NIST has stated that they had at their disposal all the materials they required for their tests.

NIST does not "answer" to Bush in any coherent sense. Mike Newman of NIST has been patient enough to answer my questions about the technical nature of the agency's work. I asked him why he or one of his colleagues doesn't debate the fantasists and lay to rest the dishonest charges. He replied that the job of the agency is to explain why buildings fall down. He, along with everyone else at NIST who worked on the WTC project, believes that they have done that thoroughly and they will allow the work to speak for itself. As he says, if our conclusions are inconvenient to someone's politics, that's not our problem.

You repeat the canard about boxcutters. But the hijackers used knives. Only on Flight 77 were boxcutters, together with knives, used.

The hijackers, not the government, had motive and means. The government's "motive" for killing almost three thousand citizens and plunging the economy into a recession has never made the slightest bit of sense. It's a shaggy-dog story that stumbles on endlessly without ever reaching a punchline.
They did it to get into a war with Afghanistan. For what purpose?
To build a gas pipeline for Unocal. No, that plan was shelved during the Clinton administration. For reasons that are impossible to comprehend, building a pipeline and bringing wealth to an impoverished region of the world is supposed to be bad thing. Will someone kindly explain why?
They did it to get into a war with Iraq. Why didn't they make A SINGLE ONE of the imaginary hijackers an Iraqi? Why, after successfully toppling the Taliban and achieving astronomical personal approval ratings, did Bush almost blow his re-election by promising to find weapons he knew weren't there?

You claim, based on nothing, that some of the bin Laden tapes are "obvious fakes." Which ones? The fantasy movement was caught in another Big Lie when it offered still photos from the so-called confession tape. Bin Laden, his head tilted back and his cheeks crinkled, appears to have a smaller nose than the one we associate with him. This, the argument went, proves that an actor is impersonating him. Leaving aside obvious questions about why an actor more closely resembling bin Laden wasn't employed, if you actually view the entire video, you see immediately that it sure as hell looks like Osama, tall and long-nosed.

The recently aired tape of bin Laden talking to some of the hijackers so obviously shows the real bin Laden that even the fantasists recognize the hopelessness of pretending that it's not the man himself. Maybe virulently anti-American al Jazeera is part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Maybe the CIA makes videos to encourage our enemies and inflame popular sentiment against us. When you start entertaining such thoughts seriously, it's time to lie down and rest.

Fantasists don't care about logs and transcripts. Everything that is released is instantly branded a lie. Obscenely, the fantasists have falsely alleged that final conversations between passengers on the doomed flights and loved ones on the ground were faked (faked HOW, exactly?). Several newspapers printed diagrams showing the hijackers' seating positions, information obtained from passenger manifests. Fantasists have long been lying about a CNN list that does not contain the hijackers' names, pretending that it is a full passenger manifest. CNN explained that the list contained the names of VICTIMS, which would exclude the perpetrators. The fantasists are once again reduced to denying reality.

You ask for evidence, but there is nothing that you will accept unless it supports your implausible thesis--and no evidence of that sort exists.

You brand a story that is terribly inconvenient to your fantasy as "silly." Yes, thousands and thousands of body parts, scraps of paper, wallets, and other personal effects survived the crashes. Investigators have always stated that it is impossible to predict what will survive an explosion or a fire. If you're going to plant evidence, why not make it unchallengeable? I love the idea that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy planted a passport to identify someone they had indentified by other means, but they neglected to plant WMD in Iraq when Bush's political future hung in the balance. Yeah, that's plausible.

You don't question a mythical "official" version of the jihadist attacks. You question the conclusions reached by hundreds, if not thousands, of physicists, structural engineers, demolition experts, avionics techs, and military personnel.

Yeah, and maybe this time he

Yeah, and maybe this time he can attack the evidence and not the author.

You guys are fucking retards man.

Great 8 Minute Film on 9/11 - Illuminati

Sometimes I have trouble getting people to watch an hour or longer movie, but most people I email this to always watch it -- They still think I'm crazy but at least I'm messin with them

In this short film,

The clip shot in a helicopter, next to the towers, 13 months before 9/11, what is that all about?

Where does that clip come from?

It looks like a rocket is being fired out of one of the towers.

Any further explanation?

Look at clip beginning at 5:26 into this film

It appears that a rocket launched from on of the towers was captured on film 13 months before 9/11.

Watch it, it's bizarre.

Any explanations?

Further explanation? As a

Further explanation? As a matter of fact, yeah.

You're a fucking retard.

There. Doesn't that clear everything up nice and tidy?

oops its this link

Debunking Clowns

The folks in the debunker forums (so-called) are all too willing to label the founders of ST911 and all of the credentialed members- "lunatics." They are willing to spew sarcastic remarks and write with their typical patronizing style, like the drooling (rather dribbling) attack dogs that they are in perpetuity.

However, ask them about their identities and credentials. What do you get...I can hear the sounds of crickets and frogs chirping in the summer night air...Silence!!!...They do not even address the issue...Ah, but this continues on the debunking thread...Thank you...

This is quite telling...Trust me...These heathens will curse, spit, and rail epithets against HardEvidence and Jim Fetzer, but will shut their collective mouths when asked to identify the creator of a Debunking site, although they have admitted that they know the identities.

Furthermore, Quote from Debunking911Conspiracies--just to remind you what they said:
Debunking clowns: I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is the a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further.
Update: The debunking site has updated their posting regarding thermite in light of the new discovery. Here is what they
Debunking clowns: The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole...Then there is the a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology".
My response: A linear cutting device was actually manufactured and tested years ago. More than one thermite cutting apparatus may be joined or "ganged" together to form a "unitary cutting apparatus, which is capable of performing an extended, linear cutting action on a target material."

From a related patent: "The method also employs an energy source for generating a high temperature. HIGH VELOCITY CUTTING FLAME OR JET, SUCH AS BY EMPLOYING A THERMITE CHARGE."

I've been looking into these guys. A couple links. Very odd!!!

This is really far out. Check this. We protested at the debut of United 93 in NYC, and the anti-loose change crew was there handing our flyers attacking the movement. We saw one of the same people at the GZ - 9/11/06 rally. I got really curious, and started looking into it. First of all, I found a picture of the guy, his name is Mark, at Flickr.

It turns out that the anti-9/11 folks took lots of pictures that day, and put them up at Flickr with really negative tag lines. You can look at all of them here.

Later doing a search for these people online I found this forum post.

It is written by Gravy 2004, who also posted pictures to Flickr. Notice the website where the comment is posted. The James Randi Educational Foundation. Skeptics? More like an obvioius CIA front. James Randi has been debunking pseudo-science for the last 40 years, writing dozens of books about ghosts, big foot, and and UFOs. That in itself is no problem. But it is apparent that his intention is only to debunk popular myths, and not to question any institutional deceptions. He promotes a mainstream version of skepticsm that allows its followers to feel insightful, and yet safe. No paradigm shift required.

Now here's the catch, and I mean no disrespect, but am only relating what I read at Wikipedia. William Rodriguez used to work very closely with James Randi. Rodriguez was specifically adept at making himself welcome in a community to be debunked with the intention of researching is weaknesses from within. I really don't know what to say. I wonder what Rodriguez has to say about his old mentor.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I honestly don't believe that these people could claim to be skeptical and generate such a pile of weak analysis. This effort appears to have emerged very recently, with many sites popping up at once in a coordinated attack. I suppose that its possible that they are just serious mainstream history and science nerds. But their work is not nearly academic enough to suggest a seriously skeptical approach. I suspect something a bit more nefarious.

Let's all keep our eyes on these guys, and start tearing down their crappy science. Let's tear down some of our crappy science while we're at it. TRUTH!!!

International Truth Movement

I concur

the Randi Forums appear to be the friggin' Shill HQ of the internet. It's pretty disgusting.

Not sure about Rodriguez, though.

You're a fucking shortbrain.

You're a fucking shortbrain.

That is completely bizarre

I totally forgot about Randi/Rodriguez connection.

I e mailed this scumbag

These damn left gatekeepers will never learn, they hate Bush and will say he lied about Iraq, but when it comes to 9/11 there in the fetal position groveling and licking his boots like he's some sort of super god, same with the 9/11 cover up comission

Non-use of plurals is now

Non-use of plurals is now officially a linguistic epidemic, following Larry Silverstein's referring to a contingent of fire fighters as "it."

Expert agree, it must ask ourself these question.

He wasn't referring to the

He wasn't referring to the firefighters you comprehension deficient fuck.

everything can be disputed

Remember the principle "everything can be disputed". This is what the debunking sites go after. They're like a defense lawyer for the 9/11 conspirators, twisting the truth here, omitting it there, until their desired end result of Bushco innocence comes out.
Problem is, if you want to find the real criminals in this or in any other case, you have to search for him systematically and ask who is more likely to have done it, what is more likely to have happened. And likelyhood can not be disputed, only pretended to be different by corrupt judges and organisations like our news media.

9/11 debunkers claiming they are liberals

I love all these so called "9/11 debunkers". Most of them claim to be "very liberal" like this guy does and some of you might know "robert the liberal" at Randi Rhoads Forum who claims, as his ID suggests, that he's a liberal. However if you ever have debated with these guys, they debate not as you would think the average liberal debates, but like the average neo-con debates! Their debating techniques include heavy use of immature name calling, mocking, and other typical insulting language, much like your average pro-official 9/11 story Bush loving neo-con person would do!

With this "9/11 debunking" person, all you have to do is look at their blog avatar. You'll see how he mocks my blog avatar buy changing the phrase "Quiet! Know your place, shut your face!" to "Slap! Stop lying bitch!". Hmmm. Not the kind of thing you would think a "very liberal and proud of it" person would normally do, huh?

Just looked at those.

I'd say that's a back-handed compliment. He wouldn't bother to mock if he didn't think you and your work were important.


Hey Kill - fortunately for him, you don't have to disclose if the "permanent disability" is mental. : )

Did you catch the MM thread where he referred to both you and I as "malicious ass bags"? It was classic.

"a hall filled with conspiracy theorist"

Maybe if the conspiracy theorist was a really large person...


with laptop in public place... embarrassing. (Not really.)

My guess is that this person may forget the final "s" in "conspiracists" because he cannot hear it in speech, or can't pronounce it. No idea about the other lapses, though.

dylan avery & jack blood

I have to say that reading parts of the interview left me very cold because I don't know how you can joke about what might have happened on the planes that went down knowing that family members are going to hear this. If we knew what happened to those people on the planes, Flight 93 . . . I have not heard ANY theory expressed about what happened to that flight or where it ACTUALLY ended up.

(If someone has something substantial to share with me on this, please share. I'm ignorant about a lot of things in this movement except for the WTC aspect

I'm not saying it's OUR job to come up with all the answers. It's the government's job to have a bona fide investigation, not a Report Card. But not knowing, I cannot make jokes about what happened on the planes, even IF the government's story is ludicrous.

I mean, shit, I don't know, if somebody came at me with a box cutter on a plane, how would I react. I mean, to me, a plane is a totally different type of environment and none of us expect to be accosted on a flight. (Let's face it, even now, with the recent UK bomb plot silliness, do you know of anyone who does "self-defense on flights" training because he/she is grappling with how to handle a terrorist on a plane?)

I'm not saying I believe the government's version by any stretch but , hell, I'd probably freak. I just don't know what I'd do in a situation like that and I feel sorry for the families who might be imagining what their loved ones went through. Since, after all, in the end, they went to their deaths in an unknowable but likely horrific manner, in unknown place, their bodies are in the ether of "uncharted" and forgotten.

So it's very sad, very sad indeed and we don't want to do this sort of thing if we want to be listened to. It's hard enough to get decent coverage to begin with!

Still, Godspeed 911 truth movement. It is vital to the survival of our democracy.


Dylan Avery's film says nothing about what happened to Flight 93 - where it might have gone, what might have happened to the victims. I found the fact that this was not even addressed rather disturbing. I feel he could have at least commented on the LACK of evidence about where it might have gone, if that is indeed the case.

To me, aside from the "faked phone calls" theory, this was the biggest flaw of the film. Although, of course, I got some great information from it as well. I don't want to be overly critical but better presentations make for a larger and more receptive audience.

PS - Why would he want to

PS - Why would he want to "speculate" about what might have happened. In my opinion, speculation is where the movement needs not go. Trying to answer the unanswerable is a major turnoff.


if you will note, I never used the term "speculate" - i used the term comment - please do not imply that i believe the "movement" needs to move towards speculation because that is indeed NOT what i feel - i am critiquing a film that has gotten a good deal of press and is also being attacked

i don't think it's unreasonable for the viewer to be left with a nawing question about this Flight 93 issue, wanting the documentarian to provide information as to whether or he checked into the issue and what he did or did not find. it lends credibility to the film to do this. E.G., what where his findings as to the government's explanation of why there was "no blood" - this was a remarkable statement made by the coroner - does the government have any comment?

Response to De-Bunker Debunked

Hello odd individual from,

If I could make sense of your claims about which conspiracy you stand behind I'd be better prepared to either support you or not. Be that as it may, let me address the only clear point your website appears to make: A NEW INVESTIGATION IS NOT WORTH THE MONEY. On that point alone, you will not find the amount of people needed for general consensus on whether opening a new investigation is worth it or not. The amount of money for the investigation is pittance compared to the money misspent on Iraq. And with the CEO of Halliburton making a 100,000,000 bonus in one year, his annual profit from the war, you better believe John Q Public is going to take his share from the Treasury Fund to investigate the mass murder of nearly 3000 fellow citizens.

I understand you are one of the conspiracy theorists who believe the radical version:Bin-Laden-in-a-Cave-and-Fire-Disintegrates-Steel-Superstructure-in-10 seconds Theory. That theory sounds as extreme and nonsensical as those other conspiracy theorists who claim Bush Planned It All, or, UFO's Orchestrated the Attacks. Furthermore, you don't need a theory to warrant an investigation, just clues and evidence. Even a kid reading Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew will know that. There is a swelling public interest in an 911 investigation because there was a mass murder in our country and nothing substantial has been done to find the culprits. The FBI has stated they have no evidence Bin Laden is responsible for 911; he's not even on the Top Ten Most Wanted list. An investigation will provide answers to a pile of questions reaching mountainous proportions. Preventing this information from reaching the public is futile, a full third of us already know plenty. Lastly, the public has nothing to lose in opening an investigation, it can only yeild a conclusion which will enable the country to move forward one way or another. The odd thing is anyone standing in the way of an investigation, as you appear to be doing, they come off as defensive. So tell us, who are you defending by trying to obstruct an investigation into a mass murder of 3000 American citizens.

UFO theory for GREENBACK.

Hey Greenback

You made very good points but too many theories will cause many to "be confused" which is part of the current plan of dis-information.

The UFO theory is no good. If you study the links at this blog you will see another picture of why UFOs were present when 9-11 occurred. If you have ever heard of the "Eye in the Sky" or "Watchers" from ancient history you might get an idea.

Those events on 9-11 were being watched just like other previous events during the 1960's you'll find on the links at the blog.

I have the evidence of whom they are and the cover up people are tied to that cover up which is just as big of a cover up then 9-11.

Shocking revelations.

Debunking the truth.

I think Mr. Watson has some points but to berate someone trying to do justice in his own way will make mistakes, everyone is mad. It would have been better for Mr. Watson to respond in a constructive manner to to improve the movements image.

At the Closed Gate of Justice

James D. Corrothers

TO be a Negro(human) in a day like this
Demands forgiveness. Bruised with blow on blow,
Betrayed, like him whose woe dimmed eyes gave bliss
Still must one succor those who brought one low,
To be a Negro(human) in a day like this. 5

To be a Negro(human) in a day like this
Demands rare patience—patience that can wait
In utter darkness. ’Tis the path to miss,
And knock, unheeded, at an iron gate,
To be a Negro(human) in a day like this. 10

To be a Negro(human) in a day like this
Demands strange loyalty. We serve a flag
Which is to us white freedom’s emphasis.
Ah! one must love when Truth and Justice lag,
To be a Negro(human in a day like this. 15

To be a Negro(human) in a day like this—
Alas! Lord God, what evil have we done?
Still shines the gate, all gold and amethyst,
But I pass by, the glorious goal unwon,
“Merely a Negro(human)”—in a day like this!

With adjustments, it's all relative. C.

Let's Play Teacher

A conspiracy fantasist named Paul Joseph Watson, having no substantive arguments to make for the absurdities he promotes, decided to mock the spelling and grammar of the operator of the site, He must be quite a prose stylist, I thought. I wonder what would happen if I took a random stab with my cursor:

"the clip slyly juxtaposes victim's..."

Oops! You want the plural--victims'--here.

"family members looking solemn and images from beheading videos against Avery and Blood making dismissive remarks about the official story - implicating..."

Sorry, the word is, implying.

"that trashing the official story is insulting to the victims. The contrast of the emotionally laden..."

Two problems: we require the noun, emotion, and a hyphen: emotion-laden. Hmmm, still somewhat clumsy. Maybe someone with an advanced degree in English could think of using, emotion-filled, but what do I know?

"images of crying wives and children with Avery and Blood's light-hearted casual conversation is a trick to deceive the naive viewer into believing Avery and Blood are rude and unsympathetic to the tragedy of the event..."

It is incoherent to speak of being rude to a tragedy. Your side can be, and usually is, rude to the victims of a tragedy.

"Even Avery's occasional use of the word "whatever" is portrayed as a sideswipe at the 9/11 dead.

As Avery and Blood discuss the incredulity..."

The wrong word, I'm afraid. I am incredulous that grownups can take this conspiracy bullshit seriously, as it is incredibly stupid. There you go: incredibility. But that's much too strong to be le mot juste. Why not simply, implausibility?

"of Arabs with box cutters being able to take on passengers and burly ex-military pilots, unconnected images of BBC articles..."

I hate to nitpick, but articles are written. Perhaps the technical term we're looking for is, segments, but sometimes simple is best: 'stories' works just fine.

"about Britain's knife amnesty and how knife crime is rising are flashed."

Hey, wasn't that educational and a whole lot of good, clean fun! (I heard that--who said, fucking waste of time?) If Mr. Watson has any plans to write a manual of grammar and usage, may I humbly suggest that he buy and read one first.

People just need to STFU

People just need to STFU with all the grammar stuff, including Paul Joseph Watson. PrisonPlanet has been good to me and has published some of my stuff, but that article just sucks. You suck even more for replying to it.

Not Bad

You sound like a pretty good critic.

Let's Play Dufus

You have taken the point about grammar and falsely inflated it to suggest it was the main focus of the article.

The main focus was the contradictory arguments on Building 7 - this was the bulk of the piece.

Several of your "corrections" are baffling.

"Images of BBC articles" refers to images of BBC News web pages shown in the video. Since they are pictures, screenshots, they are also images.

"Rude to the tragedy OF THE EVENT", not rude to the tragedy.

Your word corrections are also incorrect - enter each word I used into and you will find that they can be used in each context.

As I pointed out in the article - I am no William Shakespeare and never claimed to be.

But the Debunking 9/11 "kid" - as he can't be any older than 12 - uses "conspiracy theorist" "fireman" and numerous other singular terms when the context is plural - in almost EVERY case.

This is important because it looks ridiculous and undermines the veracity of his intellect.

That is why I included it in the article. I didn't go after the kid's 3,000 other spelling mistakes - it was ONE point about the use of plural.

As someone else on this forum rightly points out - Larry Silverstein also seems to be suffering from the same plural amnesia - he refers to a group of firemen as "it," if we are to believe his spokesperson.

To conclude - why did NIST report there were no firefighters in 7 and yet Silverstein said "pull it" meant to withdraw them from the building?

Grammar sometimes is important in deducing the truth.

dont mind pomeroo Paul, hes

dont mind pomeroo Paul, hes the resident shill. keep up the good work.


I understand that you find yourself in the untenable position of attempting to oppose real science with fabricated nonsense. That doesn't permit, however, the rhetorical sleight-of-hand of contending that a rationalist who sees through the conspiracy moonshine really doesn't mean what he says. If you want to claim that I'm wrong, just show me some evidence. Nobody here has done so to date. To suggest that I actually buy into this foolishness while pretending to be sane is insulting.

ok shill. find some friends,

ok shill. find some friends, maybe a job. that is why you are here correct? you couldnt possibly have a real life if you come here to "debunk" us. what do you get out of it? poor shill. get some air.

Wrong Impression

Actually, I get a great deal out it. My interests are more philosophical than political. I am continually fascinated to observe the lengths people will go to maintain an untenable thesis. Why they allow themselves to become wedded to positions that are completely contradicted by logic and evidence is a mystery and I never miss an opportunity to explore the subject.

The fresh air is bad for my allergies.

Incidentally, as a shill, I must be getting paid by someone. If you can help me find this person, I will cheerfully split the money. I'll take less than half/

and you're a bad comedian

and you're a bad comedian too? who would have guessed?

My Secret is Safe

Not someone as clueless as you.

ouch! you burned me. that

ouch! you burned me. that was pretty rough man. still not funny though, stick to being a condescending know-it-all know nothing ass.

You See My Point

You see my point? You substitute insults for thought, but you really have no choice. Your silly fantasy is built on bogus science and lies. You have nothing to place in opposition to the sources I cite. You can't shake any of the conclusions reached by hundreds of physicists, structural engineers, demolition experts, and avionics techs. You are reduced to pretending that I'm shilling for someone. Who might that be? I guess I must be saying things that I know are incorrect. Care to share with us a few of those things?

"your silly fantasy". what

"your silly fantasy". what was that you were saying about substituting insults for thought again condescending ass? and i dont know if you noticed, but the 9/11 debate is bigger than the demolition of the towers and what hit the pentagon. you dont have to be shilling for anyone, i suspect you just have a weak mind and cant fathom that daddy government would bloody its hands. ever read a history book dumbass? 3000 lives are expendable. you are Rick the hardcore republican from "conspiracysmasher" correct? i guess your not big on history huh? your type usually isnt......

Accurate as Usual

The so-called 9-11 debate (there is no honest debate) is all about politics. People who hate America find it intolerable that this capitalist Satan was the victim of an unprovoked attack. They will stop at anything to stand reality on its head and absolve the jihadists of wrongdoing.
The specific claims of the fantasists have been disproved. There were no explosives used at the WTC. Nobody in the demolition industry regards the notion as other than absurd. A 757 hit the Pentagon. Hundreds of eyewitnesses observed it and parts of the aircraft were recovered.
As someone who holds traditional conservative/libertarian views on the desirability of a smaller Federal government, I dismiss your nonsense about my faith in the nanny state.
Am I "big" on history? I was a history major long ago and I own over two thousand books on history: ancient, medieval, modern European, and American. It's my favorite part of my library.
Your fantasy that the government attacked, in effect, itself is madness. The jihadists are proud of their accomplishment. No evidence exists to support your belief.
I am not "Rick." As I have posted, my name is Ronald.

people who "hate

people who "hate america"?that statememnt alone says it all about you and how deep your thought goes. simplistic bastard. Ron, the hardcore republican stooge from "conspiracysmasher". sorry i got your name wrong.

You Don't Fool Me

Jihadists attacked America repeatedly throughout the decade of the nineties. They were emboldened by our lack of response. They promised larger-scale, more devastating attacks. They trained diligently and succeeded in exploiting a gaping hole in our national security. The response of the fantasy movement was to pretend that none of this really happened, that we attacked ourselves, and we are making war for no reason other than to enrich certain individuals.

Taken at face value, what the fantasists contend is embarrassingly stupid. It is wildly implausible and is contradicted by all available evidence. People who are willing to make themselves appear horse's asses to promote a nonsensical thesis have an ax to grind. Their agenda is to besmirch America.

"fantasists"? besmirch

"fantasists"? besmirch America? haha, thats our purpose? thats the various republicans in the movements purpose? we, unlike you, REALLY care about America. you only think you do, poor gullible flag waving bastard. so irrational and simplistic in your constant state of fear of"ISLAMOFACISM!!!!!!". you give the terrorists you fear so much too much credit.

Now Who's the Comedian

Lying frauds who peddle a preposterous, absurdly dumb, and pernicious smear of their own country "really care about America"? Now who's the comedian?

Islamists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers, our embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole. We failed to respond. I get it--they were "false flag attacks." Now, that's what I call subtle. Create an incident that provokes no response in order order Okay, I'll bite: What?

first, ive never said they

first, ive never said they were all false flag attacks. do some people based on evidence think that WTC93 and other terrorist events were also false flags like 9/11? yes. does everyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job think this across the board like you assume? sorry dumbass, no. second, i never said al qaeda or "the jihadists" dont exist. they do, and they are uesful dupes like yourself in many instances. third, who's the comedian? certaintly not yourself or your buddy Abby. unfunny,gullible dupes.

when i said daddy government

when i said daddy government it wasnt to say you wanted big government. it was to say you have gullible, blind trust in your institutions and find it impossible that they could be abused. severely. and i noticed, AGAIN you bring up the Pentagon and controlled demolition, despite the fact that i just pointed out that thats not the half of it. typical. listen to the talking points you spew-"capatilist Satan","hate america first crowd", "the scary jihadists with their mission of death, they want to kill us all, be afraid". your a bitch. and a gullible one at that. Ron.

Empty Rhetoric

You conspicuously lack any facts to support your empty rhetoric. You can scream ad hominem attacks, but you'll never impress anyone who takes the trouble to examine the evidence.
The jihadists believe that they are very real and they are devoted to their cause. I have no reason to doubt their existence, and neither do you.

"but the jihadists say",

"but the jihadists say", "but Bin Laden says Iraq is the central front......". yeah Ron, ive heard it all before. you are WAY too typical. so worried about what "the jihadists" say. poor guy, live your life for yourself, not for the terrorists. they indeed exist, and they are manipulated by our very government when needed. HISTORY proves this. you should know that. and you fall for it. dumbass.


I'm afraid you haven't persuaded any sane person that the jihadists who have been attacking us for years are "manipulated" by the government. Most of us strongly suspect that they have a very definite agenda of their own.

Ron weick is living his life

Ron weick is living his life for the terrorists. Ron, its your fault the terrorists win. haha, friggin dupe.

Ron, Bush says that Bin

Ron, Bush says that Bin Laden says that Iraq is the central front in the "war on terror". doesnt that just make you wanna wave your flag and say "stay the course" like a good little republican? it is the central front right? but Bin Laden says it is,so, since you put so much stock in and live your life for the terrorists, doesnt this make you feel that much better about the war in Iraq? Iraq is like WW2 right? Rumsfeld says it is so..........

also, i noticed in another

also, i noticed in another thread you insinuated that Chavez stole his election because the exit polls showed him losing in a "landslide". 2 things, do you have some links to support this? something your kind asks for a lot. and also, do you believe all exit polls? such as the ones in 2004 in the U.S.? or do you only believe in exit polls that support your views? like in the case of Chavez? thanks.

Exit Polls

Venezuelan exit polls showed Chavez losing in a landslide. Jimmy Carter barged in and, since a leftist was the victor, assured everyone that the election was honest. Several American experts on exit polling insisted that the margin was far too large for such a discrepancy.
Exit polls in the 2004 election overstated Kerry's support by roughly 2.5%, less than the 3% they overstated Clinton's in 1992. The definitive study of the flaws in the 2004 exit polling can be found on Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal's site, Check the archives for the four-part series, "Was RFK, Jr. Right About the Exit Polls?

thanks for the link, i guess

thanks for the link, i guess your word will have to do. republican shill. take off your red shaded glasses you partisan douchebag.

They were firefighters, just

They were firefighters, just no fire fighting due to lack of water pressure. This what some fire fighters stated who were at WTC7.

"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."

"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

They were there for search and rescue, moving people away from the building. They were "Pulling" people.

And finally, a video displaying the meaning of "Pull It" for controlled demolition. I'll give a hint: It doesn't involve explosives.

oh, so you call human beings

oh, so you call human beings "it" too huh? good for you "Anonymous".........

"To conclude - why did NIST

"To conclude - why did NIST report there were no firefighters in 7 and yet Silverstein said "pull it" meant to withdraw them from the building?"

Paul the NIST report did NOT say "there were no firefighters in 7" in fact if you read the report you would have found out just the opposite.
Even Paul Thompson makes some mention of this in his timeline.

Starting at around pg 108
There are various reports of firefighters in the building. Some at 11:30, some later between 12:30 and 2:00.

At sometime after 11:30 there were numerous firefighers and officers coming out of building 7. These firefighers indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around building 7 beacuse they thought the building was going to collapse. See page 110

Re: "to conclude -why did NIST"

"Paul the NIST report did NOT say "there were no firefighters in 7" in fact if you read the report you would have found out just the opposite."

You are a lier or you didn't read your own link idiot. From page 11:

"At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order
was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were
withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some
three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed."

The NIST report says the last evac oder was given at 2:30 p.m. and the Firefighters were withdrawn at that time.

Silverstein said "I told them to pull it and we watched the building fall." This means that Silverstein told them to "pull it" around 5:20 not 2:30. In order for you interpetation to be correct what Silverstein meant is "I told them to evacuate, and then we waited around for 2 hours and fifty minutes to watch the building collapse."

I don't find that to be a interpetation that can be reasonablely infered from the statement.

So another Debunker debunks itself again. I'll keep refering to debunkers as "its" because they seem to think that the common way to refer to people like oh Firefighters and other 9-11 Heroes.

Rescue workers are mere "its" to them.

Nice twist of words but we

Nice twist of words but we never said "It" was talking about the rescue orders. If anything, they meant the operation itself, not the fire fighters.

You guys are the one who disrespects the 9/11 heroes. You claim the fire department was part of the inside job and laugh at Mark Bingham's last words. That's disrespectful.

Larry Silverstein said they

Larry Silverstein said they decided to "PULL IT". That term is routinely used in the demolition business when describing the act of bringing a building down with explosives - ie, a controlled demolition. The same term is uttered by several demolition team workers, several times, in the PBS documentary that contains Silverstein's infamous confession. All firefighters were removed from building seven at around 2:30 that afternoon, because they were concerned that the building might collapse, so Silversteins ridiculous claim that he mean't pull the firefighters (it?) is patently false, And why did they think that the building might collapse? Maybe because it was rigged for demolition, and they were about to pull the switch? Gee, where did us conspiracy nuts get an idea like that? So what that the building falls straight down into it's own footprint at freefall speed, just like a controlled demolition. So what that the top of the building crimps in the middle at the beginning of collapse, again just like controlled demolition. And so what that demolition charges can be seen shooting out of upper floors at the beginning of collapse. We are all just a bunch of nuts chasing shadows. Yes, the shills are correct after all: There is nothing about 911 that would indicate anything untoward, and they can explain it all, because they are so smart, and we are just a bunch of unbalanced loons weaving conspiracy scenarios. Of course I'm being facetious. The shills are the ones who are trying desperately to defend an indefensible fairy tale. They can hire all the government paid "experts" (whores) they want, and the shills can pontificate from the mountaintop until the cows come home. But the lie will be exposed come hell or high water. That is one thing you can bet your money on - IT WILL BE EXPOSED>

You Don't CareAbout Accuracy

You write that the expression, pull it, is "routinely" used in the the demolition industry to mean bring down with explosives. Several people have pointed out that it means no such thing. Nobody in the industry uses the expression in the manner you claim. There is a specific use, one that refers to the use of cables to literally pull a building off its center of gravity, but that isn't what we're talking about.
One of the great weaknesses of the 911 fantasy movement is its unwillingness to back off an issue that has been settled. Clearly, you know little about controlled demolition, but that doesn't faze you in the least. You will cheerfully contradict top professionals and argue that an expression means something that it simply doesn't.

There's nothing that says

There's nothing that says Silverstein told them to "pull it" around 5:20.

Boy they sure are crazy around here

....and again it clearly shows from NIST that there were figherfighters in WTC7




Repetition Won't Work

Nobody in the controlled demolition industry thinks that "pull it" refers to the use of explosives. You can repeat your canard a thousand times, and it will still be false. Your other falsehoods have been debunked as well, but you don't care.

will you admit that you are wrong?

nobody in the industry? are you sure?:

What does demolition experts Controlled Demolitions, Inc. (CDI) think the phrase "pull it" means in demolition terms?

A phone call made to CDI by Jeff at Listen to audio conversation here or local.

Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.

so tell me pomeroo, do shills ever admit mistakes?

Thanks for proving the point

Thanks for proving the point that pull it doesn't mean to blow it up Chris.

exactly, they didnt "blow

exactly, they didnt "blow up" WTC7, they brought it down in a controlled demolition. the term "pull it", regardless of how you people refer to human beings as "it" instead of "them", means to pull the building. this is elementary. try and keep up "Anonymous".

Fools Never Admit Mistakes

I wouldn't know about shills, but fools never admit mistakes. They wouldn't be fools if they did.

Yes, as has been pointed out several times (as you know), "pull it" refers to attaching cables and literally pulling the building over. The technique isn't used on buildings taller than six or seven stories. Pull it down most definitely does not mean blow it up, and by now, we all get the idea.

Truth is More than Grammar

"You have taken the point about grammar and falsely inflated it to suggest it was the main focus of the article."

You were mocking the grammar and usage of someone who, quite evidently, is not a professional writer.

"The main focus was the contradictory arguments on Building 7 - this was the bulk of the piece."

The "contradictions" are matters of emphasis. Conspiracy fantasists invariably attempt to inflate disagreements over details by serious researchers into an endorsement of their own insane, wildly implausible myths. On this very site, I have exposed the improper citing of Matthys Levy and Mike Taylor. These men, genuine authorities, regard the controlled-demolition thesis as utter nonsense.

"Several of your "corrections" are baffling."

"Images of BBC articles" refers to images of BBC News web pages shown in the video. Since they are pictures, screenshots, they are also images.

I acknowledge that I was nitpicking and pulling your chain. Still, a broadcasting company presents, as I wrote, stories or segments. One finds articles in a newspaper or magazine. Let's agree that this is not a big deal.

"Rude to the tragedy OF THE EVENT", not rude to the tragedy."

No, you can be rude to people, but not to tragedies, events, or tragedies of events.

"Your word corrections are also incorrect - enter each word I used into and you will find that they can be used in each context.

As I pointed out in the article - I am no William Shakespeare and never claimed to be."

Hey, nobody ever confused me with Shakespeare but it happens that my word corrections are completely correct. Don't rely on excessively permissive sources such as If uninformed writers are starting to misuse "implicate' as a synonym for "imply," that doesn't make them right. The usage remains substandard. Incredulity is not, by any standard however permissive, a synonym for implausibility or incredibility.

"But the Debunking 9/11 "kid" - as he can't be any older than 12 - uses "conspiracy theorist" "fireman" and numerous other singular terms when the context is plural - in almost EVERY case.

This is important because it looks ridiculous and undermines the veracity of his intellect."

Your point is a good one. I don't think he's as young as twelve, but he really should take more care with his writing. We agree that a sloppy presentation tends to undermine an argument by suggesting that the writer's intellectual habits are similarly careless.

"That is why I included it in the article. I didn't go after the kid's 3,000 other spelling mistakes - it was ONE point about the use of plural.

As someone else on this forum rightly points out - Larry Silverstein also seems to be suffering from the same plural amnesia - he refers to a group of firemen as "it," if we are to believe his spokesperson."

My understanding is that Silverstein was referring to a contingent of firemen, which makes "it" rather than "them" defensible. I fail to comprehend why conspiracy fantasists continue to pretend that "pull it" is demolition industry jargon for "blow it up." Nobody in the industry agrees. Sometimes it is necessary to back off, to pull it, as it were.

"To conclude - why did NIST report there were no firefighters in 7 and yet Silverstein said "pull it" meant to withdraw them from the building?"

The NIST report makes it clear that there were firefighters in WYC 7, even after 12:00. Perhaps you are confusing the NIST report with the earlier FEMA report?

"Grammar sometimes is important in deducing the truth."

I agree that it can be a useful tool. Look, I would not have initiated an attack on your usage had I not felt that you were mocking the writing skills of an ideological opponent simply to hide the lack of substance in your own position. As I have written several times, in five years the 911 fantasy movement has produced bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright falshoods in support of its mad thesis.
A fundamental tenet of skepticism is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Nobody has cast any doubt on the NIST report. Nobody has answered Dr. Frank Greening's devastating critiques of Jones and Hoffman. Nobody has presented a coherent response to the Protec paper--why DO all the professionals in the demolition industry reject your thesis? When you're reduced to pretending that thousands of people across a broad spectrum of industries are willingly complicit in a monstrous and unprecedented crime, despite the total absence of any corroboration, you quite naturally provoke indignation.

I prefer to accord my debate opponents at least a minimal degree of civility, on the assumption that they argue in good faith. The promoters of this wildly implausible notion that the American government attacked its own people and institutions seems to me to proceed not from a genuine spirit of inquiry, but from a deeply-rooted animus against this country. As I wrote on this forum yesterday in a different thread, if some of the people here were getting their throats cut by jihadists, they'd die thinking it was George Bush and Dick Cheney in disguise. To paraphrase Dean Wormer: Ignorant, crazy, and stupid is no way to go through life.

Pull it means to bring it

Pull it means to bring it down with cables, not to blow up a building
You can see the cables here

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... <”going up”? hard to hear>... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”

"Lincoln is still alive, and

"Lincoln is still alive, and he is living with Elvis Presley in Thailand." That is a grammatically correct sentence, containing an utterly absurd assertion.

"George W. Bush be the 43rd presidant of the united states." That is a grammatically incorrect sentence, stating a plain fact.

The truth or falsehood of a statement is not predicated on it's grammar or spelling, although such errors betray a certain lack of sophistication on the person making the statement. The point Watson was making, was that the author of the 911 debunking site not only committed numerous errors of logic and made utterly false claims, but that he also made elementary errors in grammar while doing so. Employing incorrect grammar is one thing, but doing so while spouting forth a stream of fallacious nonsense is another thing altogether.

Point Missed

The creator of the debunking911 site writes sloppily. You are not troubled, however, by the fact that you can't begin to show why any of his statements are fallacious. Conspiracy fantasists rely heavily on several tropes, used over and over. Preposterous, wildly improbable assertions are said to have been proved beyond any doubt. No, nobody has proved that controlled demolition brought down the WTC and experts in the field regard that view as absurd. Nobody has proved that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. The evidence shows that one did. It is tiresome to hear that all the serious researchers, physicists, structural engineers, and demolition experts, are liars and incompetents, while leftwing theology professors and uncredentialed crackpots have great truths to teach us.
Stop merely asserting that the real science is nonsense and show us why anyone should believe you.

I have news for you. If you

I have news for you. If you and your cronies are in a high enough position of power, and you all get together to pull off a false flag terror event, to act as a pretext for a war agenda that will benefit not only your group, but the military industrial complex as a whole, and you know that no true independent news media exists that will report anything other than what you and your scientific "experts" for hire tell them, then you can get away with the crime, lock, stock, and barrel. This is in fact what has happened so far. But, like the old saying goes "It's not over till the fat lady sings." Not by a long shot.


Your Chomskyite complaints about the lack of an independent media are ridiculous. The mainstream media despise George Bush and worked very hard for his defeat in 2004. What really makes the myths you peddle so preposterous is the idea that all of the physicists, structural engineers, demolition experts, air traffic controllers, journalists, police and fire departments, the Boeing Corporation, NORAD, NIST, FEMA--the list goes on and on--have entered voluntarily into a compact with the devil. They offer science that you have no way of countering; they present real evidence, while you have none. Being unable to offer any intellectual resistance, you retreat to the refuge of all charlatans: it's a giant conspiracy. Yeah, hundreds, if not thousands, of conspirators and no one ever leaks.

Have you watched 9/11: Press

Have you watched 9/11: Press for Truth yet?

Physician, Heal Thyself

See how hard it is to write correctly? I started to to say that this wildly implausible notion seems to me to proceed, etc., etc. Then I added the phrase, the promoters of (this wildly implausible notion), which changes the subject of the sentence from singular to plural. But I forgot to make the verb, to seem, agree with the new subject. It should be, seem, and it never pays to get cocky.

The promoters of this wildly implausible notion that the American government attacked its own people and institutions SEEMS to me to proceed not from a genuine spirit of inquiry, but from a deeply-rooted animus against this country.

We all know he said pull it.

We all know he said pull it. But pull it doesn't mean to blow up.
Yelling won't change that.

Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.

Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... <”going up”? hard to hear>... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”

Regardless of whether the

Regardless of whether the term "pull it" means to bring the building down, or pull it in a desired direction, the fact remains that Silverstein said "pull it". If he was referring to pulling the firefighters out, he would have said "pull them" or " pull them out". It makes no sense whatsoever for him to refer to the firefighters as "it". And even if he was referring to the firefighters, how would pulling them out of the building lead to it's collapsing into it's footprint? Had a building ever collapsed due to uncontrolled fire (the fires were not out of control by the way) before? This is what Silverstein said - "...And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building come down." He clearly implies that the collapse of the building was the direct result of them "pulling" the firefighters out. That makes no sense whatsoever. Also, just because he used a term that might refer to pulling a building with cables, doesn't mean that is exactly what he was referring to. It is entirely possible that he picked up this term from the demolition crews without fully understanding it's precise connotation. And if he meant to "pull" the building in the connotation that you suggest, where were the cables and heavy equipment that must have been used to do this? Do they appear in any photos or videos taken at the scene? Did he mean "pull" the firefighters, or "pull" the building with cables? Why would he use a demolition term that means to pull a building in a desired direction with cables, if he really meant to say they "pulled" the firefighters? Nothing about this makes the slightest sense, and defenders of the official story are the ones engaging in mental and verbal gymnastics to make their case, not the skeptics.

The more I think about it

The more I think about it ,the more I have come to believe that Silverstein deliberately used the term "pull it" knowing full well that it seems to denote controlled demolition. He knew that it would cause a firestorm of speculation and accusations from critics of the official story, only to have those accusations debunked later on when it would be revealed that the term "pull it" refers to pulling a building in a desired direction with cables, not a full scale demolition. He also threw in the claim that he talked all of this over with the fire department, in order to further confuse matters, the intended question by implication being: Why would I talk it over with the fire department, if I was discussing a controlled demolition? By saying it the way he did, he left it open to different interpretations 1) I discussed the necessity of intentionally bringing the building down with officials of the NYFD and we made the decision to bring it down or "pull it" - 2) I was really referring to the necessity of withdrawing the firefighters from the building due to the tremendous loss of life that day. When he said "pull it" it was akin to a burglar telling his accomplice to "let him have it" right before he shoots the occupant of the house. If and when they are caught, he can always say that he really meant for his accomplice to abort the burglary, and let the victim keep his possessions, or to "let him have it." His comments about pulling the building were designed to confuse, but he had to come out with something regarding the bizarre collapse of the building sooner or later, so he hedged his bets and made a comment he could wiggle out of later on. Or so he thought.

Over and over

The "it" Silverstein referred to was the rescue operation or the contingent of firefighters, whatever. I suspect you've figured this out and are continuing to blow smoke. WTC 7 collpased so neatly into its own footprints that it damaged a building across the street. Sorry.

It fell slightly towards the

It fell slightly towards the south and the rubble was around 12 stories. If you think it is a controlled demolition, what about the flashes and bangs prior to the collapse? What you are suggesting is that WTC7 was the most quietest controlled demolition in the world, which goes against reality because bombs make a noise!

First Responder

"...and outright falshoods in support of its mad thesis."

I wanted to be the first person to point out the missing "e" in falsehoods.

Way too much kibble being wasted here.

Stop feeding the trolls.

Save Ammo

Yeah, you're right not to show any of the evidence you've assembled in support of your fantasy. Save it for..for..for SOMEONE, dammit!

It's Funny

It's funny (although off the topic) that I always see the CTers try to convert people at ground zero, or at the 9/11 movies. Well, if your theories were so sound, why don't you take them to your local college and ask the engineering professors there what they think about it.

I've passed your theories to my professors at Upenn (forwarded the web address to them so they could see the actual sites for themselves, too) and the response I get almost immediately is that it is completely wrong. I took them across the street to Drexel, and they too laughed at me the stupid Upenn student asking about these theories. For summer break I went home and took your theories and sites to my community college, and was again laughed at and told that all the 'calculations' behind these claims are wrong.

So, why do all these professors think you guys are all wrong? Or is science only for sheeple who believe the government? Take your silly conspiracy theories to people who know better instead of the average Joe off the street, and you'll find like I have that you guys don't have a leg to stand on.

No surprise...

It is not so surprising that so many shills have invaded the 9/11blogger forums. From those who simply spout gibberish, diatribes and ad hominems to more seriously obsessed right wing nut fabrications (I get to name-call a bit too). But the assertion made by one of them (above); i.e., that the MSM worked to defeat GWB's election (make that 'fraudulent election') was both inane and telling. Maintaining a fixed false belief in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence is the defintion of 'delusion'. The manner in which that delusion was espoused as well as other writings by that same person (and others) evidence the obsessive determination to assert his 'truths' by any means possible. Note that no evidence, no rational argumentation, no logical analysis is sufficient to dissuade the arrogant, delusional, obsessed individual. Such a person is not capable of truly questioning his own beliefs and presuppositions. Self-examination is not possible. The psychological defenses are simply too well-entrenched. And being confronted with such an observation, he (they) will simply redouble their efforts to 'prove' their case. Using whatever techniques are at hand. You see such behavior in religious fundamentalists. And of course, in members of the extreme right wing. Bush supporters are typically the same (though there are exceptions who are simply ignorant but would question if they access to information). And in a typical Rovian approach, they accuse their enemies of the very sins they themselves embody.

The folks who question the government's role in 9/11 most frequently came to that position after seriously questioning their own beliefs. I believed the government's conspiracy theory until mid-2005. As the contrary evidence built up over time, I had to question my beliefs. And it wasn't fun. It is ego-dystonic to begin to seriously question the government you were taught all your life was relatively benign, democratically-based or, at least, not actively malevolent. When you come to realize that nearly everything you thought you knew, your weltanschaaung was wrong. 9/11 researchers have had to confront that ugly reality. Those with whom I have communicated have been willing to consider the evidence; are willing to engage in exploration. Have been (usually) willing to discard or put a question mark next to various beliefs that are not well-supported. That puts 9/11 explorers at a disadvantage when confronted by the obsessed zealot. Because the zealot, by definition, is impervious to contradictory facts. He cannot question his (her or their) belief(s). Simply not possible for that personality type.

Thirty or so years ago Jacob Bronowski, in his Accent of Man argued that the greatest sin of the Nazi's was - arrogance -. The unquestioning belief, the certainty, that they were right. That they -knew- the truth and had the right to impose it upon everyone. To kill those who dissented. Who questioned. Today, we confront a vast wave of similarly obsessed, arrogant folks who *know* they are right. Who would quash all discussion. And who believe all who question or dissent are traitors. We have seen their sort before.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt>

Blowin' Smoke

A leftist fraud is attempting to peddle brazen falsehoods and he will be exposed. Lying, demagogic rhetoric loses to hard facts.

CBS, according to Mary Mapes and Dan Rather, worked for five years to knock its hit piece on Bush into shape. Excuse me, but isn't that the job of the DNC? Allegations about Bush's National Guard service have been trotted out in every campaign he's run. Is it really the task of a national news organization to assist the Democratic candidate?

Perhaps someone can explain why none of the major networks run stories on the Clintons' vote-buying in the 2000 election. The matter is gloriously unambiguous. Hillary ran very poorly in Hasidic communities, the result of her perceived support of Palestinian causes. In the exclusively Hasidic community of New Square, however, she received over 99% of the vote. Several residents had been jailed for snookering the Feds into paying millions of dollars in education grants, when there were no students involved. Hillary visited New Square in August; got 99% of the vote in November; in January the criminals received presidential pardons. Problem? What problem? Anybody see a problem?

When Hugh Rodham, Hillary's brother, took $400,000 to secure presidential pardons for his cronies, Katie Couric reported that "stern big sister Hillary made him give the money back." A minor detail: Rodham refused to give the money back and stated that he had no intention of doing so. No media bias there.

The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the L.A. Times routinely endorse the Democratic candidate for President; the N.Y. Times last endorsed a Republican when Eisenhower was running.

The liar who pretends that Bush was "fraudulently" elected wants to us forget certain facts. If he's referring to the 2000 election, he wants us to overlook the following: The Supreme Court decision ruling that the Florida Supreme Court had overstepped its authority was a SEVEN-TO-TWO vote. The 5-4 vote was on the specific remedy. Bush led after the initial tally; he led after the mandatory recount; and he led after the subsequent hand recount. This, after losing 15-20 thousand votes by Republican estimates and 7-10 thousand by Democratic strategist Bob Beckel's estimate in the Florida Panhandle after all three major networks "mistakenly" insisted that polls had closed there. Bush lost another 12-15 thousand votes in Palm Beach County due to outright vote fraud, the manufacturing of overvotes (see John Fund's, 'Stealing Elections'). The lefties still complain that they came so close to stealing an election, but not close enough.

If he's referring to the left's wholly-fabricated exit poll controversy in 2004, note that Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal, on his site,, has utterly demolished the nonsense promoted by Steven Freeman in his remarkably obtuse book. If Freeman's thesis that exit polls are infallible is to be taken seriously, then the aggregate of all national polls showing Bush winning by 2-3 points was wrong by more than three standard deviations, a mathematically absurd conclusion. How good those exit polls really were can be shown by a comment Robert Kennedy, Jr. made in his disingenuous Rolling Stone article, designed to smear Ken Blackwell. Kennedy remarked that the exits even showed Kerry running neck-and-neck in Republican strongholds like Virginia and North Carolina. That means that they were wrong. Kerry was uncompetitive in both states.

Numerous studies have revealed that the members of the Washington press corps vote Democratic roughly 90% of the time. Journalists, taken as a group, vote Democratic over 80%. Nobody seriously disputes any of this. When lifelong liberal Democrat Bernard Goldberg grew so fed up with the bias that distorted news coverage at CBS that he felt honor bound to blow the whistle, the mythmakers branded him, improbably, as a rightwinger.

Mainstream media bias is a well-documented fact. All the dishonest leftist psychobabble in the world can't alter that reality.


A fantasist has the chutzpah to quote Bronowski on the arrogance of the Nazis. Yes, the Nazis held mystical beliefs that defied science. They were openly contemptuous of rational arguments against their unfounded views.

Why, that sounds exactly like the fantasists!

It is tempting to invoke Godwin's Law: the first person to bring the Nazis into a debate loses. But, the fantasists are on really shaky ground here. Germany's economy was destroyed by the First World War and the terms imposed by the treaty ending it. Hitler sought a scapegoat and found one in the Jews. The fantasists--many of them, anyway--are demoralized by the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the overthrow of communism in the formerly captive nations of Eastern Europe, indeed, by the failure of Marx's vision wherever it is implemented. The lunatic attempt to forge a de facto alliance between Western leftists and Middle Eastern jihadists will inevitably prove another crushing disappointment for the left. In the meantime, there is much mischief to be made. Dat ol' debbil, the gubmint, is a convenient scapegoat for the hate-America left as well as the fever-swamp reactionary right.

If a liberal Democrat had been President when the jihadists attacked, the fantasy movement, if it existed at all, would have been confined to disaffected rightwingers and nobody would have ever noticed it.

The rationalists don't claim that the truth about 9-11 was handed down to them on stone tablets. It was discovered by the diligent efforts of serious researchers. The fantasists "know" many things, but can't offer evidence for any of them.

the proof of the pudding is in the spewing of it...

My my... Poor Pom. It does appear you've proven my point. You certainly have a bee in your bonnet. Tell you what. I'll send you an autogenics tape and you might finally be able to relax. All that vehement obsessing. Maybe you need a vacation.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt>

Your Concession Speech

No, you can't prove your nonexistent point by getting exposed as a fraud. Substituting empty rhetoric, relying heavily on buzzwords, for reasoned argument is the mark of a charlatan.

Your FDR quote is curious. DId Pearl Harbor happen by accident? Well, it was certainly planned that by the Japanese. Are you trotting out the discredited rightwing canard that Roosevelt allowed much of the Pacific fleet to be sunk or disabled in order to initiate a war that HE desired? Tell us, should we have resisted the spread of Nazism in WWII? How about the Cold War? We were the bad guys, right? The peace-loving Soviet Empire was engaged in purely defensive activities, no doubt.

You've neglected to explain what part of the fantasists' position is supported by actual evidence. Everything they claim has turned out to be bogus science or outright falsehoods. What have you got that can withstand serious scrutiny?