Why would anyone publicly try to prevent an investigation into the mass murder of 3000 US citizens. The general consensus amongst the Truth Movement is primarily interested in an independent investigation. If the government has done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. It's normal to investigate government agencies. The level of the 911 attacks going without an independent investigation is simply unsatisfactory. Even more regrettful are guys like Ronald and Mark airing their assistance in covering up a massive crime. Perhaps that is why these small-time stooges were chosen for the task - because no one with half a brain would want to get caught up with War Crime investigations. Especially when the higher-ups are subpoenaed and start pushing all the blame to the lower ranks. Hard Fire on the record for coverup.
This isn't the place for this, but I'm curious as to why the Loose Change forums are no longer up and running? And why hasn't Dylan mentioned anything about it?
Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 4:23am.
"yeah, they're making truckfuls of money by selling Loose Change DVD's for a dollar and letting other people copy it for free and sell it for a dollar." -Doughnut-
Hey, are you really stupid or naive?! I wasnt talking about DVD sales...This is just the start with Dylan & Co, you will see..
Dylan is a snitch, thats a 100% fact, its sad but very true..get over it..!
R. Siegel is one too, hell...., he would do anything for money...haha
Dont go around joining dubios movements, cause that way you will be easily controlled and your means and deeds will get suppressed. Think for yourselves! You dont need snitches to tell you what to think! The Delphi Technique. What Is It?
They have divided the movement allready.., no planers, podpeople,energy beams directed from WTC 7, and on we go....They are trying to keep us busy arguing and fighting with ourselves, DIVIDE AND CONQUER!
AND REMEMBER THIS,
80% to 90% of the movements are controlled/infiltrated by the government, thats a fact!! Do your math!! Dont be naive!
_________________
"These bogus groups could serve many functions which might include attacking and/or disrupting bona fide groups, or even just simply creating a diversion with clever propaganda in order to attract members away so as to involve them with time-wasting activity designed to prevent them from doing anything useful. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties so that it looked like just a "disagreement" between two individuals or groups, a "food fight" or something, and there was no way to connect it to any government operation."
TheDeparted (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 2:36am.
So, 8 to 9 out of 10 movements is controlled/infiltrated. Now, ask yourselves wich are the ones with most supporters or readers? And its not just that.., they are "sriking the root" also.
Dont go around donating money, cause its not about the money..,dont be fooled.., or please do if you want to end up blacklisted for supporting a "radical movement".
Its all about control.
Keep your guard up, ALWAYS!!
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 5:02am.
"yeah, they're making truckfuls of money by selling Loose Change DVD's for a dollar and letting other people copy it for free and sell it for a dollar." -Doughnut-
Hey, are you really stupid or naive?! I wasnt talking about DVD sales...This is just the start with Dylan & Co, you will see..
Dylan is a snitch, thats a 100% fact, its sad but very true..get over it..!
R. Siegel is one too, hell...., he would do anything for money...haha
Dont go around joining dubios movements, cause that way you will be easily controlled and your means and deeds will get suppressed. Think for yourselves! You dont need snitches to tell you what to think!
The Delphi Technique. What Is It?
They have divided the movement allready.., no planers, podpeople,energy beams directed from WTC 7, and on we go....They are trying to keep us busy arguing and fighting with ourselves, DIVIDE AND CONQUER!
AND REMEMBER THIS,
80% to 90% of the movements are controlled/infiltrated by the government, thats a fact!! Do your math!! Dont be naive!
_________________
"These bogus groups could serve many functions which might include attacking and/or disrupting bona fide groups, or even just simply creating a diversion with clever propaganda in order to attract members away so as to involve them with time-wasting activity designed to prevent them from doing anything useful. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties so that it looked like just a "disagreement" between two individuals or groups, a "food fight" or something, and there was no way to connect it to any government operation."
TheDeparted (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 2:52pm.
Hey Tom. I read about your story on your site. I'm trying to keep an open mind regarding what events took place on 9/11. I have absolutely no doubt it was an inside job. The motivation was clearly there in multiple instances (trillions declared missing, attack on accounting wing of pentagon, wtc7, the WTC money pit, etc.). The part that is mostly in debate amongst us is HOW the towers came down. I don't understand how you're drawing your conclusions about #6. I want to suggest that you modify the picture page you listed. I think you should do something along these lines to help convey your message more clearly so the rest of us can make better assessments of your claims. I would take all of the photos you listed, put them on one side of the page. Create duplicates of these images and place them immediately next to the originals. On the duplicate use photoshop to insert arrows and or circles around the details you are discussing to clarify things.
I think it's damn well a possibility #6 had a massive bomb go off. I don't see why it would have to be a nuke or mininuke however. We all need to keep in mind that the military is not going to disclose all new technology that they have. Individuals who are unwilling to believe this need only look at applications for US patents. Every year X patents are applied for. And every year the state dictates that Y of X are classified as secret for use by the state. Of those Y patents there is no doubt that a percentage are purely for new weapons some of which none of us could ever imagine(that's for the Tesla's and Einstein's among us....).
Be careful about concluding the hole in #6 was a nuke. It's going to make individuals who do not adhere to the scientific method tune you out.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN! http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
The timing of squibs is compelling, especially in the context of explosions that breached the walls as the aircraft hit to ensure maximum penetration(don't want all those plane parts littering the street where the "groundlings" might find them).
Having said that, I too, wonder how one goes from there to nukes. The most the chain of custody presented establishes is a very definate, maybe...not. The glass could be falling out and down from above--I'm sorry, chum, it doesn't look much clearer than that.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but we do not need nukes to prove the official story is garbage.
about the whole "nukes" thing, 'they' are trying to figure out why the radiation levels and certain particles are so high at Ground Zero. And some sort of a tactical nuclear device and explosion does answer those questions. It is possible to have very small (relatively speaking) nuclear suitcase-like bombs that give a big explosion and would probably be easier to use if you had one/some than the equivalent amount of 'traditional' explosives. (TNT, C4, even ANFO) Don't think Hiroshima or larger style explosions, think very small, yet very large, explosions that are merely created using a nuclear bomb reaction. They are known to exist and it is possible that one, or more, were used. The Official Story claims that the high radiation levels and particles are from the jet airplane "Exit" signs. I believe that is what is stated in the 9/11 Omission Report.
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
Thank you for clairfying the science, but I am--very amaturishly of course--familiar with the new generation fusion bombs. They actually scare me because the small amounts of radiation they leave can be "cleaned"/ masked by showering water over the site.
See? Yes, I do understand where this could fit.
What especially scares me is because they are so relatively clean, I'm waiting for some itchy bastard(Cheney?) who wants to break the nuke taboo, to manufacture either a reason to use one, or to use one as a false flag(Iran?), thus giving the States(or Israel) cart blanche to use nuclear weapons any way they want. Ironically it is the cleaness that makes them easy to use.
Back to 911: even if true, there is a time and place, and this is not the time. I absolutely encourage further research into all the anomolies--burnt out cars otherwise intact nearby, for instance--but if the goal is holding the bastards accountable all we need to do is prove criminal culpability. We've got that--the next thing is to engage people in a way they can grasp and be galvanized. After 5 years of wishy washy garbage in towel-head land over non-existant WMD's people are willing to consider this administration in a criminal light. They are even starting to feel safe enough to look at the WTC collapse as a series of explosions. They are not ready to see nukes and even if they were, you'd need something better than that slide show.
We need to keep the momentum up AND respect that the people we are trying to reach have limits.
I have just watched both parts of the debate, and I have to say I'm REALLY disappointed.
I think that there is a general tendency among people who post here to assume that all publicity is good publicity and sometimes to interpret in a positive way events that are in reality very damaging to the overall image and representation of "9/11 Truth". This debate has been one such event - maybe not critically important in itself, but, if truthers don't see how undermining this particular debate is to 9/11 Truth, this is NOT good.
Maybe there is a cognitive dissonance within 9/11 Truth which prevents truthers from seeing how compromised and undermined they are by certain types of publicity.
Let me summarise the key red flags with this debate:
1) The presenter was OPENLY supporting Mark Roberts!!
2) Bermas and Avery were WAY too chummy with their opponent - it makes them look weak, and even suggests some degree of complicity. I do believe they are genuine but the net effect of their excessively good manners is to undermine their position.
3) Why are they all sitting together side by side??? Again, this undermines the debate and makes it look like they are all on the same side.
4) They allowed the presenter who is openly partisan to FRAME the debate as "conspiriscists Vs the Debunker". In terms of psychological warfare this is a total disasaster for 9/11 Truth. They should have refused point blank to allow the debate to be framed in this way. Jason and Dylan are the debunkers - Mark Roberts is the representative of the Official Fairy Tale - this should have been rammed down our throats. Unfortunately, it appeared exactly opposite, and Jason was put into the ridiculous position of trying to justify his irrational "conspiracy theories" against the "rational" Mark Roberts and the presenter.
5) They didn't stay focussed on their own best evidence. They didn't debate WTC7 !!! This is really unforgivable and, sorry to say it, but it makes our boys look like disinfo agents. I really wish I didn't have to say this, but I have to call it as I see it. There is a LOT at stake here.
Does anybody else see this the way I do? I really hope so, not because I want to be right, but because I want 9/11 Truth to succeed.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has always asked for debates. This is what you wanted all along.
Dylan and his sidekick accepted a debate with someone who actually supports the truth about 9/11 hosted by Ronald W. who also supports the truth about 9/11. There is no mystery there.
Jason Bermas made an ass of himself in front of the real world. He chose to spout the exact same nonsense you guys spout every day.
We tell you this over and over and you refuse to listen to the truth, day after day after day.
But you choose to believe irrational, illogical, and bizarre conspiracy theories for your own narrow (and stupid) political ends.
So do not bitch when the truth gets shoved in your face and the faces of \"kids just making a movie.\"
Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 7:33am.
Why don't we have government scientists debating non-government 'truther' scientists? Why must the government send out schills and trained propagandists to debate guys who don't even hold a Doctorate?
I would ask if our government is full of a bunch of wussies but we already know it is. And don't tell me the government doesn't have the time nor the money to do so. I worked in the government and I know how much time and money they could actually put to the issue. Unfortunately they'd rather spend money determining who shot a load on some interns dress. Weasels.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN! http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
Truthers here are some what hesistant to criticize Dylan and Jason, for somewhat obvious reasons. But this debate is worthy of objective criticism.
Someone claiming to be "Dylan Avery" posted on the previous blog about how some here are "haters" and how he never asked for this. Im not even sure its really Dylan as the posts remain "unverified" (wuz up with that?)
I do know that 911blogger.com is the definitive website for Truthers to express their feelings about the movement. So if Dylan cant take the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen.
I particularly agree with your observation that our guys appeared way too chummy. What the hell was that!?!? This is still about innocent Americans being slaughtered. This is still about treason at the very highest levels of our government. This is still about the assault on our civil liberties and wars based on lies. What the hell are Dylan and Jason doing yucking it up with these schmucks!?!?
I didnt like it one bit. I seriously hope "Final Cut" is packed with the punch we all hope it will bring.
second, if you actually believe the outcome of a Brooklyn Public Access show debate is going to impact the movement as a whole in any way, shape, or form, I think you're mistaken.
third, we weren't there to cause a scene.
fourth, those guys have their minds made up, and bermas and I knew that going in. there's nothing we can say or do to sway them, aside from a document signed by George W. Bush himself.
again, this debate changes NOTHING, in the reality of the situation.
Chris, YOU go on Hardfire. I'd love to see how you do. I'm sure Ron would love to have you on.
dylan avery (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 12:53pm.
Dylan, Here is one example of a fatal strategic error: when discussing the NIST report they put you guys into the position of having to PROVE your assertions, whereas, you should have had the heat on them all the time.
You guys should have stayed on message about how the NIST report, despite its 10,000 pages, fails to expain what happened after the towers were "poised for collapse" - and you should have relentlessly pressured them to explain why there was no computer modelling of the "global collapse".
You could have framed that by, firstly, discussing the MONEY that went into this report (in excess of USD $20 million), and then reading the little footnote where it says this report does not address the mechanism of global collapse. You should have quoted that verbatim - it's gold!
You should have also quoted from the fire engineering article by Bill Manning: "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
I am keen to debate these kind of people myself, and I'm learning from watching your mistakes, so its ok ... (:
Good answers--though I too wondered about the "not verified". I thought you had a 911Blogger account. Clairification...?
Keep that center and focus. I haven't seen the second part yet--am in the middle of a brutal work schedule--but if its anything like the last, you done good.
Some unsolicited thoughts for you: be aware many of your supporters have a hard time seeing "chumminess" as a strategy. After seeing apparent friendliness, they need to see some iron first--just keep it in a velvet glove. All this where appropirate, obviously.
Also, I do agree with the person who said you need to pick your gigs, so to speak. Weigh the pros/cons--what there is to be gained, what there is to loose--and don't let anyone say you're cowards if you refuse and you know exactly why you needed to refuse.
Lastly, have you considered proposing a team project with Griffin or Jones? Safety in numbers, mate...
Stop playing the victim here Dylan, you were in it too, it was an act.
You re simply a snotnose whois a part of a huge coverup, snitch.
3000 people died on 9/11/01 and you are playing the victim. You sneaky little shit. You make us sick.
And your a part of that coverup. That makes you guilty as well. How dare you?
You have no soul at all.
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 3:05pm.
I assume that the poster is serious, so I must inform him that Dylan and Jason understood perfectly well that I am the same host who debated Les Jamieson back in July. To feign neutrality would have been silly.
From your perspective, the debate went badly because Mark Roberts is astonishingly knowledgeable about the various 9/11-related myths and canards. People on this and other conspiracist sites regularly trot out their thoroughly debunked factoids to preach to the choir. None of those fabrications can stand the slightest scrutiny.
Roberts demonstarted that Dylan and Jason have no real knowledge base to draw from. They reject the NIST report, a painstaking effort by over two hundred researchers, because the conclusions are inconvenient to their fantasies. They fail to understand the collapse mechanism explained by NIST and show little interest in learning about it. What they require is not better debating skills, but a coherent position.
Roberts has spoken to hundreds of people connected with the Shanksville investigation; Avery and Bermas, no one. Again, what do the fantasists have, apart from the usual bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies?
Toward the end of the second show, I asked the Loose Change team what could falsify their beliefs. The answer spoke volumes: Nothing could make any sort of impact. As Jefferson wrote, "Reason cannot change opinions it had no role in forming."
Mr. Wieck, I hope that you someday remove your head from the sand and begin to see what has been going on around you.
I googled to find some more information on you and saw that you don't believe that the 2004 election was stolen. That shows that you live in denial and ignorance about even the most commonly known and proven things. I rest my case. God bless you.
Jason, I don't believe that the 2004 election was stolen for an excellent reason: it wasn't. John Kerry agrees with me, incidentally. I realize that critical thinking skills are in short supply around these parts, but on the off chance that you retain a speck of intellectual curiosity, you might try visiting pollster.com. That site, run by Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal, contains the most comprehensive information to be found anywhere on the subject of polling in general and exit polling in particular. Blumenthal's four-part series on RFK Jr.'s "Rolling Stone" article is essential reading for anyone interested in the subject. Bob Fitrakis might have been able to sell his snake oil to Mark Crispin Miller and Bobby Junior, but the real statisticians saw through the scam.
You resort to typically puerile conspiracist rhetoric--all of your prejudices have somehow been proved--to disguise the fact that a set of your beliefs, based on pure emotion, can't be supported with any real evidence. You suppose it to be an anomaly that Bush, the candidate leading in the realclearpolitics aggregate of national polls by 2.5 points, won the election. Had Kerry, the candidate who was trailing, won, you would regard the outcome as perfectly natural. Sorry, but the world works somewhat differently.
Study issues-- I mean, really dig into them. If you believe that explosives were used to bring down the WTC, ask yourself what you know that escapes everybody in the controlled demolition industry. No structural engineer or demolition expert takes this stuff seriously. Why? Read the Protec paper. Where is Brent Blanchard going wrong?
You maintain a civil tone and I respect you for that. I urge you to open your mind to the available evidence. You heard Dylan and Jason admit that nothing could falsify their beliefs. That's not a good model to emulate.
If the election were held today, Bush would lose. When it was held in 2004, he won. Why are you talking about critical thinking skills when it is apparent that you have none?
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence'. although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.(p 85, footnote)
let me put the above into plain english:
"We decided not to examine the collapse sequence because we knew that if we did we would come up with an explanation which would not fit our preconceptions. Instead, we decided to re-shape the English language, for the purpose of this report, in such a way that terms such as "probable collapse sequence" could be used without actually referring to the collapse itself. This makes it look like we have addressed the issue whereas in reality we skirted around it, and we deliberately put this critical disclaimer into a footnote so that most people would not read it, but so it could be used if necessary to defend us against criminal complicity in the event that the real collapse meachanism is ever discovered."
"Instead, we decided to re-shape the English language..."
That's not the only thing they reshaped, looks like the ONLY image of serious damage to WTC7 is a fraud... There is another image showing intact floors at the SW corner of WTC7...
Instead of making yourself appear ridiculous, why not take a look at the NIST report? You are absolutely clueless about it, you know. Two hundred researchers working on a project for years did not "skirt around" anything. They produced an exhaustive explanation of the collapse mechanism. If you are incapable of understanding it, or too irrational to make the attempt, the problem is with you, not the NIST team. The real mechanism has been discovered. No structural engineer anywhere has a significant disagreement with the conclusions reached by NIST (a few have minor quibbles). You reject a report that you haven't comprehended because it is inconvenient to your absurd and baseless fantasies.
So, Mr. Wieck, busy little bee, aren't you? Posh suit, nice digs, and yet you have time to visit our humble site--may I ask why, Sir?
See, you don't sound like a professional, certainly not like that wanker "moderating" the debate. For a big boy, you seem to have trouble behaving. And yes, how you say something IS just as important as WHAT you say, sunshine.
I'll let you in on a little secret--we're here to save the world. Specifically from the designs of US military and economic imperialism and those who would manufacture disasters to scare people into compliance. And if we're wrong? No harm, no foul. And please don't say you have to protect the administration et al. from dangerous, slanderous accusations: we both know the Bush administration is more than capable of defending itself if need be.
So, what are you here for, Sir? What motivates you? Not helping people, surely. From your posts I get the impression you rather despise people. You know, people--
seniors living on their pensions, knitting prezzies for kiddies: some of them are Truthers.
Your local over worked underpaid barrista who always gets your espresso just right--some of them are Truthers.
The welder that works double shifts because she wants her kiddies in college--some of them are Truthers.
The trucker who drives through the economic wasteland Wal Mart has made during his hauls--some of them are Truthers.
And half the citizens of New York City- - a group of people I would not piss off for no reason--continue to have many, various and reasonable doubts about the 911Omission. Of those, most of them would consider themselves Truthers.
So what kind of people precisely do you believe you are calling ridiculous? You have no idea who you are talking to here, you arrogant prat.
If I had one extra wish for this holiday season, it would be for you, Sir, to be locked in a convention center alone with the 911Truthers of any one city.
Disagree with us if you must in holding this administration accountable, but if you will not lead or follow, then GET THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF THE WAY!
Oh, and piss off from our site, please--a man of your age trolling is just embaressing.
No, you're not here to save the world. Disarming America in the face of fanatic jihadists (yes, Virginia, they exist) probably wouldn't be the best way of doing it. The fact is, you're here seeking the community of like-minded America-haters. Your world was rocked when the Great Satan became the the victim of an unprovoked attack. That couldn't stand. You had to turn reality on its head to construct a mad, insupportable fantasy about an event that really isn't mysterious at all. But, then, for irrational people, it's all in a day's work.
I know exactly whom I'm talking to. And I will neither lead nor follow. I will continue to expose the ignorance and malice that animates your movement. Remember, after five years of screaming, your side has produced bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies. You have nothing else.
One remarks in amazement how much you hate truth, reason, rational thinking, and providing any evidence whatsoever.
You have done a good job of displaying what happens when you victims of ignorance and prejudice are let loose in the world. To you, a better world is dragging everyone down to your level - the Stone Age.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 9:56am.
"The fact is, you're here seeking the community of like-minded America-haters."
The fact is, you are wrong, sir. That is the most ingorant and vile statement a person can make on this subject. It is the exact opposite of that, sir..the exact opposite. I love America and what America represents and what it is supposed to stand for. America is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both of which the "president" (yes, I do use air quotes when saying Bush is my president) has completely destroyed.
So, we're America-haters? I'm an America-hater because I want truth, liberty and justice? I'm an America-hater because I question our government and because I do not blindly trust them? I'm an America-hater because I know the history of our government that you will not see in the history books? I'm an America-hater because I know of the true evil that occupies the hearts and the minds of those who are supposed to be our leaders and our voice as a people? How dare you call us America-haters?
"after five years of screaming, your side has produced bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies. You have nothing else."
The exact same holds true for "your side". Do you see how you used the words "your side"? It's sad that, as Americans, "your side" is used in that way when all "our side" wants is truth, justice, liberty and to save this country, our families and all of mankind from fascism, tyranny and evil. Why do we have to be on seperate sides? Please, ask yourself that question, sir. The answer to that may be very confusing and difficult to understand, but my point is that we shouldn't have to be on different "sides".
If you're going to call us America-haters, you might as well get it correct and call us "global-haters" or something along those lines because this goes past saving and protecting America. This evil power that's behind all of this madness in the world has, behind it, a global agenda. So, if you still want to make yourself look ignorant by calling us "America-haters", I ask that you first attempt to see this world, your life, your family, your friends, the people you randomly encounter and the people you observe on a daily basis through the eyes of compassion and love. If that doesn't change the way that you view the world and us "America-haters", then what more can be said?
Maybe these "sides" that you speak of, is the willingness to allow anger to turn to hate. I can only speak for myself, but I love, no matter how much your words and the words of others might irritate me. That's why I want the truth and that's why I want to expose all of the lies that we are all told a daily basis. I don't want people to live in a false reality where they are constantly living in a state of deceit that comes from a world bent of the destruction of its fellow man because I love my fellow man, no matter how evil and corrupt some of them are.
His rhetoric exposes him as an O'Reilly-style Administration hitman rather than a credible debater of issues. When his argument is reduced to "You hate America," we know where he gets his talking points and where his bread is buttered. Sometimes it's good to keep them talking, as sooner or later they show their colors. If the next round of "debates" began with a reading of that post, he'd be laughed off the dais.
You know what's really pathetic? He thinks that by shilling for the traitors and keepers of the Big Lie he will be rewarded and protected in the sick world he is helping to build. But he's just another Egyptian on the pyramid, and just as likely to be tossed into the camps when his usefullness is over. There he will confront his rotten soul.
People who accuse members of the American government of committing heinous and unprecedented crimes, who lack even a shred of evidence for that accusation, who by their actions seek to exonerate a fanatical foreign foe of the murder of three thousand civilians, hate America.
The tiny cable show I occasionally host does not hold the slightest bit of interest for anyone in the government . We should try not to sound silly.
Your absurd fantasy about Americans orchestrating the attacks that were carefully planned and skillfully executed by a resolute enemy is highly pernicious. Nothing points to any American involvement--absolutely nothing. You have no talking points that haven't been debunked a thousand times. The conspiracists have told countless lies and invented new principles of science to paper over their complete lack of any evidence for their false claims.
Your side is quick to besmirch anyone who exposes your foolish fabrications and vicious lies. But, to repeat myself, what have you produced in five years of screaming? What facts support the preposterous myths you've created? There are none.
Be a man, and consider who you are carrying water for. Tell me, DO NOT AVOID THE DIRECT POINT... tell me how I am to accept the oxymoronic concept of anticipatory self-defense, if I CAN NOT accept the 9/11 Commission Report?
You simply can't, so your only hope is to convince me of the validity of the 9/11 Commission Report. Your world view absolutely depends on your success at convincing me 'to give up on this American hating act of questioning the government's explanation of events'. Your failure to persuade me, represents a clear and present danger to your world view... so the stakes are quite high for you... and I at least appreciate what kind of dangerous person you are forced to be on account that your failure automatically implicates you in aiding and abetting treason and mass murder. Your life hangs by the phantom thread of "truth" in the story of 19 foreigners perpetrating the dastardly 9/11 attacks. Sucks to be you.
You must believe deep down in your heart that swarthy freedom haters might be hiding under your bed, and that the Great United States War Machine crushes baby skulls in far off lands... to keep you safe. You're entitled to you idiocy, but don't blame me when people call you a dumb ass.
Now what we have here is really quite the mind fuck that AT LEAST ONE of us is suffering under. Either I and my 9/11 Twoofer movement are completely wrong about the inside job theory, and we would be much better off accepting the baby-skull crushing method you seem to carry water for, "because that's the best way to keep us safe". Even if I did accept the Osama and his merry band of malcontents "did it", I might still have some doubts about the efficacy of the baby skull crushing method (the method you carry water for it if you don't oppose something so outlandishly repugnant).
Right, so either you have a problem with reality, or I do. Now since I at least know that crushing baby skulls is a needlessly worthless and disgusting thing to do FOR ANY REASON... and that those who would do such a thing (there are people doing that today, in the name of keeping you, Ronald Wieck, safe... and you don't seem to be voicing a clear opposition to this activity), those who would do such a thing (and not being opposed by you) might, MIGHT, just might also be the very same kind of people with every means, motive and opportunity to perpetrate 9/11.
There is no possible way to force you to consider the rational nor probability of this alternative hypothesis, but your willfull ignorance and/or refusal to consider, argue directly, or simply acknowledge the simple WHY this hypothesis exists, defines YOU, Ronald Wieck, as the tediously small minded shit who seems to hate Americans who exercise their right and duty to apprehend mass murderers, and see justice done. You're a dumb ass fuck, even IF you are right that no domestic malfeasance nor misfeasance was a contributing factor in the horror of 9/11. You're a dumb ass fuck, because you can not even bring yourself to consider how the proven Pay-Off of 9/11 stinks to high heaven, and thus who that points to.
You're a dumb ass first and foremost...
And who knows what kind of reasons a dumb ass like you would use to rationalize any number of dumb ass lines like calling me an America hater for perusing truth and justice no matter how ugly either might be. I trust that posterity will at least give me credit for not being blinded by a jingoistic servitude which seems to afflict you and your ilk.
I'm speaking more about you, and less at you or even posing questions to you... so I do not expect nor need you to respond in any way. From what you've already said I suspect your mind is locked, much to the same degree mine has solidified into accepting the reality of your idiocy, willful and/or paid which makes no difference anyway.
Best of luck living with yourself in the years to come... at least I can be proven wrong, and no one gets hurt or dies.
Same can't be said for you. The trail of dead bodies behind you, stinks. The trail of dead bodies before you, by failing to consider how you enable it... is simply sad and disturbing as you demonstrate the worst kind of sophistry to unworthy power.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Not to be unkind, but your comment suggests that you don't understand the laws of physics. There is a reason why no serious researcher--physicist, structural engineer, metallurgist, demolition expert--agrees with you that physical laws were somehow violated in the collapse of the WTC. The NIST report explains the collapse in exhaustive detail. None of the two hundred scientists and engineers who worked on the project noticed the theoretical objections you raise. Why not familiarize yourself with the real science involved before drawing conclusions? My college physics courses have mostly faded from memory. To understand the technical papers of Dr. Frank Greening, I had to hit the books, and even then I pestered him with numerous questions. There's no shame in lacking expertise in a highly specialized field, but why make pronouncements that real experts will dismiss as hopelessly naive?
His name is Steven Jones Phd From BYU.Along with alot of experts we have in the truth movement.
As far as an expert in physic's your right iam not,and never claimed to be.However simple high school physic's is more than enoungh in this case.
Conservation of momentum....Look it up.
The funny thing is i looked at both sides.Obviously you have'nt.
Don't believe it,or don't want to believe it?
You can fool the fans ,but not the players.
Forgive me if you've answered this question before, but why don't you get Alex Jones on your show? I'm sure it wouldn't accomplish anything useful, but at least it would be entertaining.
Dylan and his crew are naive because they do not focus on the shaking before the collapse.
The whole debate was pointless without addressing that, since it is clear that whatever caused that shaking is what initiated the collapse. And there is no way that shaking was caused by anything that happened on the ~78th floor.
I have no idea how anyone could believe the towers were brought down by fire.
No where in recorded history has this ever happened.
If that’s true then how have we been using wood burning stoves for decades?
If we are to believe the official story, then we have no security in this country at all.
So, those you who wish to believe the official story, I think I would stay out to tall buildings and stop flying. Because security is only as good as the people who inforce it.
Aaron Jones (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 7:25am.
I hope people don't go away thinking these are the major issues behind the inside job claim, 1 hour is never going to be enough time for either side to get across all the different diemsions of 9/11, you'd need a whole series on the subject.
I noticed they began with the shanksville crash, one of the more mysterious elements of 9/11 and hardest to actually say either way what actually happened.
Anders (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 7:25am.
- a faint vertical tail impression left in the grass, but no tail even though it didn't penetrate the ground
- the lack of fire damage to the grass outside the crater
- the trajectory of the burnt forest doesn't line up with the trajectory that the plane allegedly came in at
- no burning between the crater and burnt forest section
- a 75 ton object only displaced enough dirt to fill back in the shallow crater
- the displaced dirt is in a ramp shape pointing toward the odd burnt forest section
- the thick tree-tops are broken off suggesting something heavy hit them, yet no sign of what did
- no clear mark in "soft soil" where one of the engines "bounced" and landed 600yds away
- no photo of this engine that was "found" 600yds away
- black boxes (which are at the rear of the plane) "found" 15 & 20ft underneath the crater, yet one engine only found 4ft underground with hardly any debris around it
- two medium sized fuselage pieces seen in the forest under the cover of trees somehow "escaped" being burrowed underground along with the rest of the plane
- metal scraps seen on top of crater and near/inside forest, but no debris seen on grass out side of crater
- pristine red bandana and bunch of books with relatively little damage "found"
- coroner reported not a single drop of blood at the scene
- lots of little pieces of metal scraps found at the scene 400yds away from a metal scrap yard (Rollock)
- only person to witness "757" hitting the ground was ex-navy working only 2nd day on the job at Rollock
- I called owner of the land (Svonavec) and they said "soft dirt" was a "relative" term
- Shanksville is a "military flight corridor"
- 13 witnesses report military plane near scene before and seconds after
But other than those, there's "no mystery" about the crash scene.
--------------------------------------------------------
I know as a 9/11 Truth Kiddy you are not very smart, Killtown, but why advertise the fact that you know absolutely nothing about plane crashes??
You know full well that Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville. We who have followed plane crashes for decades know the evidence is perfectly consistent with a high-speed impact.
We know the evidence exists and is irrefutable that it crashed there.
We know it was not shot down. We know it was Flight 93 that crash.
So, tell us, Killtown, why do you insist on always making a complete ass of yourself?
One can never underestimate the intelligence of the 9/11 Denial Movement.
Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 1:24pm.
You know. I go onto this website everyday expecting to see the trolls out and about. And usually, they're messages are predictable. This one takes the cake though. You say there is no mystery about the crash. Then, Killtown, of whom I don't always agree with, lists more than enough little tidbits to prove some sort of "mystery". He excluded other numerous strange occurrences too that would also make a common sensed person step back and think. And yet, your response to his list is: "You know full well Flight 93 crashed....we who have followed plane crashes know the evidence is perfectly....we know the evidence exists and is irrefutable...we know it was not shot down...we know it was flight 93 that crashed....."
And you top it off with "one can never underestimate the intelligence of the 9/11 denial movement"
First, let me just say that one can never underestimate the pathetic existence of someone who regularly visits a website that discusses something they disagree with only to insult those who are on the site. Hell, I disagree with the creative design theory. You don't see me bitching to Kirk Cameron and all those CD (other CD people, lol) believers every single damn day. And if I did, maybe I'd provide a shred of evidence to support my claims. You haven't.
Lets go back to the beginning of my post and yours. You, Mr. Anonymous-too-scared-to-input-a-real-nickname-little-bitch, said that you have followed plane crashes for decades and know the evidence is perfectly consistent. I ask you: did you do this as a hobby? or is this just straight from your ass? If its more than that, where are your credentials? Also, please provide links and evidence to show the consistency of the plane crash evidence. Let me guess, you can't and won't.
Please also provide the official theory's irrefutable evidence that tells us it was flight 93.
How do you know it was not shot down? Did you happen to watch it? And did you see pictures of debri that have '93' listed on the side to let us know it was Flight 93. Probably not.
Most of the time, its easy to brush aside trolls. In this case, I just had to respond to such stupidity.
Do not give me that crap. Killtown and you loons of the 9/11 Denial Movement are here for political purposes to deny all of the evidence about 9/11 without providing a stitch of evidence to back up your contradictory claims.
You ask the typical pathetic evasive question: How do you know it was not shot down? You cannot weasel out of your responsibility to provide evidence that it WAS shot down, nitwit, and provide a credible scenario where if it were shot down as part of a government plot, WHY. You cannot and will not do it.
Killtown has not presented any credible evidence that it was not something else while the preponderance of evidence from dozens of independent sources points to the fact that it was and only could only be 93 and the impact zone , debris, passenger remains and everything is perfectly consistent with a high speed impact of that jet.
It is up to you weasels to bring evidence to the table completely contradicting ALL of the evidence you desperately try to pretend does not exist.
You 9/11 Deniers are the most pathetic, idiotic, uneducated twits this world has seen since Holocaust deniers and you are far too uneducated to even have a clue that you do not know how to think logically and rationally. You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for flouting your hate and ignorance around so proudly.
So wash you mouth out with soap, bunky, and apologize to every American and the victims families who you so proudly insult on a daily basis.
And until and unless you can bring evidence to support your ridiculous assertions we are going to continue to thrust the truth in front of you.
Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 3:14pm.
You're a hypocrite. Look at your very first claim,"...you loons of the 9/11 Denial Movement are here for political purposes...". Okay. What are these political purposes? You don't mention anything about the political goals of the "movement". You merely attack the hypotheses regarding the events of that day as proposed by people who do not accept the government story.
If you can't imagine why an airliner would be shot down after 3 other airliners had crashed into buildings, killing any one on the planes and anyone in the buildings they hit, then you're too god damn stupid to be criticizing any one here.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN! http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
The official name of what you call the 9/11 Truth Movement is the 9/11 Denial Movement. It has been that way since Nov. 2002 when your movement declared that it existed for the purpose of lying about the events of 9/11 because you wanted to see Bush impeached.
It has always been thus and it still is.
When you get your feet wet as a full blown 9/11 Denier you will see this is true, but for the sake of truth and reality, we will call you by your official name: the 9/11 Denial Movement.
You said, for some incredible reason: If you can\\\\\\\'t imagine why an airliner would be shot down after 3 other airliners had crashed into buildings, killing any one on the planes and anyone in the buildings they hit, then you\\\\\\\'re too god damn stupid to be criticizing any one here.
So let us get what you are claiming straight:
9/11 was an inside job (as everyone here declares, without evidence.) the Bush plot involves 2 planes hitting two WTC towers, having pre-planted explosives in the towers to bring them down so it looks like a classic controlled demolition. Never mind that no demolition company in history has ever blown up buildings from the top down and without spending months stripping and preparing the buildings for demolition. In addition, according to the official story of the 9/11 Denial Movement, a third tower WTC was also blown up with pre-planted explosives by Larry Silverstein who had just two-months prior signed a 99-year lease with the Port of Authority of NYC for the purposes of collecting on an insurance policy of the building. Notwithstanding that the official story of the 9/11 Denial Movement conveniently ignores the terms of the lease which blows their conspiracy theory out of the water, we now have a private businessman. Most curiously, this theory leads us to conclude that the U.S. Government had included Silverstein in the plot, the Gov. to scare us into going to war but allowing Silverstein to collect on insurance money. Also, 9/11 Deniers have had to include NYC firemen in the plot to pull the tower down, but to wait over six hours to make sure know was hurt rather than blowing the tower up when WTC 1 fell and killing anyone around.
Are you with me, still? Good.
In addition, the Bush plot had a 757 crash into the Pentagon, the third plane to hit a building, killing people intentionally again. Some 9/11 Deniers claim it was a missile, against all evidence, but nonetheless still sent by Bush to hit the Pentagon. BTW, 9/.11 deniers insist only a handful of people would need to know of the plot. Yes, really.
Now you, a newbie, comes along to declare that why would Bush NOT shoot down a plane presumably sent to destroy another building in Washington, maybe the Capitol or the White House. So, after going to all this trouble to intentionally kill as many people as possible by hit buildings with aircraft (or a missile), Bush suddenly decides not to finish the job? Is that what you want us to believe? Or do you want us to believe that Bush intentionally shot it down to make it look like he was innocent? But then was it Flight 93, as some hard-core 9/11 Truth Kiddies like the bumbling Killtown claim it was not?
Enlighten us with your new theory, Whitey. Please try not to be a hypocrite.
Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 8:50am.
Actually sunshine, it's just beginning. And it will go on long after you have lost relevance. What? Oh ya. You have never been relevant. By the way, where is that warehouse with the 95% of the flight 93 wreckage. All someone has to do is produce that and we will go away on this issue. No promises on building 7 or the pentagon though.
Phaedrus (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 5:07pm.
I see someone else besides me has taken to calling you "sunshine", 911debunker. Just consider this our sincere holiday wish that you will someday turn into a rainbow and not a pain-bow.
So I've come to the conclusion those \\\\\ are deliberate--you want to sign your posts, to know that we know that you know we know--and all that spooky bollocks, because you have multiple anonymous posts, all with different angles, and you want to keep them straight. Thing is, you could just pick a name--it would be so much easier on you.
Oh, and since you're such a fan of JREF--whose interests include the paranormal as well as debunking 911--how's the ghost hunting these days? Those alien abductions not interupting your holiday, are they?
Sorry mate--you're credibility is very burnt toast. Other trolls must laugh and call you names...
"Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way"
It's right there, mate--you DISCUSS the paranormal-- not you debunk the paranormal. Unless you debunk skepticism, critical thinking, and science as well.
And speaking of getting things right:
"Yo cannot even get one thing right"
I think you meant to say "you", sunbeam. "Yo" just doesn't seem your style. Be seeing you...
You are on record: how\\\'s the ghost hunting these days? Those alien abductions not interupting your holiday, are they?
Anyone who actually knows what JREF is about knows that JREF debunks ALL of that including your 9/11 fantasies.
Every time you open your mouth, bubba Jenny, you just inform us once again how bloody ignorant you are. You should give up the hate, reject the paranormal, and join the side of truth.
Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 10:13am.
You move across the pond or something, Ernie? Or are you desperately in search of style? It just sounds odd--you've sounded like a Yank or Canuck and now you're trying to sound Brit?
Point of order--I'm of English decent but I was born a Yank--I just had dual cultural immersion from since I was a little one. That's why is sounds natural from me. You just sound like a prat desperate for attention.
Then again, I suppose it's a complement--immitation/ flattery and all that...
A mentally inept, sad, pathetic, lunatic who believes that 9/11 was “an inside job” has too much free time on his hands.
He creates a website dedicated to his obtuse world observations, which other mentally handicapped dimwits buy into, believing that they are truly “enlightened” and that those who do not believe in their completely ridiculous, fictionalized conspiracy are ignorant to “the truth”.
Said individual then decides to dress in all black (including black plastic sunglasses) all of which infers the seriousness of his demeanor as he tries to reveal the grave, nay calamitous “truth” to the world.
Said individual ambushes American citizens asking them their opinions on 9/11. How groundbreaking. How revolutionary. Indeed, worthy of a Pulitzer Prize.
Then this individual decides to ambush celebrity Danny Bonaduce. But Bonaduce is a supporter of President Bush, and of the War on Terrorism. He also appears to not take a liking to 9/11 conspiracy theories.
That's the risk that that John dude is prepared to take I guess. A little loss of face is a small price to pay and you or me laughing about it is neither here nor there.
Still - having that Danny dude on his videos - might help pass on John's message so I respect John for going for it.
Considering that almost no Hollywood people have the balls to speak the obvious Truth - makes it no surprise that that Danny dude would - especially to a perfect stranger live on video.
Hollywood definitely knows about 911 Truth and demolitions.
The few people that I know do at least.
Keep up the work John. Good for you too Danny for saying what you believe in.
You can be forgiven for not saying inside job - but it takes a real monkey to actually like Bush and what he stands for.
mime11.com (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 8:14am.
Your title is inherently a false statement. If everyone knew that no demolitions took place then why are there individuals (mind you, they make up a subset of 'everyone') who believe they took place. That is a logical fallacy. Go learn how to use logic before posting something fully devoid of it.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN! http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
They should've brought Kevin Ryan on to debate that jerk Roberts. Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas are well-intentioned, and have certainly tried to frame a debate for something other than the Official Story, but they are not scientists. This Roberts character pretends to be a scientist, so where are his credentials? Seems to me that these debates are done purposely to discredit the truth movement, and make people like Bermas and Avery look like juvenile nobodies. Roberts would be afraid of debating a real scientist like Ryan! And this Wieck character, what a piece of work!
Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:36am.
Dick Cheney was secretary of defense under REAGAN? Look, no offense to the Loose Change guys intended, but they are far from the best people to be presenting the case for 9/11 Truth. It's really time to move on. We have David Ray Griffin's books, we have 9/11 Mysteries. We have growing interest among the populace.
It is time to grow out of the fetters that were put in place as the truth movement grew. I'm not terribly worried about this kind of interview harming the movement--it doesn't seem like it's a big time show. But we definitely need to begin to put some cognitive distance between the issue of 9/11 Truth and the personalities who "started it all".
The MSM would like nothing more than to be able to point to the usual suspects and say--see, this is who's promoting these outlandish theories. Sorry, but the truth movement is much more than Loose Change or Alex Jones. SO much more. And as each of us anonymousy truthers wakes up more and more people, the insistence of the MSM in defining what we are and who we stand for will grow more obvious and shrill. The MSM can beat on Loose Change all they want--let's make sure people know that that is simply part of the strategy of containment.
Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:37am.
The debate didn’t go particularly well but I regard this as a non-issue. More people were killed by rattle snakes last year than will watch this video, whereas millions of people have watched loose change. For the people pissing on Dylan and Jason a reminder is perhaps in order: Loose Change has awakened more people to 911 truth than all other 911 truth works combined. I’m sure they’d be the first to admit that seasoned veterans like Tarpley, Schoenman, Griffin and Scott are better suited for debates, whereas their primary skill is agitprop.
The clown on their right is clearly bought off and sold. His contention that the ’93 WTC bombing arose because of a dispute over finances is the most absurd conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard. Even the New York Times admittd that various…”enigmas caused local investigators to "dismiss Mr. Salameh as perhaps a patsy for others, someone who may have been duped into carrying out the attack and taking the blame." I recommend that everyone listen to Ralph Schoenman’s analysis of the ’93 bombing, by far the most comprehensive and astute. It can be found at TakingAim.info. He points out, among other things, that the Mossad also played a roll in this preliminary op, using their operative Guzie (Josie) Hadas. If you have any lingering doubts about who was responsible for the first WTC bombing, witness Mohammad Salameh’s behavior after the “sting operation” went live:
"He wanted his money back," begins a story by Ralph Blumenthal under the subheading, "Insistence on a Refund for a Van Led to the Arrest of Blast Suspect" (New York Times, March 5, 1993). Mohammed A. Salameh had returned three times to a Ryder Truck Rental dealer in Jersey City requesting a refund of the $400 cash deposit he had placed on a yellow Ford Econoline van that, he stated, had been stolen the night preceding the explosion.”
The definitive article on the “dry run” can be found here:
I would suggest to Dylan and Jason that they regard the criticism of their performance in this debate as a manifestation of the passion people have on the subject 911 truth. Most of the criticism is constructive; only a few individuals (usually anons) have descended to petty ad hom. You did just fine, and your work speaks for itself.
If I can make one (respectful) criticism of my own, I would suggest that in future debates you try to steer the conversation away from the physical evidence. The physical evidence is essential but it can be argued ad nauseam; put-options, war games and PNAC speak for themselves.
I would also suggest you consider the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down. In my opinion, this was not a mistake but an essential part of the operation. I conclude this from the fact that Dick Cheney apparently said something like: “an act of heroism just occurred on that flight” [does anybody have a link to this quote?] before anybody knew (or should have known) what transpired. “Let’s Roll” was apparently conceived as an essential element of 911 mythology, providing Americans with a “real-life” example of “fighting back” against the evul terrists.
Finally, if you’re listetning, I would recommend placing more emphasis on the war games in Final Cut. The war games are the key, and likely the answer to the “cell phone” calls, the stand-down, the whole operation.
i think its just time for others to pick up the torch. LC guys should not be critized. They are wonderfully human. Maybe we could convert Barack Jesus to the cause.
I would have liked to hear Roberts rebuttle to the following.Norad stand down.Almost two hours flying around.DOD'S ever changing story.Bush did'nt want the 9/11 commission,and he and Cheney's back room,no oath,no record account.
Mineta's testomoney...WHAT plane was 50 -30 10
miles out?
What about the Pentagon defense system?And planes from Andrews?Why a complex manuver from 77.,and last but not least....William Rodrigues,a true hero.A man of honor & integrity why would he say there was explosions in the sub levels,and why was it left out of the report?
I honestly feel sorry for you. I don't know how you can say there are no questions about flight 93. This almost proves that you are on the CIA's payroll.
Do you try to debunk and deny the other horrible things that our government has done to us throughout history? What about all of horrible things the government has been involved in throughout the rest of the world? I bet you don't believe any of our countries history that does not appear in a history book. I know you see all of the holes in the official story. I know you see all of the blatant lies told in the "official story". Then, you look at the murder of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, you look at how our government's lied to us about the Gulf of Tonkin and the USS Liberty to get us into war, look at the FBI/CIA involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 World Trade center bombing, look at all of the US involvement in the various embassy bombings, you have a government that has experimented on it's own citizens (MKULTRA, Codename Artichoke, chemtrails, fluoride and other related programs), you take a president who destroys the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and gives the ok to torture (sexual torture, at that) all in the "war on terror" (something even Rumsfeld now admits does not exist). All of these things (I only listed a small amount) and you still get on your computer day after day to come onto this board to tell us that there is nothing more to the events of 9/11 and that we're the ones who are crazy and lying. How dare you, sir? How dare you?
Shame on you and shame on those like you, but what makes this country great is that you have the right to live in ignorance, but the bad part is that your willful ignorance not only hurts you, but it hurts those who know you that haven't researched the real history of the United States because they probably take your word for everything that you say, if you do talk about this outside of the internet. Your ingorance hurts not only you and those who know you, it sets us back as a free country. Your ignorance is contributing to the destruction of this country because it is people like you who give power to the president and his thoughtless and bloodthirsty power.
I just don't understand why you come to this board. I think it's great when when "official story supporters" come here or anywhere and ask questions or take part in a discussion, but you come here to say "it's all over now" and you post a link to a message board that is labeled as " a place for skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science" where people are watching this debate and swallowing up the governments evil lies like Americans have done throughout history. You have got to be kidding me. "Critical thinking"? That is some sick and twisted "critical thinnking". I suggest you and all of those other people learn what those words mean and what practicing those words truly mean.
You say that the 9/11 truth movement is based in politics. Well, any educated person knows what "politics" are about. The whole left/right lie is what is destroying this country. It has devided us, fueled our anger and it causes people to look down upon others while "choosing a side", all for what? All for nothing. It's all the same thing. People in position of power want more power and they will do anyhting they can to get it.
I used to be a huge supporter of George W. Bush, but I admit that I didn't know anything about him. I "supported" him because he had created an image of being a "good Christian man". Well, turns out that was a lie, also. I was ingorant for blindly following someone, especially a president, because I had this thought in my head that he was a good person because he was a Christian president. I argued with people, got mad with people and yelled at people who spoke out against Bush. Looking back, I still can't believe how ignorant I was. I knew some of the hidden history of America, but I didn't understand the full picture. Now, I see it and I understand it. I know that everything about Bush is a deception, everything surrounding "politics" is a deception and it's all about divide and conquer. I don't think Bush was the mastermind and I know these evil people who are involved in these evil things are not just republicans and they're not just democrats, they are people with ties to probably every political party. When you say that it's politically based, you couldn't be further off.
Let us reconstruct your argument, Jason. This what you have said:
Since our government has done horrible things throughout history,
And has been involved in horrible things throughout the rest of the world,
And there are blatant lies in the official story,
And look at the murders of JFK, RFK, and MLK,
And the government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin and the USS Liberty to get us into war,
And the FBI/CIA were involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 World Trade center bombing,
And look at all of the US involvement in the various embassy bombings,
And you have a government that has experimented on its own citizens (MKULTRA, Codename Artichoke, chemtrails, fluoride and other related programs,
And you take a president who destroys the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and gives the ok to torture (sexual torture, at that.)
Therefore, there are questions about Flight 93 and this almost proves that I am on the payroll of the CIA.
And you claim to know what critical thinking is about? Note that you have talked about the government in terms of things that have occurred over a period of 50 years as if the government was a monolith institution that none of us have voted into existence every two and four years. Note that you have not provided any evidence for the claims you make.
Even 9/11 Deniers can see how far off the deep end you are.
I highly recommend you look up the definition of critical thinking and then take a course in it.
Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 7:05pm.
I didn't say "therefore, there are questions about flight 93". That takes what I said and puts it into a different context. I said that almost proves that you are on their payroll because saying that there are no questions surrounding flight 93 is a complete lie. It's a fact that there are many unanswered questions about flight 93. It's a fact. Unanswered questions do exist and they have relevance and credibility.
Some of the things that I listed did take place decades ago and some have taken place in the past few years and some are still taking place. I do not have to and should not have to provide "evidence" to show you or anyone else about the things that I listed. It's public record and all you have to do is research it for yourself. Most of the true history of America is not in the history books. So, unless you research it for yourself, there's a good chance that you will never hear about most of the things that I listed. They're not conspiracy theories. Most of them are documented and they are real. The ones that are not technically documented, there is enough "insider" information, related documents and evidence to prove them to be true.
You said, "as if the government was a monolith institution that none of us have voted into existence every two and four years". Well, it's clear that you do not know what I was talking about. Yes, I am basically saying that's what the government is. Voting for presidents, congress and other government officials does not change the direction the country is going. That direction is made by those who control those in elected positions. If you think that the direction of this country and the world changes because of who we elect then you do not know how "government" truly works.
You ignored your own argument. You claimed: I don\'t know how you can say there are no questions about flight 93. This almost proves that you are on the CIA\'s payroll. Then you proceeded to construct an argument that had absolutely nothing to do with any evidence about flight 93 whatsoever.
To show you the complete fallacious reasoning of your argument, I reconstructed it in standard form to show you your illogical and fallacious reasoning.
Now that I have showed you that fallacious reasoning, you tripped all over yourself again to assert, without a stitch of evidence, that there are unanswered questions about Flight 93.
The real world does not accept assertions.
The evidence demonstrates the Flight 93 crashed in PA after passengers stormed the cockpit in an effort to wrest control from Arab hijackers intent on crashing the plane where they could kill people has they had already done 3 times that day.
Here is a good resource for you to learn Critical Thinking:
Most, if not all of the time, you are slamming people for their beliefs about 9/11;especially those who do not believe what the 9/11 final report claims.This is what you do, thats it.
What you don't do is explain the 9/11 commissions' final report
with "critical thinking" skills. Was the government so sure who did what they did on 9/11, that Bush and Cheney decided no investigation was needed? If a prosecuter is absolutley convinced he has a case, then He/She will gather the evidence and build the case by way of the evidence to get a conviction. This is the trust of a government FOR the people is given.
But if the government is so sure who was responsible for 9/11 without checking the physical evidence and deciding not to investigate what brought down the WTC towers,it is purely circumstantial unless evidence is presented.
To lie to the country about WMD's, about the connection of Al-Queda to Hussein, to try and coverup evidence and leave out many things on the final report is a disengenuous and suspicious act. So where's your evidence to prove us wrong?
There is very little worse than a Randi-ite. Talk about a bunch of unfortunate people (/Losers) following (read: worshipping, at the feet of, and literally) someone of their own ilk -- a half-rate magician, pseudo-intellectual, not stupid, but not-too-brite Skepter and joke of a human being who has used his limited skillz to mesmerise his followers into believing he is the "God of Skepticism." (all the while making a few extra bucks) All of whom couldn't define "True Skeptic" if their life depended on it. Which is why they are "Skepters" -- the antithesis of a True Skeptic, who is open, objective and unbiased, or at least attempts to be so. Most of these people are *immediately* anti- (so-called) "Conspiracy Theories", without even looking at the facts and evidence, which is the perfect definition of "irrational thinking and behavior." I gave up on Randi and all of them years ago when I realized who and what they are and choose to be. I don't even recognize them as worthy of my notice or time anymore. .... Dammit! Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in!!
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
Mike Ruppert was right from the beginning, folks. Focusing on physical evidence is not the way to go about this. Melting points, the strength of the steel, the impact zone, the collapse, etc., opens the door for scrutiny and can be detrimental to the overall argument, as demonstrated in this BS debate.
We all know 9/11 was an inside job. However, when debating with people, it's all in the presentation. Mark Roberts and Ronald Wieck know that they can argue and debate and scrutinize these talking points. They are in denial and seem to enjoy picking on Bermas and Avery. Among many things about the collapes of the towers, they forget to say the CD experts don't think 1 and 2 were "traditional" controlled demolitions because they weren't "traditional". Hopefully we can learn from debates like this.
So what's the deal with Steven Jones? Why did he resign as a member of the Scholars For Truth? Will he still debate in the National 9/11 Debate? Is this the reason why there seems to be a bit of doubt within this movement?
"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."
That's why I think people should start referring to them as "Super-Controlled Demolitions™". Because that's what they were. Obviously Towers 1 and 2 did not even look like standard controlled demolitions, and WTC 7 didn't look like any CD you will find anywhere. "They" obviously tried to hide the explosive forces, and did a pretty good job, actually.
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
You are not telling the truth. No demolition expert believes that explosives played a role in the collapse of the Twin Towers--not one! Please don't tell me about Hugo Bachmann or Jorg Schneider or Danny Jowenko. All of them flatly reject the notion that WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by anything but the impact of the planes, the loss of fireproofing (NIST reminds us that if the fireproofing had not been dislodged, the buildings would not have fallen), and effects of the fires on the core columns. Conspiracists, who rely exclusively on bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies, love to pretend that the rationalists also play foolish word games. They don't. The collapse of the WTC was no kind of controlled demolition, traditional or otherwise, and there isn't anyone in the demolition industry who thinks it was.
Okay, Ronald, let's take the WTC demolition off the table for a moment.
So you believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is an absolutely unimpeachable, definitive account of all relevant aspects of the events of 9/11? Do you believe that any of the accounts are in conflict? Do you believe that admitted testimonial perjuries need to be addressed? Do you believe that there should be a truly independent investigation to lay all of this to rest?
You seem motivated by an honest desire to exchange views. Let me address your questions in order:
The 9/11 Commission Report is a useful document, but I'd stop short of calling it "unimpeachable." In my preparations for the debate, I spoke with Chris Kojm, a former senior staffer for the commission. I wanted to know more about the omission of Norman Mineta's testimony from the book, although I believed that I understood the reason. Kojm confirmed that Mineta's timeline differed from everyone else's by more than twenty minutes. The commission, he maintained, felt confident that it had established an accurate timeline. He conceded, however, that Mineta should have been mentioned in the book and the methodology used in agreeing on a timeline should have been made explicit.
The main conflict was between Mineta and everyone else. When Mineta described the military aide asking Cheney if the order still stood, it was overwhelmingly clear from the context, as well as from the recollections of other people who were present, that they were talking about Flight 93--NOT Flight 77--and nobody had realized yet that it was already on the ground.
The ass-covering by NORAD and the FAA was addressed in Kean and Hamilton's book. Yes, people were trying to make themselves appear less incompetent, but that hardly adds up to a gigantic conspiracy.
Who would conduct the next investigation? If conspiracists had their way, all structural engineers, demolition experts, molecular chemists, avionics techs, and military personnel would be excluded. Issues of science and technology would be handled by literary theorists and theologians. Do you see the problem? If you're married to the belief that explosives brought down the Twin Towers and nobody with any expertise in demolition takes you seriously, who can validate your argument?
As to Mineta's testimony, to my knowledge he has not publicly stated anything further about what he meant, nor do I recall hearing testimony from anyone else on the subject. Cheney has been clearly identified as a liar on many issues, so I don't trust his explanation of anything. However, I don't think this is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that day anyway.
The ass-covering by NORAD and the FAA was addressed in Kean and Hamilton's book. Yes, people were trying to make themselves appear less incompetent, but that hardly adds up to a gigantic conspiracy.
You're contradicting yourself here. If all the differing accounts over four years, plus the perjury and the destruction of tapes which might have shed further light on what really happened was simply a matter of covering up massive and unprecedented incompetence, you have just defined a large military and aviation conspiracy. And if it was incompetency, why was there no investigation and public accountability? The people who would have been involved in your scenario are expendable, and yet they were protected. Why?
And as long as we are discussing incompetency, do you believe the Secret Service's total breach of protocol in leaving Bush as the only administration official unprotected that day (while even Cabinet Secretaries were whisked underground) is of little significance? What about the lack of fighter escort from the Sarasota airport?
Why were all of the intelligence personnel who are responsible for the failure to heed warnings and take action promoted or honored?
Do you agree with the Commission's decision to not investigate the financing of the operation, which is the standard operating procedure? Do you think it is significant that all of the financial transactions that demonstrate specific, prior knowledge of the attacks were not chased down because they didn't trace back to al Qaeda?
Do you think it matters that the list of hijackers was identified within hours, and yet there has been considerable backtracking on their identities since the FBI has admitted that some are in doubt. Do you think it is significant that the FBI cannot produce a paper trail which could move a grand jury to indictment of either bin Laden or the 19?
See, the problem is that 9/11 was a large mass murder before anything else. All terrorism tactics that end in death are murders first, including abortion clinic bombings, the Unabomber, etc. No responsible investigator would expect to have a handle on what happened with a rush to judgment that fixed all of the evidence -- or denied inconsistencies of evidence -- around that judgment. The crime scenes were never reconstructed or analyzed. For the first time in recent aviation history the NTSB did not investigate the crash sites or reconstruct what was left of the airplanes. A bank robbery or drug ring in a small town would have had better law enforcement work than this.
Who would handle the investigation? Many believe it should be international -- you should be reminded that citizens of dozens of countries died that day, and their governments have a right to the truth as well.
Do you know how many whistleblowers would testify if they were subpeonaed and given protection? What light could they shed? But they weren't given the opportunity. Ever hear of Sibel Edmonds? Aren't you the least bit curious why she is the most gagged woman in America and wouldn't you be interested in hearing what she has to say?
How do you account for the redacted pages in the Commission's report if that decision wasn't taken to protect a foreign entity and the administration's relationship to it?
How do you respond to the dozens of accounts of multiple explosions before and after the planes hit the towers?
I would suggest that consulting a staffer from the Commission is inappropriate if you are attempting to critically review the report's contents. Have you read the list of questions compiled by the family members? Would you be willing to meet with representatives of the families in order to further educate yourself as to what the scope of the investigation should have included?
You may believe that you are "doing the right thing" by swatting away the "conspiracy theorists" and sticking to the official conspiracy theory. But with so many unanswered questions left hanging, this doesn't reflect well on you as an independent person who actually cares about nailing down the truth of that day. Any thinking individual knows that the OCT cannot be justified.
“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”
Sorry, you're wrong. Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon. Flight 93 was the one they were talking about--BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT. They also didn't know that it, too, was down. The order was a shoot-down order. Otherwise, you're contending that dozens of witnesses heard the VP confess to a monstrous crime. Only the fantasists believe that--not the people who were actually present.
I have to state for the record that Mineta is very clear and explicit in his testimony - he is asked to confirm it several times by Mr. Kean, and he makes it VERY clear that he is NOT referring to Flight 93.
and they were refering to 93 The plane is 50-30-10 miles out from what?
Whoa! wait a second ."They did'nt know that 93 was down. Then what the hell were they tracking?
You seriously believe this?And you wonder why there's a truth movement?
No one has outed the 9/11 Truth Movement better than you and confirmed what we have all said about it for the last 4+ years.
We already knew that for you to focus on physical evidence would be your downfall! That is exactly why your movement has never gotten off the ground.
The evidence always refutes you. The evidence has been so scrutinized from top to bottom that there is no way you can get around it. It refutes your assertions totally and irrefutably. You all know that, in reality.
At least you have made an effort to see the light.
Now, your sidekick, Jon Gold, already knew this, too! This is precisely why his effort has always been to con you to think that evidence of what happened on 9/11 does not matter to your overall political goal. He even pretends that claiming that 9/11 was an inside job does not require analyzing what made it an inside job. So, to Jon Gold, it is irrelevant that the purpose of blowing up buildings and crashing planes to scare Americans to support a war in Iraq means having to demonstrate that is actually what happened.
Weird, isn\'t it? Yup. Jon wants us to believe that one needs evidence of anything to believe what he claims.
Such is the nature of 9/11 Truth Movement bullshit.
Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 10:11pm.
Sorry... Bill Moyers didn't call his documentary by the same name, but it is along the same line.
"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."
FYI: I'm not sure if they actually ever referred to it as "the shadow government", but what they are referring to is the "Continuity of Government", which was (ostensbly) setup to keep the government going if the President, Vice President, and other high-level members of the government are killed. There are concerns (constitutional and otherWise) about, for example, some 'arbitrarily' chosen person becoming president, or just being put in control, in a time of crisis, who isn't really the best person for the job in the 'official succession' sense.
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
\"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public.\"
Good advice, Sally.
Americans need to be informed of the bullshit the 9/11 truth Movement tries to feed them. Yes, it is disgusting, immoral, and an insult to those who died on 9/11. Everyone needs to question dishonest people like Jon Gold and ask them why the need to lie to the American public.
Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 10:19pm.
When are the American people going to wake up and realize that the country you knew is gone!!! Its been taken over by a bunch of globalist criminals that are all compromised in some way...
The LC guys could have won this debate simply on the fact that the NIST models failed to collapse, this was enough to end the debate period...
I don't understand it, how much more evidence do people need, geezzzzz....
Also, body language tells 85% of the story and its clear the LC guys were uncomfortable, they need a lesson on this. Dylan looked like a stunned mullet and Jason was slouched over the desk looking intimidated...
The raised hands of Mark Roberts "also his MIC was LOUDER" made him instantly the authoritative figure in the debate, man i could go on for hours... Anyway, this was clearly all done to discredit LC by someone as simple as Mark " you know... Just a simple guy that bothered to read the report and compare LC to it and noticed all the errors..."
Hey, I went to Marks site...I have gotta say it's the worst synopsis I have ever read..!
Come on my fellow comrades, us Australians umm and the rest of the world need you guys to take your country back from these criminals and stop the world wide bulling, please....!
thetruth (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 10:48pm.
when molten metal in the rubble beneath the collapsed buildings is thrown onto the table for discussion. Apparently they are not so confident they can throw enough doubt onto this topic to obscure the truth, like their feeble yet successful (to sheeple) molten aluminum pouring out the side of the building argument.
I guess they aren't prepared to debate the satellite photos showing temperatures well above anything jet fuel could reach. The rubble languishing for weeks after the collapse even when being drenched by firehose upon fire hose still MOLTEN. What could sustain such heat?
Official Government suckasses might theorize that this technology of raising energy potential underground had long been perfected by King Kamehameha when he tossed a single Kingsford briquet underground and discovered he could charbroil a large boar (or troll) simply by covering this blazing hunk of coal with palm fronds.
It seems the official Fantasy team has saved the planet from its energy dilemma with their wonderful science. Heat does not dissipate when buried underground! It will instead grow in intensity!
Not to mention concrete being turned to particulate matter fine enough to dust a Government conspiricists wife's nose when she visits the little ewe's room with five or six of the herd.
Mr. Wieck stated that "the stuff" cooked for weeks, speaking of the liquid metal in the pile. Not being too scientific - however, I recall using my high school metal shop kiln last year. Seems to me that even in the kiln with a forced air hydrocarbon fuel source I can't recall getting any metal to turn liquid other than lead (which I used for soldering). Is it possible in an open-air "dirty burn" environment to make steel flow like lava? I'd like to give Mr. Wieck a can of JP4 (any quantity will do), a piece of steel (without fire proofing) and see if he can turn it to liquid. Just a high school student, but how do you do this? I'd like to show my shop teacher . . . why hasn't my dad's barbeque melted or how about our fireplace grate. Sorry to be so un-scientific but can someone show me a hydrocarbon open air fuel source that can liquify steel much less keep it liquid for over a month? I'd like to do an experiment at school sometime :-)
nolo contendere (not verified) on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 10:39pm.
I've been a welder fabricator for thirty years.The kid is right.The temperature to melt that quanity of steel would be incredible.
Remember Ron...The world used to be flat.
Molten METAL is steel Einstein.The pile was melting the soles of work boots for weeks after.Sat thermal photo's showed the hot spots.Oh wait,that was the rescue workers taking a smoke break.
There were pictures of a trackhoe pulling yellow hot steel from the site.
Just like the molten steel flowing from the towers.Yes steel.Molten aluminun is silver in color,and does'nt glow red ,yellow or any other color when molten.
But hey ,these things could be argued over and over again. Why did the DOD keep changing it's story on scrambling interceptors? What plane was 50 -30-10 miles out. Why was Willam Rodreguez testomoney left out.
I've put up skyscrapers,although not as tall as the WTC towers.I've seen how they were built.
So i know any fool who belives the offical BS,is either covering this up,or just a plain idiot.
I guess that you will be contacting Ed Haas to inform him that you,and Mark will participate in the Team Liberty Debate.I would love to see the goverment stand up to all the questions,and end this once and for all.
Let nothing but fear stand in your way.
Maybe if Hani was an ex blue angle in an F-16. I might believe the Pentagon crash.
Hey! Here's an idea.Get a pilot,rent a lear jet,and fly into the pentagons restricted air space at 500 miles an hour. Let's see if the computer controlled missle sites work now.
It's obvious you have'nt educated yourself,and looked at all the FACTS us truthers have.After you have watched Dr David Ray Griffen UMW lecture,911 press for truth,911 mysteries for starters.Then come back
here.With all the unanswered questions we have ,we need only to prove one,and the offical house of cards will come crashing down.
You mean professional bullshiter.The truth is iam a welder fabricator,ironworker.I've put up buildings in Chicago,and LA.
But hey! I am no threat to the offical fairy tale.
Iam just one of many with the experance,and basic common sense to know bullshit when i hear ,and see it.
Iam glad to see that you are on Ed's list.Kudo's to you.
Now lets see if the major media will cover it in full.I would be willing to bet they won't. The story of the century.
To understand the collapse of the WTC, common sense is insufficient; knowledge is required. You could read Matthys Levy's book, Why Buildings Fall Down, or study NIST's abridged version of its comprehensive report, a 298-page pdf file. Your emotional need to create comic book villains to permit the real ones to avoid responsibility for their deeds stands reality on its head. It must be slightly inconvenient that those innocent jihadists are so damn proud of their success.
the Secretary of DEFENSE on a day when we had a major breach of DEFENSE....so skirt wearing boy....what are your transcripts of that day? I'd love to hear the SECRETARIES version. Are'nt secretaries supposed to gather all the info and type it up into a comprehensive analysis? Where is your analysis of our Department of defenses failure to defend? DEFENSE...DEFEND....RUMSFELD=FAILURE skullboy asswipe blackcovertboy....I think we are being way to polite here. look at the monkey.
Ever go camping and pull a beer can out of the ashes the next day? The fire roared all night and you could feel the heat a hundred feet away and your socks would smoke if you got too close. The next morning the poor little beer can still had its original shape and even some of the lettering.
Dag-nab-it! Ain't goin' campin' N0 mo' !!
camp-n (not verified) on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:37am.
I don't usually answer rhetorical questions, but for the less brite anti-9/11 Truth types, I will point out that they can try that all day long and not get any results.
Not the ones they want, anyway.
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
Jon, I'm usually pretty harsh with you, but I've been posting since last night and that suggests there may be hope for you yet. I trust it's not simply an oversight on your part. But, along with the pomeranian head, there are now two things I can commend you for.
Ronald i am sure you already covered this but how do you explain the squib on the south tower appx 30 to 40 floors below the initial collapse? did osama run a tube from the top floors to that specific window? LOL LOL LOL fool... i guess the pressure funneled down the elevator shafts and contained itself in a tube like fashion to pop out that window. ok.. it is all clear now. whew... for a minute there you had me scared. [sarcasm off]
just a suggestion, why don't you invite steven jones and alex jones on for your next show? that would be entertaining. you could continue to be a biased host since you admit it. hey... maybe cheney can show up and execute his stand down?
I suspect that you have no real interest in the answer to your question, but the Protec paper and various sections of debunking911.com cover the issue very thoroughly. One of the insights provided by a spokesman for a demolition company (I don't have my notes in front of me--I can't remember which one) was to look closely at the so-called squibs. You'll notice that they start out as a thin plume of ejecta and expand rapidly. That's compressed air. An explosion would give exactly the opposite appearance: a large burst of ejecta that dissipates.
i suspect i would(have real interest) if you answered the question. what caused the squib 30 to 40 floors below? from your vague response it appears to be a non-answer but i respect your effort and will give you another opportunity.
did these "papers" specifically detail the south tower initial squib that preceeded the collapse by an est. 30 to 40 floors? explain the pressurization neccessary to funnel or channel this blast 40 floors down an elevator shaft and out the window? you didn't even attempt this explanation .... i take no issue with your smart ass response at the beginning but if you choose that route then back it up.
The squibs you are referring to I believe are the ones that shoot out from the center of the building, like the picture on debunking911.com. There are many others that follow the typical pattern of a demlition squib that mushroom out like an explosion. The clip I am referring to is a clip of the south tower collapsing that follows the collapse down one of the visible corners of the building. In this clip it is very clear that there are rapid plumes exploding out near the corner of the building and not the center of the building. In other clips there are other smaller squibs that also follow this explosive pattern and not the syringe type.
P.S. Are you the host of Hardfire or do you just use his name?
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
I noticed that the section on the molten metal gives a few other possible explinations of the molten metal (aluminum mixed with other contents, etc.). One of the pictures on that page shows a Yosemite firefall. It appears that this photo was taken with a slow shutter speed to give the appearence that it was a liquid-like flow. I'm no expert in photography, but I think this is possible. In addition, I think you have to admit that it is "possible" that the flow is a thermite reaction. Wouldn't a thermite reaction look like this, if it was?
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
We can debate squibs and whatever else there is that you stand by on the NIST report. But why do buildings collapsing, including ones that have been imploded, have never looked like Mt. St. Helens erupting, falling straight down while pulverizing concrete and tossing sections of steel beams hundreds of feet, and at the same time destroying 47 core colomns. Couldn't be from planes hitting them, they were built to take a hit from large Boeings, and I'm sure those guys presumed that those large Boeings wouldn't be tossed into the buildings, they would be flown into the buildings, which means they would have fuel in the tanks. Fireproofing was intended for a control measure, i.e. if a fire occurred, it would prevent it from spreading elsewhere quickly. Judging from the way these buildings appeared before the collapse, this concept seemed to be working fairly well. If the steel melted enough as all of the NIST people say, there was not any sag to speak of..just sudden collapse, straight down into the path of most resistance, but yet it came down through concrete and pulverized it, through steel beams that were not melted.
Come on...The American Association of Firefighters called that report a "Half-Baked Farce" You are in the realm of claiming these people have no idea whatsoever about tall building fires,which they do have knowledge and experience in fighting.
The squibs have been thoroughly explained on debunking911.com and in the Protec paper.
The key point made in the NIST report is that the buildings would not have fallen if the fireproofing had not been dislodged. The weakening of the core columns exerted a pull on the floor trusses, The trusses, in turn, pulled the external columns inward, as evidenced by the bowing clearly shown in many, many photos. When the load could no longer be distributed, global collapse ensued. Please, visit NIST.gov, read the FAQ, and download the pdf file.
please humor me and answer my question or admit you are wrong. explain the squib from the south tower that preceeded the initial collapse by 30 to 40 floors. please explain how the pressurization could have been maintained throughout the multiple floors and find its way out a window 40 floors below. was there tubing involved and who had time to carry out this fantasy task?
please don't cop out again and refer to some lame paper that doesn't discuss this specific dynamic... you don't seem so smug now... i wonder why?
Smugness has little to do with my frustration at a question that is not reality-based. The reason no demolition experts take your fantasies seriously is that the collapse OBVIOUSLY--look at ALL the videos--proceeds from the impact floors. Let that sink in. No matter how you slice it, if you watch the videos, the buildings collapse from the floors where the planes hit them, NOT FROM BELOW. The "specific dynamic" you have invented is of no consequence to anyone who works in controlled demolition. Compressed air escapes randomly, and your so-called squibs do not suggest explosives to people who understand what they're seeing.
talk about fantasies.. you have imagined questions that i never asked. Ronnie.. are you OK ??? this is the third time you have dodged my question... trust me i don't blame you. you are worse than the amazing randi. LOL LOL LOL
i guess your mind has blocked out the squib that precedes the initial collapse. i know this is difficult so i will go slowly for you ronnie. when i refer to precede this is not a reference to time but position/geography. the floors that fell moved in the direction of the squib which was 40 floors below it.
so put the crack pipe down and put on your little thinking cap. arbitrary pressure seems to be your best answer for the pesky little squib of which i say you are OWNED !!!!!!!!!! NEXT !!!
"yeah, they're making truckfuls of money by selling Loose Change DVD's for a dollar and letting other people copy it for free and sell it for a dollar." -Doughnut-
Hey, are you really stupid or naive?! I wasnt talking about DVD sales...This is just the start with Dylan & Co, you will see..
Dylan is a snitch, thats a 100% fact, its sad but very true..get over it..!
R. Siegel is one too, hell...., he would do anything for money...haha
Dont go around joining dubios movements, cause that way you will be easily controlled and your means and deeds will get suppressed. Think for yourselves! You dont need snitches to tell you what to think!
The Delphi Technique. What Is It?
They have divided the movement allready.., no planers, podpeople,energy beams directed from WTC 7, and on we go....They are trying to keep us busy arguing and fighting with ourselves, DIVIDE AND CONQUER!
AND REMEMBER THIS,
80% to 90% of the movements are controlled/infiltrated by the government, thats a fact!! Do your math!! Dont be naive!
_________________
"These bogus groups could serve many functions which might include attacking and/or disrupting bona fide groups, or even just simply creating a diversion with clever propaganda in order to attract members away so as to involve them with time-wasting activity designed to prevent them from doing anything useful. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties so that it looked like just a "disagreement" between two individuals or groups, a "food fight" or something, and there was no way to connect it to any government operation."
TheDeparted (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 2:48am.
So, 8 to 9 out of 10 movements is controlled/infiltrated. Now, ask yourselves wich are the ones with most supporters or readers? And its not just that.., they are "sriking the root" also.
Dont go around donating money, cause its not about the money..,dont be fooled.., or please do if you want to end up blacklisted for supporting a "radical movement".
Its all about control.
Keep your guard up, ALWAYS!!
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 4:56am.
like David Rockefellar that think only a "Global Elite" can lead the sheep? Only the intellectual asswipes who talk but produce nothing but shit washed down to the oceans can lead us? It's fucking assholes like this that are the reason things get so insane that we mus subsidise death and destruction with our tax dollars while they try to brainwash us int being the cheerleaders for this destruction.
Firstly, I would like to give my critique of this interview and my impressions of it.
Firstly, the LC crew were far too weak. It is true that they kept their cool, and on the whole looked respectable, but that is not good enough. They were outmanouevered consistently by the presenter and Mr. Roberts. Their grasp of the technical facts on the WTC towers, which they kept discussing, was visibly inferior to Mr. Roberts. They should read all 10,000 pages of NIST, FEMA and the EPA reports, so they can discuss with authority and confidence that which is wrong or ommitted in them. They cannot let someone like Mr. Roberts know the NIST report better than they do, it is denigrating to the movement. Everyone who purports to support the 911 truth movement should know the NIST, FEMA reports inside out and be able to point out the fallacies and ommissions contained within. On the whole Mr. Bermas was much weaker than what I have observed of him in the past, while Mr. Avery has markedly improved in his delivery, in the right path.
I would like to comment on Mr. Roberts, who seems like a competent enough guy. Why someone who has the ability to understand the truth should choose to ignore it can have many explanations, what is yours Mr. Roberts? It is true that LC contains many flaws, but it also contains many valid points, why not focus your research on the many inconsistencies contained in the 911 Commission report, and also things never mentioned in it, such as WTC7, the War games, the NORAD tapes, the ISI connection, etc... You should focus your energies, such as Paul Thompson is doing, on piecing together the true story behind 911, and not focus on the inconsistencies and fallacies in LC, which is largely a sideshow.
LC crew, we need to be much more precise, crystal clear? I expect much better quality research and debate in your final cut movie. Please take these criticisms on board in a constructive way, as I beleive that your heart and your intentions lie in the right place. Intentions, however, is not enough, we need to be the best, the most knowledgeable, and not necessarily just the loudest.
And finally the presenter, Mr. Wieck, if you are not already bought out by the system (CIA, etc..), I hope you have the courge to change your mind about things looking at the bare facts, and not the typical straw man arguments that you brought up in the interview. Discuss war games, ommissions and distortions in the 911 report, conflicts of interest, ISI, etc... there is a lot of explosive infomation out there if you have the courage to pick up the gauntlet.
Cheers,
B
Bellerophon (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 5:31am.
"A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.
The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process."
Ground rules for disrupting the consensus process (Delphi Technique) — when facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.
1) Always Be Charming. Smile, be pleasant, be courteous, moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
2) Stay Focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help you stay focused. Facilitators, when asked questions they don't want to answer, often digress from the issue raised and try to work the conversation around to where they can make the individual asking the question look foolish, feel foolish, appear belligerent or aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Always be charming, thus deflecting any insinuation, innuendo, etc, that may be thrown at you in their attempt to put you on the defensive, but bring them back to the question you asked. If they rephrase your question into an accusatory statement (a favorite tactic) simply state, "that is not what I stated, what I asked was… (repeat your question)." Stay focused on your question.
3) Be Persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long drawn out dissertations on some off-the-wall and usually unrelated, or vaguely related, subject that drags on for several minutes – during which time the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation/expose, then nicely, with focus and persistence, state, "but you didn't answer my question. My question was… (repeat your question)."
Remember…
always be charming,
stay focused, and
be persistent.
Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator "the victim." This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand on what they believe, are obvious threats.] If the participant becomes the victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections are written on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public discussion and public debate. It's called crowd control. It is always good to have someone else, or two or three others who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd; who, when the facilitator digresses from the question, will stand up and say nicely, "but you didn't answer that lady's/gentleman's question." The facilitator, even if suspecting you are together, certainly will not want to alienate the crowd by making that accusation. Sometimes it only takes one occurrence of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on, sometimes it takes more than one.
If you have an organized group, meet before the meeting to strategize. Everyone should know their part. Meet after the meeting to analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time around. Never meet during the meeting. One of the favorite tactics of the facilitator, if the meeting is not going the way he/she wants, if he/she is meeting measurable resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his/her "spotters" (people who wander the room during the course of the meeting, watching the crowd) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered measurable resistance. If the "resistors" congregate in one place, a "spotter" will usually gravitate to that group to "join in the conversation" and will report back to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of those who are "resistors." Do not congregate. Hang loose and work the crowd. Move to where the facilitator or "spotters" are, listen to what they have to say, but do not gravitate to where another member of your team is.
This strategy also works in a face to face, one on one, meeting with anyone who has been trained in how to use the Delphi Technique.
(spotters=snitches)
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 8:49am.
There simply isn't sufficient time in two half-hour shows to do more than scratch the surface. The issues you mention are interesting, and perhaps we can examine them another time. I have invited Webster Tarpley to appear with me, but haven't yet received a response.
It was painfully clear that Jason and Dylan knew little about the NIST report, but that's the problem facing the conspiracists. No competent scientist disagrees with it, apart from minor quibbles. We're still waiting for people to show the errors, but that hasn't happened.
That is a very ignorant thing to say and it's wrong on so many levels. "ALL evidence"? Seriously, now I think you're just kidding around. It's more like every piece of "information" that exists points in the direction of it being an inside job.
I can't stand it when people can't face reality. I know people might suggest ignoring your comment, but I won't.
My last post on this topic.First i give credit to you for comming to this site.Just like truthers who visit those who support the official story.They get bombarded with
insults,and profanity.
Your right in the time constraint issue.Here is a chance to be a hero to those who believe the official
story. ALL of us truthers will agree to major media coverage,not just four minute clips on FOX to get bashed ,and insulted.
Assemble your experts,we will bring ours,and let the chips fall where they may.
All of this should have sparked you to look a little deeper,and i hope you do.
All us truthers want is a fair shake.Major media coverage with ALL our questions answered in the open.This event covered by all major media ,over a two or three day period.I would think it would be more watched than American Idol.
You make several excellent points. I am always disappointed and frustrated when a conspiracist appears on a Fox News show only to be insulted. If the host hasn't done any homework, taking cheap shots at a guest is a poor way to disguise his own laziness. These blogs tend to bring out the child in most of us, but I assure you, I will never verbally abuse anyone on the air. Arguments should be refuted, not ridiculed.
I have invited both Tarpley and Barrett to appear on 'Hardfire' but as yet I have had no response. Fetzer and I exchanged several e-mails, but negotiations broke down when he asked for a plane ticket to NYC. As you may have noticed, we're strictly amateur night. We have no budget for my parking expenses, much less a plane ticket.
Then why do you hold such a clear stated position ("unsympathetic", I heard you say about Dylan and Jason) defending the official conspiracy theory about lone fanatical arabs perpetrating 9/11 with no domestic help? You hold this position, with about three basic sources to back you up (like Popular Mechanics, Myths and debunking911), whereas to the contrary there are literally THOUSANDS of independent and dynamic organizations backed by millions of people (from all over the world) who vocally share disgust with the inadequacy of the Official Narrative.
We want an investigation, which this government never actually did... it's as simple as that. The ever growing suspicions of "inside job", actually came about in strength only AFTER this government delayed, hamstrung, underfunded and avoided clear, plan, forthright talk, explanations and the SHOWING of evidence to the public directly and CLEARLY implicating those whom the government said perpetrated the attack.
If the story IS as they've always said it was... there is NOTHING more dangerous to national security that would be aggravated by a full public release of the implicating evidence, than to not... thus leaving so many people to be driven to suspecting the government that behaves AS IF they have something to hide. (I tell you in the most sober words I can muster... this is a recipe for some SERIOUS unrest in this country. The neophyte Department of Homeland Security hasn't a fucking clue what they are up against if Americans decide to crush this latest manifestation of bullshit government.)
Do you understand this point I'm trying to genuinely present to you, Mr. Weick?
Withholding truly sensitive details about the event, say for example air-force defense procedures and high-level communications protocols, is perfectly defendable under the concept of National Security Secrets... inappropriate for inclusion in a proper 9/11 Report. No one here is arguing this in some irrational manner.
On the other hand... WHAT future national security issue could be placed in ANY form of jeopardy, by the forthright presentation of forensic evidence such as part serial numbers for the otherwise destroyed aircraft, ALL security and DOT camera footage, DNA lab work, mortuary data, and other such things like the FAA conversation recordings?
In toto, there are far more likely reason than nation security, such as CYA, embarrassment, incriminating evidence and circumstances implicating gross domestic mishandling, OR INVOLVEMENT. This is NOT a "kooks" imagination, 'gone wild'. This is basic common sense.
Now the problem is, and only gets worse by the day as it remains un-addressed, is that this government CAN NO LONGER release exculpatory evidence of its innocence. For a deed as bad as the first has been CLEARLY perpetrated by the government After the Fact of 9/11 alone. That is; destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, mass-media manipulation and the execution of aggressive warfare (a bullet that CAN NOT be put back in the gun).
The TOP SUSPECT is now recognized as the very same entity holding BOTH the evidence that could convict it, as well as to clear it. Now what kind of material do you think a lead suspect is going to supply if 'given' the opportunity to produce "as the government sees fit"? Shit, they could actually "plead the Fifth" at this point... well if they hadn't burnt that one to a crisp as well.
A mighty fine mess we have here... and you, Mr. Weick, are not helping. Rather, it seems you're either too small minded, insufficiently informed, or actually 'getting a clue' but still think buying time is worth it. No matter, it's still quite clear to me at least... that you're on the Wrong side of the issue any way you slice it. Best of luck to you.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Firstly, thanks for responding, your frankness is appreciated.
You mention time constraints, and whilst that may be a constraining factor in the debate, all that would be needed would be to go straight to the most conflicting points, rather than debating some obscure and largely irrelevant issues (which can never be proven) such as the (mistaken?) identities of the hijackers, the technicalities of the fires and damage in WTC1&2, etc..
Instead, you could have brought up: why are we in a position that we don't know with certitude how the towers collapsed (and we don't)? Why was over 95% of the physical evidence in the WTC destroyed before it could be examined? What is the mechanism behind the pulverisation of the concrete into fine dust (this is not even touched upon in NIST or FEMA or anywhere else)?
Who was in charge of the war games on the morning of 9/11? Why did Norad change their version of events 3! times after 9/11 over a span of 4 years? What are the connections of Atta/etc.. with covert military operations like Able Danger? and the ISI, which allegedly payed them $100,000?
Spend some time at Paul Thompson's site to find the most pressing problems with the official version of events, so that next time you can cut straight to the chase and not be sidetracked by side issues.
I applaud your decision to give these pressing issues some more attention, and also commend you on your treatment of your hosts during the interview, which although quite biased, was much better than is usually expected in the US mass media.
Cheers,
B
Belleropohon (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 5:21pm.
Listen to the interesting presentation on google video on "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" where Prof. Peter Dale Scott highlights the interesting point that the FBI had already "identified" the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 even before (as according now to the 3rd version of events by NORAD) NORAD knew that it had been hijacked! Isn't that at least surprising in your eyes? Does it lift the veil a little bit?
Cheers,
B
Bellerophon (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 5:58pm.
When you write that we don't know the reason for the collapse of the WTC, you argue implicitly that NIST's ten thousand pages of graphs, tables, illustrations, analysis, and commentary shed no light on the subject. How can this be possible? Has anyone ever found a specific error that I could mention to Mike Newman and request that he account for it? What questions are not answered in the NIST report?
Does Thompson's site raise any issues that are not covered on 911myths.com? Why are conspiracists so unwilling to address what the rationalists actually say about their favorite canards? People are still pretending that "pull it" means "blow up the building," even though there isn't a demolition specialist in the world who agrees. Hasn't Fetzer's nonsense about the "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars been proved an outright lie? Did you read the debate between Fetzer and J.R. Dunn on americanthinker.com (look in the archives for Dunn)?
I'm sorry to inform you that I have actually taken the time to read the NIST/FEMA reports and, perhaps unfortunately for you, am also educated in physics and maths to postgraduate level, so understood it as well.
The many thousands of pages do a geat job of detailing the inner structure of the WTC1&2, showing how it met all design and construction specifications (NIST NCSTAR 1-1) and in general praising its construction. Specific mention is made of the engineers taking into account the impact and ensuing damages caused by a Boeing 707 flying at 600mph (which actually has more kinetic enegry than the 757s of 9/11) in a study by the Port Authority in 1964 (see page 70).
In summary, the WTC1&2 are shown to have met all construction specifications and were in fact extremely robust buildings.
In the crucial chapter, NIST NCSTAR 1-6, which discusses structural fire response and probable collapse sequence of the WTC towers, is however were a lot of the disappointment, in a scientific sense, arises from.
They conducted a finite element analysis of the sequence of structural failure that led to the collapse initiation. At no point did they consider the manner of collapse, ie global, symmetrical collapse inducing pulverisation of concrete and pools of extremely hot molten metal in the basements. Furthermore, they have never released, to my knowledge, any of the models they used, which, under their own admission, had to be tweaked in order to induce failure of the structure. We would like to know how much they had to tweak their model. Another reason that raised a few eyebrows was the fact that the experiments they themselves performed on the floor assemblies did not show the behaviour, ie extreme sagging, that they had predicted, and did not fail the test in that sense.
On their contention that a lot of the fireproofing was dislodged, and that this somehow initiated failure after only 50 odd minutes, there are several things wrong with this picture. There is an analysis by Kevin Ryan that discusses this aspect of the report quite well.
So my question to you is: are you satisfied by a "scientific" report that a) has not released in public the finite element analysis and code used in modelling the collapse initiation, b) by its own admission had very few pieces of physical evidence on which to base their calculations, c) does not take into account both the manner and form of the collapse, AFTER initiation.
These three points you should find quite worrying Mr. Wieck.
You can call me Ron, Jenny. People call me far worse things.
I posted the confirmation on JREF on November 21, so I probably spoke to Jason a few days earlier. Hope that helps.
That's very kind of you, sir, but considering we are not chums or even allies--in fact probably enemies--, I'm keeping it formal if you don't mind. You can call me Sparks, but you're going to do what you're going to do anyway--I'm not going to sweat it.
Thank you for the info--however I asked when this was FIRST arranged--not the confirmation. Appologies if I wasn't clear. Now, a confirmation/clairification from our lads, Jason and Dylan, please?
Sparks, I'm assuming that you are very young. If you're not, the situation is completely hopeless. If I can communicate anything at all to you, it is to avoid joining a lynch mob until you have established proof of guilt. The Nazis did unspeakable things to Jews based on fraudulent science and trumped-up charges. Conspiracy fantasists seek to demonize a group of American politicians on the basis of a hypothesis that is so absurd that it falls apart wherever it is touched. Your side has absolutely no evidence to support its outlandish claims; all available evidence flatly contradicts those claims. Why not familiarize yourself with the position you want to reject for purely emotional reasons?
Regarding the arranging of the debate, I told you that I had contacted the Loose Change team a few days before announcing the confirmation. Perhaps Kirstin, their PR rep, would be able to provide an exact date. I had invited Mark Roberts to appear on the show earlier in November to fill a December 14 slot in the taping schedule. Originally, I envisioned interviewing him, then I got the idea to stage a debate. I tried to persuade Fetzer to argue the conspiracist side, but he wanted a plane ticket to NYC, something our budget will not permit. Next, I tried Mike Berger, but he, too, was unable to make the trip. Checking my e-mails, I see that my last communication with Berger was on 11/15. I must have contacted Jason and Dylan immediately thereafter.
The significance of the exact date escapes me, but I'd be willing to bet that it is something dark and sinister.
The Nazis did unspeakable things to Jews based on fraudulent science and trumped-up charges.
Yes, and the Administration has started the exact same process with Muslims, who are the new Jews, both at home at abroad. It's amazing that you cite historical precedence, but can't see how it relates to the present. You are like one of those pathetic old Germans, shaking their heads 50 years later, saying "But we never knew!" In this case, some of us are intuitive enough to try to cut it off at the head.
Can you present any evidence that the official conspiracy story is true? The FBI can't, but as you are so pre-occupied with lack of evidence for alternative versions, it seems incumbent on you to show us the goods.
Where to begin?--your moral confusion is total. No, the Bush administration is not attempting to orchestrate a genocide of American Muslims. Please explain why Bush was heavily favored by Muslim voters in 2000, while Gore received overwhelming support from Jews.
The number of American Muslims is comparatively small, but growing. Politicians do not want to alienate them: they want their votes. The Bush administration leaves office in January, 2009. Do you imagine that its members have committed all of their unprecedented and wildly implausible crimes to benefit Hillary Clinton? Really, at some point, reality must intrude on your fantasies.
The evidence supporting the mainstream accounts of the collapse of the WTC, the attack on the Pentagon, the identities of the hijackers, etc., is exhaustive. Have you bothered to read the 9/11 Commission Report? I have to laugh when people try to pretend that a report co-authored by Democrat attack dogs like Richard ben-Veniste, who would cut off his own arm to burn George Bush, is a whitewash. Why are Bush's enemies protecting him?
Moral confusion? I think not. Your statements about Muslims are simply too stupid for words. They have been disappeared, rendered, tortured, and detained without legal rights, and are considered guilty until proven innocent. The right-wing bloviators are never admonished by administration officials when they promote racist propaganda in the name of conservative media. (Do you read newspapers?) Please read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" to see the blueprint for our current demonization of Muslims and the conflating of the words "Muslim," "extremist," and "terrorist."
And those reams of evidence were never produced, bub. Keep in mind that the Commission said at its outset that this was NOT an investigation, nor was there going to be any attempt to assign blame. Can you produce a single document which proves that the 19 were on the planes? WIth each post you make it more and more obvious that you are either tasked with shilling or still refuse to actually crack the concrete in your mind long enough to logically sort through the issues.
Your problem is that you insist, either by nature or posture, on framing this issue as a Republican vs. Democratic or Left vs. Right issue, and that somehow this entire thing has been trumped up as an elaborate campaign to bring down the Bush administration (as if it needed any help in this regard). That framing is blatantly false. Most of us here are not motivated by any political ideology -- there are both life-long Republicans and conservatives represented here in very large numbers. (I am an Independent, with no belief system or ideology that railroads my logical ability.) And it USED to be that conservatives were the ones most concerned with preserving the Constitution, which this Administration uses for bum wipe -- you can therefore call yourself a Bushie, but you can't call yourself a conservative if you don't agree that the many assaults on constitutional rights is abominable.
Furthermore, most of us believe that both corporate Democrats (like the Clintons, and the ones on the Commission with strong ties to oil and defense industries) and Republicans are implicated in this mess. Certainly they have ALL been complicit in the cover-up. If you think this can't be true, remember that the two Democratic leaders who were mailed anthrax that has been traced to the U.S. military have refused to push to investigate their own attempted assassinations. That suggests that they either know much more than they are letting on and have been blackmailed or they have been threatened on so many levels that they dare not go there.
You'll never understand one bloody thing about 9/11 until you remove political ideology from its consideration. And the fact that you will not acknowledge a single fallacy in the report proves your dishonesty.
Your statements about the treatment of American Muslims are nonsense--pure fabrications and falsehoods. There is no campaign to demonize Islam.The passenger manifests prove that the jihadists were on the planes, as does the DNA evidence recovered at the crash sites. Your hopelessly strained Nazi analogies are extremely silly.
No, there are not many conservatives in the ranks of the fantasists. With a few exceptions, most tinfoil-hatters are hate-America leftists who, if their throats were being cut by Islamic terrorists, would die thinking it was Dick Cheney in disguise.
Most Muslims are not jihadist terrorists, but ALL jihadist terrorists are Muslims. Why moderate Muslims are so reluctant to criticize the extremists remains a mystery.
... how could I have been so fooled all these years? Dick Cheney is really an Angel of God, disguised to look like a self-serving war profiteer and sociopathic mass murderer. But really he's an angel... the manipulation of public impression is just a front so that he can sleep safer from the pilgrimage hordes who would want to lick his socks and bath in his Godlight presence.
How could I have been such a fool? To EVER question my glorious government's truthful story of the boogymen who clearly want to slit my throat. Oh the shame of my ways... to have forsaken my great protector, the Glorious, Holy and unfailing United States Government. To have disgraced the memory of the crushed innocents of 9/11, and the tearful images of brave heros brought to me by ABC,NBC,CBS, and FOX.
I repent. I beg you Mr. Wieck, to forgive my dissent. I should NEVER have questioned ANYONE about something we all saw on TeeVee, and know for fact, that Islam-o-killers DO want to suck my blood, eat my babies and rape my wife on their alter to Satan.
cough.
You're a blind, deaf and dumb twit... Ronald Wieck.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Dick Cheney is neither an angel nor a devil. He's merely a politician with whose policies you happen to disagree. Your abysmal ignorance of the ideology animating the jihadists is inexcusable. These people are not the passive, faceless puppets of your fantasy world. They are steeped in the teachings of Sayyid Qutb. They want to recover a purer Islam and unite the Middle East under its banner. Leave your cocoon and learn something.
Your absurd fairy tale about Americans attacking themselves in order to fight two costly wars that have brought us no benefits is idiotic. Stop railing against imaginary comic book villains and deal with reality. Will you still be screaming when the next administration takes office? When do the fools who rant that America wants to steal Arab oil ever acknowledge that America has NEVER stolen any Arab oil and obviously has no intention of doing so?
You act as though we have a totalitarian government that releases propaganda that no one questions. Are you mad? The Bush-hating media has undermined this administration's foreign policy at every stage. Are you the only living soul who hasn't noticed? Your nonexistent jihadists celebrate their triumph on 9/11/01 over and over, as they launch attacks from Indonesia to the Netherlands. How out of touch with reality can a person be? Perhaps Theo van Gogh was murdered by the CIA?
I thought i was done on this topic.......Ron us truthers don't want back and forth childlike arguements.
Please look deeper into what we have.I am sure that you have'nt.
And to all us truthers.......Remember no mattter what. We respect all veiws,unlike FOX.
Please try to be civil.Remember the truth is on our side.
Sorry, there is absolutely zero truth on your side. The conspiracist position is a tissue of lies. In five years of screaming, the tinfoil-hatters have produced bogus science, distorted quotes, fabrications, and outright falsehoods. There is not a shred of evidence supporting these insane and pernicious fantasies.
of why he is no different than Bert, Ernie, Grover and our miscellaneous anons. He just happens to use his real name, but he isn't worth wasting time on any more than they are.
Some people, like Mr. Wieck, will continue to live in ignorance to what is really going on in the world we live in. They will always believe what they are spoonfed with because they fail to see the real issues behind current world issues and current world events. They see everything as "politics" when we all know that it's way beyond anything "ploitical".
Mr. Wieck shows his ignorance everytime he says things like:
"Your hopelessly strained Nazi analogies are extremely silly"
It is dangerous to not see how close and accurate they are.
"With a few exceptions, most tinfoil-hatters are hate-America leftists who, if their throats were being cut by Islamic terrorists, would die thinking it was Dick Cheney in disguise."
It's pointless to even use that type of situation as a hypothetical because most of us aren't afraid of the "big bad scary Al Qaeda monster".
"Dick Cheney is neither an angel nor a devil. He's merely a politician with whose policies you happen to disagree."
It's not just about a "politicians policies". We are able to look beyond that and look at him as a person because that's what he is. Either way you look at him, he is an evil, crooked and thoughtless man. It's not about his politics. It's about his history, the things he has been ivloved in, the things he is involved in, has been involved in and the decisions that he has made.
"Your absurd fairy tale about Americans attacking themselves in order to fight two costly wars that have brought us no benefits is idiotic."
"Stop railing against imaginary comic book villains and deal with reality."
"Will you still be screaming when the next administration takes office?"
Yes, because we know that it doesn't matter who is elected. These things will continue. You need try to understand that this isn't about right VS left because none of it matters. These people will continue to carry out their agendas, no matter what "party" is in control.
"You act as though we have a totalitarian government that releases propaganda that no one questions."
I would say that's a very accurate statement. Except that we know it's not "everyone". It's more like "almost everyone". Ask yourself why the most important issues always seem to be the least discussed in the mainstream media.
"The Bush-hating media has undermined this administration's foreign policy at every stage. "
And the most ignorant and absurd comment from Mr. Wieck is,
"Your absurd fairy tale about Americans attacking themselves in order to fight two costly wars that have brought us no benefits is idiotic."
Mr. Wieck, do you not know that we have attacked ourselves, more than once, to get us into war before? No benefits, huh? Yet another ingnorant statement. Do you know how much money is made in the selling of arms? Do you know how much money companies like Haliburton are making from this war? Do you know that permanent military bases are being set up in the middle east? Along with ex-military personel, Bush has recently said it himself, this is about oil. This is now common knowledge, even to those in the media. To think there have been no benefits, in the eyes of our "leaders", is idiotic.
I will only comment on this from yours above, Ronald; "He's merely a politician with whose policies you happen to disagree." Yes, Sir. I do very much disagree with both the stated direction and the actions of Mr. Cheney.
However, call this politics or not, but what he is doing endangers me, my family, my friends, and the future of ALL children... by orders of magnitude, beyond that which any band of fanatical "haters" could ever do. He becomes, and with the help of a great many people just like you Mr. Wieck, you have helped to create a Hate which is focused, funded, and structured with MIC actuaries, mercenary mad men, and a sympathetic media. "Sympathetic", if I recall correctly... is your expertise, Mr. Wieck.
Truth be told... if you, Mr. Wieck, are sympathetic to what has supplanted The Constitution and Bill of Rights... then you Sir, Mr. Wieck... define the term "America hater", and traitor to a capital T.
You can swing with them all.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
You comfort yourself with childish fables, while determined enemies of the West battle on. Tell us what rights we have lost in the last six years. In reality, we have lost none. What are the parallels between America and Nazi Germany? In reality, there are none.
Your Halliburton fantasies cannot explain why America fought two wars. A single company earns profits, while billions are spent manintaining an army overseas--and the Democrats don't care?
You cannot win, Mr. Wieck. You can try with your petty arguments, but you know deep down that at an absolute bare minimun, elements within our federal government Let It Happen On Purpose. However, as most of you believe, they Made It Happen On Purpose.
Mr. Wieck, would you conduct another interview on your show, this time with Alex Jones or Mike Berger or David Ray Griffin vs You or Mark Roberts or whomever else is willing?
Why do you suppose that as of November 11, 2006, the 9/11 Commissioners, NIST scientists, and other key personnel responsible for the government’s account of what happened in the United States on September 11, 2001 all refuse to participate in the National 9/11 Debate?
War Games? Disgustingly gross negligence of multibillion dollar Defense system? Warnings from 14 other countries? NO accountability?
You are the strawman, Mr. Wieck. You make the petty arguments. You will lose. We will win. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB and you know it. You remind me of Mancow. Maybe he would agree to be on your show. He did a segment on Fox "moderating" a debate, like you did. Google it. I'm sure you'd like it, even though it made people who believe the official story look uninformed and in denial.
I have invited Webster Tarpley and Kevin Barrett, but there has been no response as yet. I'd be happy to debate, with or without Mark, any of the prominent conspiracists.
It's funny that you mention Mancow. I watched his special on Fox with considerable disappointment and frustration. He allowed Kevin Smith to make the totally false claim that the conspiracists have science on their side. But that happens to be the reason I'm not a conspiracist: Absolutely no real science lends any credence to these farfetched claims that members of the government orchestrated attacks on American institutions. Apart from the complete lack of evidence. the whole concept is deeply flawed, wildly implausible, and poorly thought out. It makes no sense. The coercive muscle to keep hundreds , if not thousands, of co-conspirators quiet could not possibly exist.
Anyway, Mancow's producer, in reply to a rather critical e-mail I sent, invited me to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories on the radio for a half-hour. There are no stations in NYC that carry Mancow, so most of the people I know didn't get to hear me. But I did receive a call from an old friend who now lives in Tennessee. We had lost touch, but the show reunited us. Nice, huh?
You lost me on that one? Iam not standing up for Ronald,quite the opposite.Although Mr.Wieck was obviously biased,he did'nt go the Orielly way.
Yes i commend Jason & Dylan for all there efforts,and their movie loose change,but they did'nt set Ron straight.The point that i try to make is all the childlike name calling from both sides.We are better than that.
My thought throughout these blogs was that Mr
Wieck must have looked a little deeper into some of the things we had on this site,and it raised an eyebrow.
From reading the latter posts i find i am wrong.
So in that respect i could go on to bash & insult him,but i won't.
I feel sorry for those who refuse to look ,and don't want to believe it.
In early posts i did bash him a little,and after reading the recent post i won't apologize.
There is simply to much to ignore in our truth movement.Only a fool would refuse to at the very least question it.
So Ron at least for now we live in a country of free speech,and the freedom to believe what we want.
Iam sorry Erin,and to the rest of us truthers for seeming like i was defending Ron.I thought for once it might be cool to try to rationally point out things he obviously has'nt looked at,and to set an example in a web page for those that are blind to the truth.Allowing them to look at BOTH sides ,and decide for themselves.
I was only apologizing to you and our fairer kindred, for my crude language.
I never thought you were defending him, but that you wanted to remind us of a higher commitment to civil discourse. I am trying my best... but Mr. Wieck is a very curious one indeed, and tries my patients in all things. THAT is why I choose to engage him in words, even if my clumsiness with the practice of rhetoric descends me to curse him.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
The logic of these supporters of this War on Terror (to defeat the "Haters" both foreign and domestic) is flawed in two distinct and astonishingly tragic ways. Before I go into that, I will offer how I do agree with your suggestion that arguing with the Sesame Street Gang is a large time hog, yet Weick and Roberts at least have enough balls to drop a little skin in the game by using some form of corporeal identity. The anon with neither face nor name identity, calling us "traitors, America-haters and terror sympathizers"... is a laughably coward little shit. At least Weick and Roberts are slumming it in person with us down here in the rabble. If they want to stick it out to the end, at least we won't be shadow boxing.
(Ronald: Since you have repeatedly suggested that I must hate America, and that you think I'm somehow providing aid and comfort to an enemy by spreading its propaganda, know that I inversely think the very same of you. Yes the stakes are quite high, either you're found right in which case you should get on the phone RIGHT NOW and call DHS and report my "America Hatting, Terrorist Aiding" name to them. I fucking mean it! Because know this Sir, if I'm shown to be right, what people will do to you and your skin will reflect the savage injustice you yourself have sown. Me personally, I'd just knock your fucking block in... but that's because I'm a gentleman... no telling what kind of sick and twisted shit your inevitable turncoat merc-terror thugs (your Frankenstine) will do to the real propagandists such as yourself. Best of luck, dumb ass.)
Two fold tragedy of the road chosen by believers in The Swarthy West-ending Night Stalking Hordes of Allah, and a War To End Terror:
First, let's try really hard to pretend that the Popular Narrative is true. Dr. Osama Evil along with his Allah Troops, cracked open 50 trillion Fortune Co. Fortune Cookies until they found just the right combination of luck, lucky words, lucky advice and the winning lotto of how to thread the needle's eye of American air-defense to strike a life threatening blow to the American Ship of State. (I want to puke, just pretending like this... but let's keep trying). By succeeding with his 3 out of four targets of choice or opportunity, somehow this is conflated by the likes of Mr. Weick as representative of a clear and overwhelming threat to our way of life. "Just look at what They (Allah's Swarthy Hater Troops) were able to do, if we don't commit fully unquestioning unified America to back, fund, support in every word and deed our commitment to War against this Terror... we will perish from this Earth."
I can't even begin to comment on how dangerously naïve people are who voice such idiotic calculous... but it becomes imperative that we (those few who seem to have some grasp of the both the actual horrors of war in ANY terms, and the simple fact that "terror" is a tool which cares not who handles it, and thus can not be consider the sole realm of only Terrorists, let alone Swarthy Terrorists.)... it becomes our imperative to try to the very last, with all our mental might, with every ounce of our persuasion and plea... for Mr. Weick to reconsider his misunderstanding. Should We fail, and Mr. Weick's logic of the West-Hater is proven correct... he will still have a rude awakening when this Terror War (the one he supports by failing to oppose in toto) actually, fully, and completely comes home to roost and evolves into the War between American brothers. It will be the War between otherwise family and friends, as we try to one up one another to prove how asymmetrical war and flat out terror can be made into a horror show beyond Mr. Weicks apparent comprehension... and this is as incontestable as the waxing and waning of the moon. What IS contestable, that which Mr. Weick seems to avoid or willfully remain ignorant of, is first the illogic of shadow boxing a phantom and largely ethereal manifestation of "the Terrorist" (you simply can not know who is and who isn't) until a crime is committed. (too bad you seem to care so little about crime investigation techniques honed over centuries, which have a far better batting average at apprehending and proving the actual culprits of a crime vs. the guaranteed looser tactics of booms and guns. Your stated commitment to logic is belly-ache laughable.)
Now if Mr. Weick was as committed to logic as he insists that he is, he may wish to view into the future some of the possible down sides to his Great War to Defend the Western Way of Life. While he dreams of our heroic triumph over terror (a fool's errand), he may realize what kind of psychosis can be let out of the bag 'in the homeland' as people fight an un-winnable contest of Gun vs. Fear... as the vastly more realistic doom of the West runs its final course... the fiat bill, the fiat economy, and the fiat patriot fighting to the death for a fiat profit model of the fiat person-hood of the multi-national corporation protected by its fiat answerability. Ya Mr. Weick... keep sympathizing for your Great War of Distraction, you ninny-minded fool.
Inducing terror in the hearts and minds of the comfortable, will ALWAYS remain the final weapon of last resort to those who are dehumanized for either there dizzy fanatical beliefs OR their actual inequitable lot in life. Physically attacking "the fanatic" with booms and guns will always prove you tragically impotent at achieving your stated goals, as you multiply your "enemy" like tossing mutant Gremlins into Lake Erie. Please get a fucking clue.
Now, as you forcefully and malignantly multiply this enemy of yours (terror and fear), as if you're force feeding it nuclear waste like some absurd Saturday afternoon horror flick (which ironically you actually are)... the enemy LITERALLY grows stronger just as you grown weaker. By ignoring the tangible and terrestrial inequities of both remote and local people from all around the globe, which ARE fightable and fixable conditions, you again empower "the enemy" by orders of magnitude as you lower yourself down from the moral high ground (such as jurist prudence, habeas corpus, and the repudiation of torture, ALWAYS!) at the same time proving in spades your indifference to inequity in all its forms but particularly those formed between actual human beings vs. a malevolent sophistry for the insulated position of corporate person-hood.
Really Mr. Weick, if I'm talking past you, over your head, or in any manner you fell should be attempted or made more clear and simple... I will try. But this is NOT a simple and easy to grasp situation for our current human condition... but if you could at least back off from your fixation and non sequitur of "fighting terror by making war on some form of religion"... things would be a lot easier to work through.
If you could take just a moment to reconsider the prescription you support, for the sake of reconsidering the diagnosis, at the chance you may actually see the actual and tangible environment of BOTH patient and doctor... maybe just maybe you will achieve a vantage point and perspective vastly more superior to the hole of POSSIBLE ignorance you currently seem to have dropped into.
I beg you to do this, to reconsider your premiss, additional facts, and a calculus a bit more enlightened than "they hate us".
Duh, of course "they hate us"... because far too many people like you seem to think inequity is a self inflicted wound of the poor, and that A War can be successfully waged against something which EVEN YOU Mr. Weick... may find to be your last and only resort... when your own world view comes crashing down. Will you be so strong in character, a champion of logic and committed to civil debate when that time comes... I do wonder.... I do so wonder.
erin
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
You use many words to demonstrate that your conspiracy theories are based on absolutely nothing but your desire to make America appear the villain.
The jihadists are proud of their victory. You pretend that they are not independent actors, but nothing could be further from the truth. They may lack our sophisticated technology, but they are well-financed, they train hard, and they are utterly resolute. Animated by Sayyid Qutb's scathing critique of "moderate" Islam, Islamic radicals seek to purify their faith, to eradicate any Western influence. They are implacable enemies.
You proceed from the premise that America's motives are always malign, ignoring the manifest reality that there are people out there who want to hurt us badly. The vacuum you imagine we live in is imaginary.
Let me repeat what I've been saying: No evidence of any kind supports your conspiracy theories.
You have absolutely proven that the America in your mind (one completely incapable of introspection), is nothing I wish to defend. In fact, I am the sworn enemy of such a state as this. Call your Justice Department, call your FBI, call your Department of Homeland Security, call any fucking person you're convinced should now that I will see you hang, before I accept the terms of the War you wish me to wage.
I am convinced YOU are the traitor. I am convinced YOU are the America Hater. I am convinced that your kind of thinking reflects a clear and present danger to me far more threatening than the fanaticism "Animated by Sayyid Qutb's". I am convinced that unless our nation, society, culture, The American Way (whatever you want to call it) reconsiders its place in the world... that it dooms me and my future in far more concrete ways than the diffuse and gossamer manifestations of this chimera you clearly state your willingness to commit blood and treasure to fight.
Your and idiot of tragic proportions which forces me to focus upon YOU far more than the foreign Enemy you insist is more real than economic, political, and social inequity.
Am I supposed to hunt you down, and silence YOU because I see you as the greater threat? If I am convinced that your domestic logic represent the greater threat, a threat greater than fanatical radicals building upon the momentum and simpathy created by your retarded logic... and that YOU feed their fanaticism by the trainload.... what dear Sir am I to conclude?
You really should call your great protector, this state craft which you support, and I oppose. You should call and report me, Erin S. Myers... report me as the self professed enemy of your brand of thinking, and that of this current state of affairs.... because I just might be forced to Preemptively Defend myself. Preempt the State, which I am ever more convince not only fails to serve me , but actually targets me and my family because We the People are being cheated by this impossible protection racket that you dream can provide for your safety.
Call them, Mr Wieck... call them and get me off the street... because I may have to rip your stupid throat out before you can build this psychosis any further. Anticipatory Self Defense works both ways, and thus moronic because it has no logic nor any promise of peace for the human condition.
You God awful dumb fuck you!
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Far be it from me to tell you to rein in any rant you feel is useful (especially since your rants are entertaining and the REAL patriotism you express is moving and infectious.) I would simply point out that like Bert, Ernie, et al, Wieck will respond to your thoughtfulness with thoughtlessness -- really mindlessness -- which probably has something to do with the diseased member planted to the hilt in his cerebrum.
Sincerely, a local representative of "our fairer kindred" ;)
More empty rhetoric to disguise the painfully obvious FACT that your absurd fantasy lacks even a shred of evidence to support it. Face it: when America became the victim of an unprovoked attack, your world was rocked.
Your mindless sputtering temper tantrum merely confirms my strong suspicions about many tinfoil-hatters. You are long on abuse, but painfully short on facts and logic. You pretend that America threatens you by defending itself against the jihadists. Are you a follower of radical Islam planning to murder thousands of us? I doubt that strongly. It's far more likely that you're a typical loony-leftist who despises the society that enables him to live a comfortable life. I will never comprehend such foolish people. What are some of the concrete ways America "dooms" you? I don't believe any of your silly nonsense, but I do take you at your word that you are the sworn enemy of the greatest nation in the world, which is what I stated in the first place. If you think that makes ME a traitor, your dispute is with the dictionary, not me.
You must mean "No confession of any kind supports
your truth movement"
To this we can all agree.
Looks like you pissed Erin off.So much for being civil.Looks like your meat.
I'm afraid word games won't do the trick. In five years of screaming, the fantasy movement has produced bogus science, distorted quotes, fabrications, and outright lies--nothing else. There is not a shred of evidence supporting these pernicious and absurd myths.
I truely believe in being civil,but then again respect is something earned ,not given.
So to all of us on this web page.Truthers ,and visitors please forgive me.
Ron your a FUCKING IDIOT! Who knows if
all your buttkissing will pay off.You might get a guest apperance on FOX,or better yet Dick might invite you over for the holidays.
Yes the offical fantasy has produced all of that.
You dumb fucker.I wonder why Jason,and Dylan agreed to go on such a low budget show hosted by a moron.
We should have known it would be a waist of time.
Games is right.....The truth is comming
I do think I understand the uphill push, if not wholly quixotic attempts, to see Mr. Wieck and his street gang of puppets with stuffed heads, turn on their heals and voice a reconsideration of their position. It is probably quite similar to their own desires to see us do exactly that, turn on our heals and join into their version of The Good Fight. This is called parity in conviction, and the most repugnant aspect of the psy-op being conducted on American soil. It almost guarantees a fight here at home, with nothing "Civil" about it... by condemning We the People to an asymmetric war FOR civilization.
Can you get that through your dim skull, Mr. Wieck?
Appallingly, the domestic Mr. Wiecks seem incapable of grasping hold this aspect of psychologic mind-fuckery they carry and disseminate. And History repeats.
They more doom freedom and liberty by begging for a police state to bring under control that which they NEVER can; Freewill and the unquenchable human desire for happiness and tranquility. What he and his kind refuse to consider (ironically when they are so quick to point out the "intractable" malevolence of "Others"), is they themselves are just as susceptible to bad thinking, and that they are not impervious to manipulation. That 'NO WAY would any person or group of people here in America manipulate their thinking so as to support, rather than oppose, subtle underlayments of unjust profit and egocentric hegemony.' cough
They are frightened to the core by any thoughts such as REAL domestic traitors. Yes, an enemy vastly more insidious, threatening and America-ending, than ANY foe outside the gates which truly come to do us harm. Yes, there are always such 'haters' beyond our shores (too bad Mr. Wieck is so myopic to refuse consideration of the machinations aggravating these 'haters'), however should he insist upon his apparent course, he seems mindless to the loss of tranquility now almost banging on his front door. "Swarthy Killers for Allah", haven't a spark of the conviction which burns in ALL people for liberty and justice.
Their position (the domestic Wiecks) believe with all their heart, that "War can bring Terrorists to their knees." At least that's what they keep saying over and over and over again.
We believe Nothing, I mean nothing could be more foolish and wrong headed. Backing away from our position is impossible, just as they profess that backing away from their position is equally impossible. Hummmm.... what to do?
If "War is the only way to make peace" (as they say), than the peace makers are actually forced to take up arms in defense. Utter madness, and the mad maddeningly march on in complete oblivion to their own madness.
Mr. Wieck, I promise that I can make War better than you. How could I know such a thing? Because I know that only chicken hawks like you and George wave the flag of war. Those of us who have ANY clue, know what kind of ugliness you represent, and regardless my stated insistence to peaceful means... if you push me to the end... I will lash back at you with untold, bare fisted animalistic rage if you give me no choice. An otherwise peace-nick by choice, is that last person on Earth you want to make into a warrior.
Be mindful of the Dogs of War you so carelessly taunt and poke with sticks. That's why I call you a dumb ass, Mr. Wieck.
Freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A constitution of law, not men. A Bill of inalienable human rights. A deep-felt reverence for jurist prudence, habeas corpus, and respect for ALL human dignity no matter how repugnant the accused OR convicted...
These are your birth rights to uphold and defend against all enemies, Mr. Wieck. Abandonment of these principals, truly defines you as a Mother-Fucker. For you are fucking the mother of your freedom, liberty, republic and/or ANY democracy you may wish to fantasize.
Please state for the record, that which drives and motivates you. Please state for the record, the principals upon which you stand no matter the trials and tribulations which they may produce. Please state for the record, that which you are willing to truly fight and die for... even if you yourself are too limp to carry your own damnable sword.
At least I'll know where you stand... and whether I should fight to defend you, just ignore your impotent ignorance... or to place you in my sights should such an unfortunate time arrive.
Thanks bunches...
erin
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
You can babble your idiocy until the cows come home. The 9/11 fantasy movement has not produced a shred of evidence in five years of deranged shrieking--NOTHING! You are incapable of pointing out a single error in the NIST report. You can find no flaws in the Protec paper. You can't refute anything in the Popular Mechanics book. You can't find errors on 911myths.com or debunking911.com. You can't refute any of Dr. Greening's technical papers. There are still no structural engineers, avionics techs, or demolition experts who take your nonsense seriously.
You are people who have a deep animosity toward America and are willing to make yourselves look ridiculous promoting these absurd, preposterous conspiracy theories. You can't even invent a remotely plausible motive for bringing down WTC 7 (obviously, it doesn't fit in with any conceivable scheme hatched by the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy). Do you really plan to scream yourselves blue in the face until the next administration takes office?
you have so far declined to comment on the factual response I gave you back on page 6 of this thread concerning the NIST report.
Cheers,
B
ps 911myths.com and the "Greening" papers are a bit of a joke, in a scientific sense, if I may take the liberty to say so.
pps Did you know that the first Bazant&Zhou paper (which the NIST report references) was accepted by the journal on Sept. 13th 2001? Less than two days after 9/11... i wonder how much critical thought went into writing that article....
Dr. Frank Greening is a distinguished molecular chemist, His papers are very far from being jokes. If you are unable to comprehend them, the problem is yours, not his. That doesn't change the validity of his findings. He refuted Jim Hoffman's bogus science very convincingly and he was the first to show the flaws in Steven Jones's erroneous thesis.
Anyone interested in the WTC demolitions might happen to click on the menu item "WTC (demolition)" on the left side of the screen. A list of objections then appears, and we click on the first option, called "Progressive collapse doesn’t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident". Let's see what it has to say about this, seems interesting....
Alas, once we actually read the article, it starts of with "L'Ambiance Plaza was planned to be a sixteen-story building with thirteen apartment levels topping three parking levels" Still in construction, "At the time of collapse, the building was a little more than halfway completed. In the west tower, the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor slab package was parked in stage IV directly under the twelfth floor and roof package. The shear walls were about five levels below the lifted slabs (Cuoco, 1992). The workmen were tack welding wedges under the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor package to temporarily hold them into position when they heard a loud metallic sound followed by rumbling. " In this temporary and relatively precarious construction phase, "Kenneth Shepard, an ironworker who was installing wedges at the time, looked up to see the slab over him "cracking like ice breaking." Suddenly, the slab fell on to the slab below it, which was unable to support this added weight and in turn fell. The entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only 2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height. " So let's see, a 16 story building, not even half-finished, collapsed due to instabilities in the relatively delicate construction phase it was in. Clicking on the link to the source of this information, we arrive at a web page were we can read "An unusually prompt legal settlement prematurely ended all investigations of the collapse. Consequently, the exact cause of the collapse has never been established. The building had a number of deficiencies; any one of which could have triggered the collapse. The question, however, remains which one of these failed first, triggering the rest of the failures and ultimately total collapse" Iin other words, this example is completely useless since the building was still in consruction and presented numerous deficiencies. Deficient temporary connections and instabilities contributed to the sudden collapse. None of this circumstances were present in the WTC1&2 collapses. One interesting thing to note, however, is that the picture of this collapesed building in the 911myths.com website shows a rather large pile of rubble, with the floors visibly stacked on top of each other. There has been no pulverisation of concrete such as that which occured on 9/11. This is one of the most salient features of a controlled demolition where high-powered explosives are used.
Another example of an unfinished bulding follows, the Bailey's Crossroads disaster at Fairfax County, Va. It is ironic that this is used as an example that is somehow relevant to the WTC collapse since, clicking on the source of this information we find, reading down the article "In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35.
Several investigations came to the same conclusion for the Bailey's accident. The concrete had simply not attained sufficient strength to carry the construction loads that were placed on it. The shear strength of the slabs would have been acceptable if the concrete had reached its specified capacity before the shoring was removed. "
Again, none of these things are in the slightest bit relevant. It is interesting that no picture is supplied for this disaster, but there is indeed a picture if we go to the original article. The article in the 911myths.com site makes us imagine that it somehow ended up like the WTC site, but this is what happened:
At Bailey’s Crossroads, concrete was placed on the 24th floor while shoring was prematurely removed from the 22nd, causing a progressive collapse down to the ground level.
So nothing like WTC. No pulverisation of concrete, no global collapse, no hot spots in basements, etc...
There follows another example of finished building this time, a nice refreshing change, a 6-storey building - the Lian Yak building - which according to the source, however, " root and main cause of the collapse lay in the grossly inadequate design " Again, none of this is even remotely relevant to the WTC, which were incredibly robust biuldings.
Again, this article is totally irrelevant to the WTC disaster, the only interesting features being that there is no pulverisation of concrete but indeed a large debris pile when building collapse due to gravity assisted reasons.
I'm afraid I don't have time to comment on the Greening papers at the moment, but that will be done too. Just to say that, according to your logic, they aren't relevant anyways since the guy is not a structural engineer... right?
Hope this helps you and others to see past these flimsy "debunking" efforts that try to obscure the fact that there are many things wrong with the official account. We should be questioning authority, Mr. Wieck, unless you want to be on a fast track to tyranny.
What you still seem incapable of understanding, is that the onus of "producing evidence", IS NOT upon the shoulders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The responsibility which the The 9/11 Truth Movement has plenty of shoulders to bare, IS THE DEMAND that the U.S. Government and its lackeys have the indisputable obligation of producing the evidence which clearly and beyond reasonable (and probable if you and Hayden-The-Fuck can remember that one) doubt proves the case of a strictly foreign attack.
Until such time, you and this government stink to low hell, of covering SOMETHING up. And that something looks an awful lot like Treason and Inside Job... because otherwise the exculpatory evidence would have been produced.
So far and to your great credit, you and the government who's cock you loving suck, HAVE ONLY SUCCEEDED in temporarily persuading the TeeVee dulled senses of unthinking people. You have NOT succeeded in making the same case to people who still remember what a lasting conviction demands of the accuser.
You must make your case... NOT the people who, oh shit imagine that, are prone to great speculation when shit just doesn't add up. You've got a mountain of bull-crap dodge and weave sideshow hand-waving at the ready, the moment some person asks... "even IF foreign swarthy freedom haters were able to make it through... wtf happened to building 7?"
"Why the fuck wouldn't George and Dick testify under oath, even after delaying and hamstringing an investigation into the greatest crime ever committed on American soil?"
"How do tin-darts and lamp oil cause multimillion ton structures to fall symmetrically from asymmetric damage?"
"How did Red Baron Hani hit lamp poles AND the Pentagon when the NTSB released a Flight Data recording which indicates neither was possible... at least according to the NTSBs own release?"
This can go on... and on... and on... But you see Mr. Butt, it IS NOT MY PLACE to answer such questions, it the governments'. (do you remember that last part of the First Amendment? Probably not... that's most likely the source of your confusion.)
This Government, with the indispensable aid of Mass Mainstream Media, and the likes of jackass motherfuckers like you, have TOLD we the people that scary freedom haters perpetrated the attack of 9/11. Yet you fail to prove it. Instead, you pretend as if it is We, the people who must prove something else if we don't want to accept the convoluted, mathematically impossible, wholly illogical, and laughably silly explanation provided to-date by your media and government.
You are suffering from abject poverty of thought, dear dumbass.
It is impossible to shift the responsibility of burden of proof away from the accuser, onto the shoulders of those who laugh at the accusers bullshit story. All We the People have to say is "Bull shit, Tell us another one!" We can do this until the cows come home, and the next day, and the day after that.
I suggest that the only way you will succeed in shutting me up... is to come clean with a plausible story, and yes, a story which adequately explains and reveals who exactly was jerking off in the watch tower. Now after we get past that, sorry to say, you'll still have to PRODUCE evidence which actually implicates those who YOU Mr. Wieck, continue to accuse of America-hating and thus worthy of our Great U.S. Army's ability to crush baby skulls.
Get on it, dick head. Get to work producing that evidence, with a trustworthy chain of custody (damn that one will suck for you), because short of that.... you'll have to lock me up in one of those Traitor Camps for steadfastly doubting your honesty.
I do feel sorry for you, for you've painted yourself into a corner which only has two ways out; prove your case, or kill me trying to escape... you fucking traitor.
p.s.: Scream your own mother-fucking self apoplectic... my breathing is quite calm, if I do say so myself.
p.p.s.: And you can also STFU about me and my relationship to country and constitution. Who's the one dumbfounded by the concept of habeas corpus, dumb ass?
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Well, you are certainly foaming at the mouth. That's okay. People caught telling falsehoods usually act very angry.
The information needed to understand the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01 is available in abundance. There is a mountain of evidence supporting the rationalist position--absolutely nothing supports your fantasies. The proof to which you close your mind is clear to anyone who is capable of processing information.
You can't show any errors in the NIST report. You can't explain why the passenger manifests showing the seating positions of the hijackers should be dismissed. You can't produce a single demolition expert who takes your foolish lies seriously. You have zero evidence for your absurd fables.
Why are there only two ways out? Out of what? That Islamic terrorists attacked America has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If you are too obtuse to understand the information available to you, why not simply ignore you? Not everyone can be smart.
Erin, thank you. Thank you for everything you have expressed in your posts on this page.
Mr. Wieck, "we" will be "screaming" until the end of time because the global "elite" will rule this world until there is nothing left of this world for them to destroy, but they will fall. A day WILL come when they will fall face down on their knees. What a glorious day that will be.
Mr. Wieck, you, sir, are a traitor. I refrained from calling you a traitor before because I do not throw that word around loosely.
You say that Erin's reason for feeling and thinking the way that he does must be because "his world was rocked by the attacks". I can't speak for him. I can only speak for myself. I am a human being who tries to imagine what people are feeling and thinking. Seeing 3,000 people die on live TV tore me up beyond belief, but it wasn't because I thought terrorists were attacking us. It wasn't because I was scared or afraid. It was because more than 3,000 people had just lost someone they loved and I watched it happen on TV. It was because 3,000 people had just experienced extreme panic, fear, pain and despair. As a 21 year old, I promised myself that I will fight for those people for the rest of my life because they could not. I promised myself that I will fight against tyranny and terror, not for myself, but for my fellow man. My "world" was not "rocked".
My world was rocked when I began to research the events of 9/11 and other "events" throughout history. I began to see that almost everything that I had been taught was a lie. "History" was a lie.
My world was "rocked" when I learned the real history of America and the real history behind Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty, the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, Cubana Flight 455, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. My world was rocked when I learned the facts...when I read the documents, when I read the reports, when I heard the accounts of those who were there and those who were involved, when I researched day after day after day for months upon months. My world wasn't "rocked" by "Islamic terrorists". It was "rocked" when I learned that some kind of "power" based somewhere inside elements of the US government were behind past most, if not all, of these "terrorist attacks".
"Are you a follower of radical Islam planning to murder thousands of us? I doubt that strongly. It's far more likely that you're a typical loony-leftist who despises the society that enables him to live a comfortable life. I will never comprehend such foolish people. What are some of the concrete ways America "dooms" you?"
It is very clear that you refuse to face what this is going on in this country and the rest of the world. Once again, I can't speak for Erin, but I can for myself. Our country has been destroyed by our own "elected" officials. It's not just Bush or Clinton or Bush Sr. or any certain "elected" official.
The Constitutuion and the Bill of Rights were destroyed with the passing of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act (both passed bacause of the on the "war on terror"). That is what dooms us. The destruction of everything this country was founded upon and everything that our forefathers fought for has been destroyed. Was it all for nothing? Did we give up our liberty for what some feel is "safety"? In the words of the great Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The difference between me and you, Mr. Wieck, is that I wouldn't want to take away your liberty.
So, your world was rocked when you learned a lot of silly conspiracy theories that consist entirely of falsehoods and fabrications? Why not try reading a real book?
Sure, the Constitution was "destroyed" by the Patriot Act. Some day, you may get around to telling us what rights we've lost. There aren't any, you know.
Of course you throw around the word "traitor" loosely. All fools do exactly that. You live in a cocoon, wrapped up in your ignorance and inability to think. You imagine that reality will never intrude on your fantasy world. Perhaps it won't. Perhaps the brave men and women fighting to keep us safe and free will prevent your bubble from ever bursting.
The American government has been behind the jihadist attacks all over the globe, from Indonesia to Africa, from Spain to the Netherlands? Blind stupidity is not a suit of armor.
You can't possibly be that ignorant to this world.
The things I listed are not "conspiracy theories". They are facts. You have proven yourself to be completely out of touch with reality.
"Why not try reading a real book?"
Are you one of those people who thinks that because you read something on the internet it is not real?
The things I listed are facts. It will be the known history of the United States whether they put it in the history books or not. You can find these things in books. So, does that mean that you automatically believe them now? I would guess not.
You live in a cocoon, wrapped up in your ignorance and inability to think. You imagine that reality will never intrude on your fantasy world. Perhaps it won't. No, that's not me quoting you.
"Perhaps the brave men and women fighting to keep us safe and free will prevent your bubble from ever bursting."
"Fighting to keep us safe". Is that the safety from "liberating Iraq"? That doesn't even make sense. Is that to keep us safe from WMD's? Oh wait, it is now on record, that was a lie. So, it must be because Saddam had something to do with Bin Laden and 9/11. Oh wait, it is now on record, that was a lie. So, what else is left? Hmm...can you think of anything? I can. It's called "oil".
So, who's the one living in a bubble. We are in a war...a war, man. Do you get that? Do you understand that? A war...for what? Well, the first two things we were told have proven to be lies. The president himself has been caught lying. I've watched him lie with my own eyes. He used to change his story from month to month and he still does.
So, who's the the one who is wrapped up in ignorance with the inability to think? I can't believe how you call everything a conspiracy theory.
I applaude you soley for forcing 9/11 Truthers to be more critical of the movement. You like to throw the words "conspiracy theorists" around a lot. I'm sure you realize that you are a conspiracy theorist as well because the official fairy tale is a "conspiracy theory". Saying "conspiracy theorists" helps validate your ignorance in an attempt to label the 9/11 Truth Movement. You seem to be an intellectual guy who happens to still have faith that our government wasn't involved with 9/11.
You've obviously pissed off a lot of people on this blog. Personally, I don't believe that you Really think that our government wasn't involved whatsoever. There must be some doubt of the official fairy tale in your mind. Why do you suppose it's taken NIST well over 5 years to "figure out" what happened to buiding 7? Along with most of the official fairy tale and the Iraq war, do you suppose its because they come to conclusions first and then put together information to support those conclusions second?
Do you believe that the wargames on 9/11 helped facilitate the "response" like Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers said to Cynthia McKinney? Sounds like a great cover to me.
Do you believe there has been a cover-up, to any degree?
Can anyone answer my questions about Steven Jones? Why did he resign from the Scholars? Does he still stand behind his 9/11 related work? Will he still debate in the National 9/11 Debate?
Unlike some of the people here, you maintain a civil tone. The ones who put on the loudest show are frauds. They know that I know that they know they're lying (I sound like Ralph Kramden).
Of course I don't think the government was involved. The whole idea is completely insane. We suffered a devastating defeat that our enemies are still crowing about.
Jones is a puzzle. Dr. Frank Greening asked Jones to perform a series of experiments that would settle the issues he's raised definitively. Jones appears unwilling. I tend to doubt that he will subject his discredited theories to scrutiny in an honest debate. Like all charlatans, he is most comfortable preaching to the choir.
Ah. You tend to stay focused on the discrepencies in some of the science, particularly surrounding the building collapses. You did a good job keeping Bermas and Avery focused mainly on admitted, misguided statements made in LC. Folks, this was done by design.
Did you contact every single person that has ever worked in controlled demolition? Did you record any of those conversations? Why won't any of the invited government scientists and experts agree to debate at the National 9/11 Debate?
Here's another reasonable question: Why do you suppose most of the evidence from Ground Zero was removed and destroyed so quickly? Do you find it horrifying that the government lied to the American people about the severity of breathing in the dust at Ground Zero, now causing thousands to suffer?
Mr. Wieck, the 9/11 Truthers who get upset and engage in verbal assault exchanges (myself included at times but I'm learning) are not frauds, but they are in panic mode. They know 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, and they are panicing (and they think you are the real fraud here).
Hey Truthers, remember there is a difference between Panic and Urgency. Ken Jenkins speaks of this subject very well. We're all in this together. Mr. Wieck may be in denial, but at least he's willing to debate and he's not as disgusting as Bill O'Reilly.
Mr. Wieck, you Know that the "argument" of "the whole idea is completely insane" is insane.
Break it down to the basics: Who benefits? Who has the power to cover it up?
The history of US government sponsered terror is overwhelming. I'd recommend Terror Storm by Alex Jones and What I've Learned About US Foreign Policy by Frank Dorrel (amazing).
Quit kidding yourself, please. We know that you know that we know that you know that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. It's OK to face hard truth, Mr. Wieck. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. You could make it your mantra...
Honest debate is vital to a democracy, but most people don't have a taste for it. We live in a post-literate age, in an infantilized culture of short attention spans. Doing original research is extremely difficult. It requires expertise in a relevant field and the talent for separating the wheat from the chaff. Assimilating recently-produced information is less difficult, but it still requires the ability to process it-- the critical thinking skills necessary to determine who is a genuine authority and who is a charlatan.
I get the impression that many people here simply cannot accept the reality of an attack on this nation by a foreign foe. If your worldview demands that America be regarded as the fount of all evil in the world, that it requires constant condemnation, it can't be allowed to appear as the victim of an unprovoked attack. You "know" that 9/11 was an inside job because you want so desperately to believe it. You don't care that no evidence points in that direction. You are indifferent to the sheer implausibility of the whole concept. Above all, you are the deaf to the triumphant cries of our enemies who continue to proclaim their victory.
I should have made more explicit the distinction between the America-haters of the far left and the Government-haters of the far right. The two groups, however, share a belief in the malevolence of elected officials who have, somehow, established a private army to enforce criminal acts. That this army must be imaginary is a dose of reality too bitter to swallow.
NIST will not send a representative to the National Debate because, according to Mike Newman, "our job is to determine why buildings fall down." The NIST report speaks for itself. It is a scientific study, not a political tract. If you can find errors in it, by all means send them to NIST. Nobody has found errors, which should tell you something.
I'm not quite sure what I'm being criticized for in my focus on the Loose Change teams's "misguided" statements. Of course, Mark and I wanted to stress the inaccuracy of the film, its complete disregard for evidence, so to that extent our approach was "done by design." How could it be otherwise? The film purports to reveal truth and it supplies only falsehoods.
Incidentally, I neglected to recommend in one of my posts the other day 'The Liberty Incident,' by A. Jay Kristol . Published in 2002, it remains the definitive study of the 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S. Navy ship.
For the sake of "civil" argument, let's agree for the moment that your house is actually on fire. Now, I'm trying to point out to you that your house is on fire, yet you for some reason don't seem to notice yourself, nor even seem to care "if that were true". At first, I think I'm just doing what any normal Good Sam would do, and maybe even say, "hey there Ronald, how's the wife and kids. By the way, is that a fire in the back I see, smell and hear?"
You look at me and say, "the kids are fine, but the wife won't stop nagging me about the heat. Can't seem to get her off my back. Oh well. Have a nice day, Erin."
I think to myself for a moment, 'well, maybe he really knows that his house is on fire, but being the grown man that he is... maybe I just have to leave him to his own devices. At least his wife seems to know something is up.'
"Well, sorry to hear that, Ronald. Umm, you have a nice day... ok? see ya around."
I walk back to my place, just a few blocks down... and take a seat on the porch to look back and watch how your house is continuing to burn. No, it's not a normal fire. Moves slowly, but damn sure... it really is a fire. But like in some strange dream, very few people seem to notice. However, the little old lady from across the street, she steps out and walks over to me and says, "Erin, did you notice that Ron's house is one fire?" I say, "Why yes I did, and I asked Ron if he noticed too. But now that you mention it, I better go and check again to see if he really knows."
Knock knock: "Hello, Ron. Don't mean to be a nag or anything, but did you actually notice that your house is on fire?"
"Erin, please. If MY house was on fire, don't you think I'm smart enough to notice for myself? Besides, if that were true, don't you think I would have seen it on the news? You know, fire trucks would have come, and police would have investigated, and the News would have done a great expose on how the fire started, who started it, how badly it burned everyone, where all it burned, when was it put out. Please, Erin, enough of this silliness. Why are you talking like a crazy person? Only crazy people talk about such things like "look.. look.. the house is on fire", when we all can see perfectly well that it's not. Use your head, stop this crazy conspiracy theory talk."
"Well Ron, in all due respect... I never said anything about a conspiracy... I asked if you knew that your house was on fire?"
"Erin, please stop with this insane talk of your conspiracy theory. Now I'm going back inside my house where it's peaceful and quite, I suggest you leave me alone now... otherwise I'm going to call the police and have them pick you up for threatening to burn down my house."
"Mr. Ron, I'm not threatening to burn your house down... it's already on fire. Now are you going to help me put it out before it spreads down the street and burns down my place, and the little old ladies place too?"
"Erin, I've already told you, if my house was on fire, I would know. Now since it is not but you keep talking about your conspiracy theory to burn it down... I can only assume that you're a paranoid, tin-foil hat wearing, America-hating kook. Now please stop this nonsense, before I call the cops."
"Ok, you ass-hole mother-fucking shit-scum piece of crap dumb-ass. Call the fucking cops, call the god-damn National Guard... you douche bag! Call the president of the united fucking states and tell him I think he should hang for treason... but besides that... your house is on fire."
"Erin, there you go again with these crazy conspiracies about how 'the President Of the United States is burning down my house'... now why would he do such a thing? You can't answer that, can you? You have absolutely no proof that The President of the United States of America wanted to nor tried to burn down my house. Why do you hate America so much?"
"Look fuck head, I'm really getting annoyed here. At first, I was just trying to help you out. But instead... you go off calling me all these names and accusing me of trying to make up some kind of "crazy conspiracy theory".
Now I don't really give a crap what you think of me anymore, Mr. Ron, but your frack'n house is on fire, Sir. It should be put out, before it spreads any further. If it's NOT put out, it will surly spread down the street, block to block, until enough people decide to ACKNOWLEDGE that that is actually, in fact, a darn real fire, Ass-hole!
So yes, if you must... please call the police and tell them that I, Erin S. Myers said 'I hate America, and therefor I'm going to burn down your house'... just so long as you get some fucking fire trucks here to help me put this damn fire out, ass-hole."
"Erin, have you read the report by Dr. Frank Greening? It's really great stuff, he talks about how aluminum will incandesce at its melting point in the presence of Super Duper Hot Jet Fuel and the raging inferno fires caused by office equipment and supplies. Did you read it, Erin? Erin, why won't you answer me this simple question... why would The President want to burn down my house. You can't answer that one, can you? You don't have any proof or evidence from a single engineer, architect, aviation tech, or government whistle-blower... to back up your claim that my house is on fire... why do you persist with these silly and puerile conspirinoid tin-hat kookyness? Why do you hate America? Erin.... Erin.... ?"
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
I would perhaps tweak it just a bit. It's actually an assisted-living residence for the cognitively impaired. Don't waste *too* much time arguing with the residents -- just make sure they're out of the way and get the fire put out.
It's been over five years.What,are they turning it into a career?
Blind faith in poor leaders ,is not patriotic.
I've read ALL of their side.That is why it is so easy to see it's bullshit.
If it's easy to show where the real scientists are going wrong, do what no fantasist has done: point out some errors in the NIST report, the Protec paper, the Popular Mechanics book, Dr. Greening's papers, or on debunking911.com, 911mythscom. You can't advance your case by complaining that the evidence is inconvenient to your politics. We already know that.
If my house is on fire, you are doing me a favor by alerting me. If you are waking me up in the middle of the night to tell me about a nonexistent fire, you're annoying me. Where's the fire. Show us something.
Mr. Wieck, it seems your only job here is to appear intellectual and focus soley on the NIST report. I wish there could be a debate between scientists, engineers, and the like, but the ones who support the official fairy tale refuse.
You only focuse on disputable particulars of some of the science of some of the physical evidence. You continue to ignore all the other questions posed by myself and others. You won't touch any of the other evidence, this is your method of debate. I would love to see you debate Alex Jones..
I am pointing this out to expose your methodology of intellectual rhetoric followed by focusing on disputable particulars while ignoring the real questions the whole time. You will lose in the end and realize how blind you were.
Don't continue to be a traitor to the people of this country. I invite you to open your eyes. It's easier than living a lie.
Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/25/2006 - 11:44pm.
This last post was sent by me. Before I finished editing it, I accidentally hit return and sent it.
NORAD standout? War games? Fore-knowledge? Sickening negligance on so many levels? NO accountability? Norman Minetta's testimony? Money ties to ISI? Al-CIA-da history? Bin-Laden? Massive cover-up?
Even if the jihadists you speak of are still celebrating their "attack on our freedom", perhaps it's because of the US wars of agression against Afghanistan and Iraq, among several other crimes against humanity.
At a bare minimum, these jihadists had support from the Military Industrial Intelligence Complex. It's obvious. The PNAC documents and the CFR called for it, and then it facilitated it, with the help of the jihadists you speak of, aka the patsies.
Quit clinging to the refuted and disputed NIST report.
Your post contains nothing but canards. Saying that the NIST report is refuted because you fervently wish it could be refuted doesn't change reality. The NIST report has not been refuted; none of its conclusions have been significantly challenged by anyone. It remains a fact that not a single demolition specialist believes that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.
Norman Mineta's testimony is another myth. His timeline was off by more than twenty minutes, something the 9/11 Commission determined by comparing his sequence of events with everyone else's. It turned out that everyone involved was describing the same events, but Mineta's version had them happening roughly a half-hour earlier.
The PNAC documents were not clandestine communiques; they were public papers.
So, I'll ask you again, did you ask every single controlled demolition expert? I'm guessing not.
You continue to stay focused on the NIST report. This must be your only hope to continue your side of the debate. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan refuted and disputed the report, as well as others.
In regards to Norman Minetta, I wish we could have Cheney and Bush testify under oath in front of a grand jury to be seen by the public, but they seem to be above the law. Do you find it odd that they would only testify together, behind closed doors, with only one person taking notes which had to be cleared for authorization by their minions?
Too bad the 9/11 Commission didn't investigate Minetta's testimony. Do you think William Rodriguez's testimony was valid, even though it contradicts the official myth?
You say my post contained nothing but canards. What else then would you say is a canard? Do you think the wargames or fore-knowledge are canards? The ties between Bin Laden, Al-Queda and the CIA, are these canards? The discrepencies between reality and the 9/11 Commission report, are these canards too?
I never suggested that the PNAC documents were clandestine.
What I'm attempting to communicate is that NOTHING points to a conspiracy orchestrated by our own government. Everything suggests that Islamic terrorists had trained diligently and succeeded in executing a plan they had been preparing for years.
The problem with the fantasy promoted by people here is that it consists of nothing but loose ends. The whole scheme is so preposterously convoluted: fly planes into buildings that have been wired with thousands of pounds of explosives; fire a missile into the Pentagon, then fly the plane that fired it into the hole; invent a fake bin Laden to deliver messages that rally his supporters and create problems for our troops; fail to the announce the death of the real bin Laden--who is already dead--when a huge election defeat is looming and a public relations shot in the arm is needed desperately; vanish four planes with all passengers onboard. The list goes on and on.
Perhpas you are not intentionally ignoring my factual responses earlier in the thread, or morelikely have no reasonable response to them, in any case i thought it wise to remind you of them since you continue to propagate your blinkered diatribe unchecked.
I'm sorry to inform you that I have actually taken the time to read the NIST/FEMA reports and, perhaps unfortunately for you, am also educated in physics and maths to postgraduate level, so understood it as well.
The many thousands of pages do a geat job of detailing the inner structure of the WTC1&2, showing how it met all design and construction specifications (NIST NCSTAR 1-1) and in general praising its construction. Specific mention is made of the engineers taking into account the impact and ensuing damages caused by a Boeing 707 flying at 600mph (which actually has more kinetic enegry than the 757s of 9/11) in a study by the Port Authority in 1964 (see page 70).
In summary, the WTC1&2 are shown to have met all construction specifications and were in fact extremely robust buildings.
In the crucial chapter, NIST NCSTAR 1-6, which discusses structural fire response and probable collapse sequence of the WTC towers, is however were a lot of the disappointment, in a scientific sense, arises from.
They conducted a finite element analysis of the sequence of structural failure that led to the collapse initiation. At no point did they consider the manner of collapse, ie global, symmetrical collapse inducing pulverisation of concrete and pools of extremely hot molten metal in the basements. Furthermore, they have never released, to my knowledge, any of the models they used, which, under their own admission, had to be tweaked in order to induce failure of the structure. We would like to know how much they had to tweak their model. Another reason that raised a few eyebrows was the fact that the experiments they themselves performed on the floor assemblies did not show the behaviour, ie extreme sagging, that they had predicted, and did not fail the test in that sense.
On their contention that a lot of the fireproofing was dislodged, and that this somehow initiated failure after only 50 odd minutes, there are several things wrong with this picture. There is an analysis by Kevin Ryan that discusses this aspect of the report quite well.
So my question to you is: are you satisfied by a "scientific" report that a) has not released in public the finite element analysis and code used in modelling the collapse initiation, b) by its own admission had very few pieces of physical evidence on which to base their calculations, c) does not take into account both the manner and form of the collapse, AFTER initiation.
These three points you should find quite worrying Mr. Wieck.
and also
Anyone interested in the WTC demolitions might happen to go to 911myths.com and click on the menu item "WTC (demolition)" on the left side of the screen. A list of objections then appears, and we click on the first option, called "Progressive collapse doesn’t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident". Let's see what it has to say about this, seems interesting....
Alas, once we actually read the article, it starts of with "L'Ambiance Plaza was planned to be a sixteen-story building with thirteen apartment levels topping three parking levels" Still in construction, "At the time of collapse, the building was a little more than halfway completed. In the west tower, the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor slab package was parked in stage IV directly under the twelfth floor and roof package. The shear walls were about five levels below the lifted slabs (Cuoco, 1992). The workmen were tack welding wedges under the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor package to temporarily hold them into position when they heard a loud metallic sound followed by rumbling. " In this temporary and relatively precarious construction phase, "Kenneth Shepard, an ironworker who was installing wedges at the time, looked up to see the slab over him "cracking like ice breaking." Suddenly, the slab fell on to the slab below it, which was unable to support this added weight and in turn fell. The entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only 2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height. " So let's see, a 16 story building, not even half-finished, collapsed due to instabilities in the relatively delicate construction phase it was in. Clicking on the link to the source of this information, we arrive at a web page were we can read "An unusually prompt legal settlement prematurely ended all investigations of the collapse. Consequently, the exact cause of the collapse has never been established. The building had a number of deficiencies; any one of which could have triggered the collapse. The question, however, remains which one of these failed first, triggering the rest of the failures and ultimately total collapse" Iin other words, this example is completely useless since the building was still in consruction and presented numerous deficiencies. Deficient temporary connections and instabilities contributed to the sudden collapse. None of this circumstances were present in the WTC1&2 collapses. One interesting thing to note, however, is that the picture of this collapesed building in the 911myths.com website shows a rather large pile of rubble, with the floors visibly stacked on top of each other. There has been no pulverisation of concrete such as that which occured on 9/11. This is one of the most salient features of a controlled demolition where high-powered explosives are used.
Another example of an unfinished bulding follows, the Bailey's Crossroads disaster at Fairfax County, Va. It is ironic that this is used as an example that is somehow relevant to the WTC collapse since, clicking on the source of this information we find, reading down the article "In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35.
Several investigations came to the same conclusion for the Bailey's accident. The concrete had simply not attained sufficient strength to carry the construction loads that were placed on it. The shear strength of the slabs would have been acceptable if the concrete had reached its specified capacity before the shoring was removed. "
Again, none of these things are in the slightest bit relevant. It is interesting that no picture is supplied for this disaster, but there is indeed a picture if we go to the original article. The article in the 911myths.com site makes us imagine that it somehow ended up like the WTC site, but this is what happened:
At Bailey’s Crossroads, concrete was placed on the 24th floor while shoring was prematurely removed from the 22nd, causing a progressive collapse down to the ground level.
So nothing like WTC. No pulverisation of concrete, no global collapse, no hot spots in basements, etc...
There follows another example of finished building this time, a nice refreshing change, a 6-storey building - the Lian Yak building - which according to the source, however, " root and main cause of the collapse lay in the grossly inadequate design " Again, none of this is even remotely relevant to the WTC, which were incredibly robust biuldings.
Again, this article is totally irrelevant to the WTC disaster, the only interesting features being that there is no pulverisation of concrete but indeed a large debris pile when building collapse due to gravity assisted reasons.
I'm afraid I don't have time to comment on the Greening papers at the moment, but that will be done too. Just to say that, according to your logic, they aren't relevant anyways since the guy is not a structural engineer... right?
Hope this helps you and others to see past these flimsy "debunking" efforts that try to obscure the fact that there are many things wrong with the official account. We should be questioning authority, Mr. Wieck, unless you want to be on a fast track to tyranny.
You can say to yourself and those you hope will listen, that "there exist no objections nor refutations" of the NIST category and other officially sanctioned reports such as those from FEMA, NTSB, FBI, FAA, and so forth... you can say that until you're blue in the face, but that does not mean there are no refutations and objections.
You can say that there are no objections by people who are actually "qualified", competent, capable and willing to question these reports and the general Official Narrative, but you will always be wrong on that assertion too.
You can overt your eyes and fail to acknowledge, that the U.S. dollar sits on the fence between hyper/inflation or/AND astonishing depression, but your failing does not make the situation "go away". You can ignore the alarmingly dangerous threat of domestic unrest, when you deny that our country (nation/culture/society/whatever) is as addicted to debt-dependent hyper-consumerism akin to that of a heroin addict. You can pretend (to your guaranteed demise) that our nation has retained the habits and skills necessary to satisfy just basic needs without great turmoil when the notes are called and we have to provide for our own infrastructures and the distribution chains we've grown so deeply accustomed.
The recipe for a kind of unrest not yet seen on this Earth, Mr. Wieck... has been slow roasting in the oven of our national hubris for quite some time.
That you blatantly ignore this situation by your fixation upon a tick-turd of a problem by comparison, The Swarthy Freedom Hate[r] problem... vs. culture/economic/infrastructure breakdown, completely baffles me. And yes, I do SUSPECT that the "Freedom Hater" is NOT so much opposed to the spirit of America expressing her liberty, but that they oppose our inequitable expressions of egocentric "Liberty", and our "Freedom" to lie with impunity about pretext for War... and far worse... our "Freedom" to lie a hideously unjust economic structure upon other people.
I am endless astonished at your pretense that Fanatical Radicals represent a danger to you and yours... above and beyond the level of concern you should have for your own house.... BURSTING INTO FLAMES.
If you're not actually cognizant of the psychological operation hard at work to maintain the Hollywood-like facade of the American Dream... cognizant like that of a willing shill or paid agent of the Lie Machine... if you really are a truth searching and patriotic fellow American... please just place upon the scales of importance, inevitable economic breakdown of an unsustainable fiat vs. Swarthy Freedom Haters skulking in the alleys.
It is possible that you have not looked nor considered the numerous unsustainable fiats our culture currently indulges. If you haven't even looked, I can then certainly understand (not that I approve nor agree) how you may have come to a seemingly logical conclusion that Islamic fundamentalism, combined with small time funding and intel to carryout highly disruptive behavior (to a precariously delicate economy)... might represent the greatist threat you've ever considered to-date. And in that, We also find that simply by failing to consider the delicate underpinnings and unjust machinations of American dominated Western economic structures... you may naturally conclude that Swarthy Boogymen are your greatest Fear, and somehow worthy of your War commitment.
But I contend, not so much that your logic is completely flawed (even if I still wouldn't agree with your prescription created in the vacuum concept of "Freedom Haters") so much as I feel your logic calculus is based on incomplete data. I contend much further, that the information you leave out of your calculus, is two fold denied you. First, the structures, media, and spheres of influence which DEPEND on the current paradigm, of which you are deeply dependent on have no interest is revealing itself to you, and thus secondly you likewise would have to have a deeply counter intuitive motivation to look for it, your self-denial. This all assumes that you ARE NOT working either for pay or for self-delusion... but that you simply haven't actually looked at the ground below your feet.
One is truly forgivable.... the other is not. I call you a traitor, in the off chance that you would be so offended so as to actually look around you... otherwise I dare you to call "The Authorities" and have ME taken into custody. I AM willing to bet that one of us is dangerously wrong headed, if you can cogently refute what I am saying here, you should call DHS and have me locked up. If you can't, I lovingly beg you to reconsider your position, and that which you have focused upon as the "seminal problem of our nation" (swarthy freedom haters) in favor of a vastly more holistic approach to America's relationship to the rest of the nation states, and the planet herself.
In the psychological approach, you are nearly guaranteed to not even want to look it this, let alone allow yourself to consider deeply disturbing and unsettling responsibilities you will have to take should you do so look and consider at-all probable... thus you enduring insistence of "impossible", that which is rather most probable.
Have you ever dealt personally with a heroin addict, Mr. Wieck? A person whom you otherwise love and appreciate, yet who lies to your face, steels your things, engages in fraud and banking confidence schemes... all to maintain an unsustainable way of life pumping her veins with instant Joy she didn't actually work for, and can't very well catch up to cover the costs? America, a place and idea I'm absolutely in love with, has non-the-less become addicted to a fraud-based economy which WORSE that just that alone, doesn't even represent a production economy anymore... this is a double recipe for assured disintegration. It doesn't matter which lie is confronted first, the ever growing web of fiscal slight of hand... or the fact that America will go through a VERY difficult time recovering the means and ability to sustain ANY level of reasonable self-sufficiency.
Now I would be one of the last people to say "America can't", I hold that she most certainly can relearn the skills and responsible behavior of self-sufficiency... but much like the recovering heroin addict, the withdrawal and recovery, is not just a quick overnight fix... the turmoil can go on for weeks, months... possible years... and sometimes the patient can't survive the rebirth. Guilt, shame, debt, and retaliation from those she's wronged will often haunt her the rest of her days. Redemption and recovery, full and complete.... is not an easy road to slog, Mr. Wieck.
Do you actually still deny that America has a deep problem with her inequitable economic structure? Do you maintain that trillions or even zillions of dollars blasted through the muzzles of tanks and dropped from stratospheric heights, could EVER bomb a lie INTO reality? IF, there is a very real and looming domestic rearrangement of western financial structures, will fighting an endless and asymmetric War against Terror EVER make the first problem go away? Your response on these particular questions will be most telling.... your failure to address these questions at all, will be even more telling.
Here's what I do consider the crux, listen closely whether you're simply another case of the well-intentioned-but-deceptively-misguided, or a shill type functionary of a gigantic mind game actually being perpetrated against our highly susceptible culture: Will people like you hold your ground and/or even grow your numbers, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to reconsider... OR, will you reconsider your measuring stick of "What's important and most worthy of attention and corrective action?"
The crux, I do so promise, is the parity in conviction between people saying what you say vs. the people saying what I say.... one of us will have to give up serious ground, or be destined to duke it out in the streets here in America.
I think I have looked FAR beyond the popular mainstream news coverage of Swarthy Freedom Haters... Thus I maintain that as real they may be, their numbers and ability to actually impact our lives, pales by comparison to the economic and social unrest brewing below the surface as We fixate on an impossibly difficult foe to actually defeat, and the ludicrous costs associated with trying to do so when that money and effort would be much better spent putting out the fire here at home... or saving and actually preparing to the rebuilding which will need to be done, no mater what.
Please, Mr. Wieck... look past my cursing profanity, bad writing, and/or my difficulty conveying that which I have tried to impress upon you as the greater challenge facing our society... please, Sir... I do NOT speak from a mindset of self hate or treachery to my country... but rather love for her as well as the help I need from people like you.
Take care.
Erin
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Erin, Mark doesn't read any of the comments posted here and I can't speak for him. I do appreciate your civil tone, however. I am willing to acknowledge that you love America and wish to improve it. Election campaigns used to be the time when honest debate on real issues was possible, but that is no longer the case. Relentless ad hominem attacks have replaced attempts to persuade voters of the correctness of one's views.
I happen to believe that the market system has been a remarkably successful engine for the production of wealth. The competitive nature of capitalism will always ensure that the higher-educated, more trained get to advance, while those lacking in marketable skills fall behind. Addressing the inequalities resulting from disparities in knowledge and ability is a philosophical as well as a political/economic question.
My purpose here is simply to stimulate debate on the validity of a belief system that defies reason and logic in ignoring a mountain of contradictory evidence. If you convince yourself that Utopia is attainable merely by removing the corrupt fools who stand in the way, you will have allowed yourself to be seduced by the same siren song that animated "reformers" over the past three hundred years; the zealots of the French Revolution, the Communists in Russia and China, the deranged followers of Pol Pot. Human misery on a cosmic scale has resulted from misguided attempts to establish heaven on earth.
I'm not ignoring Bellerophon, but I thought I had responded. He tries to draw analogies between the WTC and buildings that a) were constructed differently and b) not hit by commercial airliners. Dr. Greening's papers address the issue of pulverization.
"He tries to draw analogies between the WTC and buildings that a) were constructed differently and b) not hit by commercial airliners."
Amusingly though, it is not I that is drawing these analogies but rather 911myths.com, the website to which you directed me to search for 911 truth.They contend that those examples of progressive collapses in buildings are somehow relevant to the WTC. It is nice to see that you and I both agree that this type of comparison is not sensible, and 911myths.com puts forth a rather weak argument.
Thank you for admitting the weakness of the 911myths.com article. I assure you that if you apply the same discerning logic to every other article in that website, you will get much closer to 911 truth.
I think you're being unfair, Bellerophon. The 911myths article states:
"This building had a very different design to the WTC, of course. And it was under construction, with the cause of collapse being primarily temporary issues:
But nonetheless this does show a structure can undergo progressive collapse, when it no longer has the capacity to support a given load. Which surely has at least some relevance to the topic here. And there are other examples of progressive collapses occurring during construction, again due to temporary issues, but illustrating the same point:"
No attempt is being made to suggest an exact analogy. The weakness you allege is hard to discern. Conspiracists often contend, falsely, that progressive collapse is an extraordinary phenomenon and the article simply shows that it isn't all that uncommon.
>Erin, Mark doesn't read any of the comments posted here <
How the bloody hell you know that? Sounds a bit dodgy, that does! Can't imagine saying that about anyone I know with certainty---I don't know what they do on their own time when I'm not there. Unless you're saying you have psychic powers.
I could say casseia doesn't read any comments at JREF, but I don't KNOW. Not unless I've access to her computer somehow. That's bollocks, Mr. Wieck--at the very least, if you're such mates with Mark, you know he's a registered user at 911Blogger now.
And let me tell you, that knowledge is causing allot of questions in some quarters, it is!
Well, Sparks, I don't know it for certain, but my familiarity with Mark's behavior suggests that if he were checking in, he'd be responding. I should add that although I've enjoyed jousting with you guys, I occasionally find myself unable to spend much time on the net. If I fail to respond to posts addressed to me, it doesn't mean that I'm ignoring anyone. I simply can't guarantee that I will be able to visit as often as I might want to. For some, that should be welcome news.
You said: "Erin, Mark doesn't read any of the comments posted here "
Nobody would say this--except for Mark himself, which would be redundant. People don't speak like this, Mr. Wieck! Not unless you KNOW for a fact he's in a coma and not reading anything!
You didn't say you don't think he reads the comments here; you said "he doesn't". People don't talk this unless they do know--so HOW DO YOU KNOW HE'S NOT READING these comments, if you're not him? He tell you that in the pub? Email you? It's something...and how are you familiar with his behavior, anyway?
Sparks, I get the impression that if someone says "Good morning," you immediately demand to know what's good about it. My assumption is that Mark can't be reading any of this stuff, or he would have responded. Maybe I'm mistaken.
No sane person makes that wild of an assumtion! People don't talk like that!
And FYI, I owned a retail store for five years--had plenty of opportunity to know how all sorts of people talk. If it was a slip, you'd have come back and edited your post--without needing to be hounded.
Sorry, this is as strange as you "joining" us. I considered becoming a member of JREF, just to point out how they're driving away skeptics who don't toe the line, calling them troofers, even when they're not. But it's not worth my time-- "MaryBeth" is on her own.
So whys being here worth yours? And don't forget the Mark question...
Sparks, I have attempted to maintain a civil tone with you, but you make it difficult.
That Mark is not reading these messages can be deduced from the demonstrable FACT that he isn't responding. This is not a difficult concept.
It is not strange that I visit fantasist sites. I prefer not to insulate myself by seeking only the company of people who agree with me. You are welcome to visit JREF and raise any issue that interests you. You will encounter highly intelligent, extremely well-informed people, some of them engineers and physicists, who will respond with data and real science.
when debunkers like Ron clearly but inadvertently demonstrate the logical skills common their ilk.
"That Mark is not reading these messages can be deduced from the demonstrable FACT that he isn't responding. This is not a difficult concept."
Demonstrably incorrect, as we can all testify from personal experience. And yes, that includes threads in which we might be personally addressed. Sorry.
I'm wondering why you know so much more about Mark than I do. After all, I do know the guy. If he were here, he'd be responding. Why is this concept so difficult for you?
Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that you are presuming to correct me on a subject you know nothing about? Wait--what am I saying?
I banged out several thousand more words for you, even ran it past some good friends who offered excellent edits and feedback... all for you... Was just about to add a little bit of assurance to you that I in fact DO NOT live in nor fantasize an impossible human utopia free from strife, suffering and even the occasional war. Yet I suspect you are incapable of imagining anyone confronting you on your curious avoidance to the subject, the subject of simply striving for a better world through honesty, integrity, investigation and due process, equity and respect for human dignity... as anything but a crank.
I see that in the time I've worked on considered, polite and civil challenges to your odd avoidance of truth, justice and that tired and warn refrain "the American way"... you spittle and prattle on in flaccid circles.
I've wasted my time, and their time... all for you...
"misguided attempts to establish heaven on earth." Hello McFuckhead! I'm not the one sucking the cock of a war machine which is claiming to attempt JUST THAT!
You couldn't even SUCK THE PENUTS OUT OF MY SHIT... YOU CROWN ROYAL FUCK!
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Erin,
Your typical foul-mouthed drivel fails to impress, as usual. The fantasist movement has not produced a shred of evidence in five years for their pernicious and absurd views. You can continue to spew your bile, but keep in mind that you are a fact-free zone.
By the way, 'The Black Book of Communism,' written by several French socialists, calculates that the ideology of Marxism claimed over one hundred million lives in the Twentieth Century. The authors are liars, right?
Hard Fire on the record for coverup.
Why would anyone publicly try to prevent an investigation into the mass murder of 3000 US citizens. The general consensus amongst the Truth Movement is primarily interested in an independent investigation. If the government has done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. It's normal to investigate government agencies. The level of the 911 attacks going without an independent investigation is simply unsatisfactory. Even more regrettful are guys like Ronald and Mark airing their assistance in covering up a massive crime. Perhaps that is why these small-time stooges were chosen for the task - because no one with half a brain would want to get caught up with War Crime investigations. Especially when the higher-ups are subpoenaed and start pushing all the blame to the lower ranks. Hard Fire on the record for coverup.
This isn't the place for
This isn't the place for this, but I'm curious as to why the Loose Change forums are no longer up and running? And why hasn't Dylan mentioned anything about it?
Loose Change Forums
Are up and running here: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php
you seriously aren't too brite, are you?
yeah, they're making truckfuls of money by selling Loose Change DVD's for a dollar and letting other people copy it for free and sell it for a dollar.
have you EVER had an original and/or intelligent thought?
(you and the other Idiot above, both)
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
So, 8 to 9 out of 10
So, 8 to 9 out of 10 movements is controlled/infiltrated. Now, ask yourselves wich are the ones with most supporters or readers? And its not just that.., they are "sriking the root" also.
Dont go around donating money, cause its not about the money..,dont be fooled.., or please do if you want to end up blacklisted for supporting a "radical movement".
Its all about control.
Keep your guard up, ALWAYS!!
Infiltration
"yeah, they're making truckfuls of money by selling Loose Change DVD's for a dollar and letting other people copy it for free and sell it for a dollar." -Doughnut-
Hey, are you really stupid or naive?! I wasnt talking about DVD sales...This is just the start with Dylan & Co, you will see..
Dylan is a snitch, thats a 100% fact, its sad but very true..get over it..!
R. Siegel is one too, hell...., he would do anything for money...haha
Dont go around joining dubios movements, cause that way you will be easily controlled and your means and deeds will get suppressed. Think for yourselves! You dont need snitches to tell you what to think!
The Delphi Technique. What Is It?
They have divided the movement allready.., no planers, podpeople,energy beams directed from WTC 7, and on we go....They are trying to keep us busy arguing and fighting with ourselves, DIVIDE AND CONQUER!
AND REMEMBER THIS,
80% to 90% of the movements are controlled/infiltrated by the government, thats a fact!! Do your math!! Dont be naive!
_________________
"These bogus groups could serve many functions which might include attacking and/or disrupting bona fide groups, or even just simply creating a diversion with clever propaganda in order to attract members away so as to involve them with time-wasting activity designed to prevent them from doing anything useful. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties so that it looked like just a "disagreement" between two individuals or groups, a "food fight" or something, and there was no way to connect it to any government operation."
Hey Tom. I read about your
Hey Tom. I read about your story on your site. I'm trying to keep an open mind regarding what events took place on 9/11. I have absolutely no doubt it was an inside job. The motivation was clearly there in multiple instances (trillions declared missing, attack on accounting wing of pentagon, wtc7, the WTC money pit, etc.). The part that is mostly in debate amongst us is HOW the towers came down. I don't understand how you're drawing your conclusions about #6. I want to suggest that you modify the picture page you listed. I think you should do something along these lines to help convey your message more clearly so the rest of us can make better assessments of your claims. I would take all of the photos you listed, put them on one side of the page. Create duplicates of these images and place them immediately next to the originals. On the duplicate use photoshop to insert arrows and or circles around the details you are discussing to clarify things.
I think it's damn well a possibility #6 had a massive bomb go off. I don't see why it would have to be a nuke or mininuke however. We all need to keep in mind that the military is not going to disclose all new technology that they have. Individuals who are unwilling to believe this need only look at applications for US patents. Every year X patents are applied for. And every year the state dictates that Y of X are classified as secret for use by the state. Of those Y patents there is no doubt that a percentage are purely for new weapons some of which none of us could ever imagine(that's for the Tesla's and Einstein's among us....).
Be careful about concluding the hole in #6 was a nuke. It's going to make individuals who do not adhere to the scientific method tune you out.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
The timing of squibs is
The timing of squibs is compelling, especially in the context of explosions that breached the walls as the aircraft hit to ensure maximum penetration(don't want all those plane parts littering the street where the "groundlings" might find them).
Having said that, I too, wonder how one goes from there to nukes. The most the chain of custody presented establishes is a very definate, maybe...not. The glass could be falling out and down from above--I'm sorry, chum, it doesn't look much clearer than that.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but we do not need nukes to prove the official story is garbage.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Altho I'm somewhat dubious
about the whole "nukes" thing, 'they' are trying to figure out why the radiation levels and certain particles are so high at Ground Zero. And some sort of a tactical nuclear device and explosion does answer those questions. It is possible to have very small (relatively speaking) nuclear suitcase-like bombs that give a big explosion and would probably be easier to use if you had one/some than the equivalent amount of 'traditional' explosives. (TNT, C4, even ANFO) Don't think Hiroshima or larger style explosions, think very small, yet very large, explosions that are merely created using a nuclear bomb reaction. They are known to exist and it is possible that one, or more, were used. The Official Story claims that the high radiation levels and particles are from the jet airplane "Exit" signs. I believe that is what is stated in the 9/11 Omission Report.
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
Thank you for clairfying the
Thank you for clairfying the science, but I am--very amaturishly of course--familiar with the new generation fusion bombs. They actually scare me because the small amounts of radiation they leave can be "cleaned"/ masked by showering water over the site.
See? Yes, I do understand where this could fit.
What especially scares me is because they are so relatively clean, I'm waiting for some itchy bastard(Cheney?) who wants to break the nuke taboo, to manufacture either a reason to use one, or to use one as a false flag(Iran?), thus giving the States(or Israel) cart blanche to use nuclear weapons any way they want. Ironically it is the cleaness that makes them easy to use.
Back to 911: even if true, there is a time and place, and this is not the time. I absolutely encourage further research into all the anomolies--burnt out cars otherwise intact nearby, for instance--but if the goal is holding the bastards accountable all we need to do is prove criminal culpability. We've got that--the next thing is to engage people in a way they can grasp and be galvanized. After 5 years of wishy washy garbage in towel-head land over non-existant WMD's people are willing to consider this administration in a criminal light. They are even starting to feel safe enough to look at the WTC collapse as a series of explosions. They are not ready to see nukes and even if they were, you'd need something better than that slide show.
We need to keep the momentum up AND respect that the people we are trying to reach have limits.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
true that!
thank you for saying that. very smart.
This is Not Working !
I have just watched both parts of the debate, and I have to say I'm REALLY disappointed.
I think that there is a general tendency among people who post here to assume that all publicity is good publicity and sometimes to interpret in a positive way events that are in reality very damaging to the overall image and representation of "9/11 Truth". This debate has been one such event - maybe not critically important in itself, but, if truthers don't see how undermining this particular debate is to 9/11 Truth, this is NOT good.
Maybe there is a cognitive dissonance within 9/11 Truth which prevents truthers from seeing how compromised and undermined they are by certain types of publicity.
Let me summarise the key red flags with this debate:
1) The presenter was OPENLY supporting Mark Roberts!!
2) Bermas and Avery were WAY too chummy with their opponent - it makes them look weak, and even suggests some degree of complicity. I do believe they are genuine but the net effect of their excessively good manners is to undermine their position.
3) Why are they all sitting together side by side??? Again, this undermines the debate and makes it look like they are all on the same side.
4) They allowed the presenter who is openly partisan to FRAME the debate as "conspiriscists Vs the Debunker". In terms of psychological warfare this is a total disasaster for 9/11 Truth. They should have refused point blank to allow the debate to be framed in this way. Jason and Dylan are the debunkers - Mark Roberts is the representative of the Official Fairy Tale - this should have been rammed down our throats. Unfortunately, it appeared exactly opposite, and Jason was put into the ridiculous position of trying to justify his irrational "conspiracy theories" against the "rational" Mark Roberts and the presenter.
5) They didn't stay focussed on their own best evidence. They didn't debate WTC7 !!! This is really unforgivable and, sorry to say it, but it makes our boys look like disinfo agents. I really wish I didn't have to say this, but I have to call it as I see it. There is a LOT at stake here.
Does anybody else see this the way I do? I really hope so, not because I want to be right, but because I want 9/11 Truth to succeed.
best regards,
Hereward
Editor - www.911oz.com
Why don't we have government
Why don't we have government scientists debating non-government 'truther' scientists? Why must the government send out schills and trained propagandists to debate guys who don't even hold a Doctorate?
I would ask if our government is full of a bunch of wussies but we already know it is. And don't tell me the government doesn't have the time nor the money to do so. I worked in the government and I know how much time and money they could actually put to the issue. Unfortunately they'd rather spend money determining who shot a load on some interns dress. Weasels.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
I agree with you Hereward
I thought the same things.
The LC crew need to stay away from these freaks.
It was quite juvenile almost to have been played so easily.
I agree with you Hereward
Truthers here are some what hesistant to criticize Dylan and Jason, for somewhat obvious reasons. But this debate is worthy of objective criticism.
Someone claiming to be "Dylan Avery" posted on the previous blog about how some here are "haters" and how he never asked for this. Im not even sure its really Dylan as the posts remain "unverified" (wuz up with that?)
I do know that 911blogger.com is the definitive website for Truthers to express their feelings about the movement. So if Dylan cant take the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen.
I particularly agree with your observation that our guys appeared way too chummy. What the hell was that!?!? This is still about innocent Americans being slaughtered. This is still about treason at the very highest levels of our government. This is still about the assault on our civil liberties and wars based on lies. What the hell are Dylan and Jason doing yucking it up with these schmucks!?!?
I didnt like it one bit. I seriously hope "Final Cut" is packed with the punch we all hope it will bring.
first and foremost, yes,
first and foremost, yes, this is me.
second, if you actually believe the outcome of a Brooklyn Public Access show debate is going to impact the movement as a whole in any way, shape, or form, I think you're mistaken.
third, we weren't there to cause a scene.
fourth, those guys have their minds made up, and bermas and I knew that going in. there's nothing we can say or do to sway them, aside from a document signed by George W. Bush himself.
again, this debate changes NOTHING, in the reality of the situation.
Chris, YOU go on Hardfire. I'd love to see how you do. I'm sure Ron would love to have you on.
Dylan
We are on your side. Stop being so sensitive. I know its hard when people take shots at you. You put yourself out there and I admire you for doing it.
AGAIN... WE ARE ON YOUR SIDE!!! (Even when it may not seem like it).
And please visit more often. Not just when we are picking on you.
;-)
Some More Observations
Dylan, Here is one example of a fatal strategic error: when discussing the NIST report they put you guys into the position of having to PROVE your assertions, whereas, you should have had the heat on them all the time.
You guys should have stayed on message about how the NIST report, despite its 10,000 pages, fails to expain what happened after the towers were "poised for collapse" - and you should have relentlessly pressured them to explain why there was no computer modelling of the "global collapse".
You could have framed that by, firstly, discussing the MONEY that went into this report (in excess of USD $20 million), and then reading the little footnote where it says this report does not address the mechanism of global collapse. You should have quoted that verbatim - it's gold!
You should have also quoted from the fire engineering article by Bill Manning: "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
I am keen to debate these kind of people myself, and I'm learning from watching your mistakes, so its ok ... (:
Good answers--though I too
Good answers--though I too wondered about the "not verified". I thought you had a 911Blogger account. Clairification...?
Keep that center and focus. I haven't seen the second part yet--am in the middle of a brutal work schedule--but if its anything like the last, you done good.
Some unsolicited thoughts for you: be aware many of your supporters have a hard time seeing "chumminess" as a strategy. After seeing apparent friendliness, they need to see some iron first--just keep it in a velvet glove. All this where appropirate, obviously.
Also, I do agree with the person who said you need to pick your gigs, so to speak. Weigh the pros/cons--what there is to be gained, what there is to loose--and don't let anyone say you're cowards if you refuse and you know exactly why you needed to refuse.
Lastly, have you considered proposing a team project with Griffin or Jones? Safety in numbers, mate...
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
This was a setup! The LC
This was a setup! The LC boys waled right into a trap!
Dylan and friends need to find out in advance and make sure that the moderator is neutral and open minded.
They need to do their homework. They need to standby their work. They need to refine thir debating skills. They need to have better talking points.
They need to redeem themselves. Or else lose all credibility - permanently!
Mr. Wieck, I hope that you
Mr. Wieck, I hope that you someday remove your head from the sand and begin to see what has been going on around you.
I googled to find some more information on you and saw that you don't believe that the 2004 election was stolen. That shows that you live in denial and ignorance about even the most commonly known and proven things. I rest my case. God bless you.
critical thinking skills
The election was stolen. Look around. If the election was held right now, who would win? There's your critical thinking skills.
You're Joking, Right?
If the election were held today, Bush would lose. When it was held in 2004, he won. Why are you talking about critical thinking skills when it is apparent that you have none?
Mr. Wieck, You Are A Lying Rodent
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence'. although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p 85, footnote)
let me put the above into plain english:
"We decided not to examine the collapse sequence because we knew that if we did we would come up with an explanation which would not fit our preconceptions. Instead, we decided to re-shape the English language, for the purpose of this report, in such a way that terms such as "probable collapse sequence" could be used without actually referring to the collapse itself. This makes it look like we have addressed the issue whereas in reality we skirted around it, and we deliberately put this critical disclaimer into a footnote so that most people would not read it, but so it could be used if necessary to defend us against criminal complicity in the event that the real collapse meachanism is ever discovered."
"Instead, we decided to
"Instead, we decided to re-shape the English language..."
That's not the only thing they reshaped, looks like the ONLY image of serious damage to WTC7 is a fraud... There is another image showing intact floors at the SW corner of WTC7...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5083#comment-99471
someone is going to prison at NIST...
"Mr. Wieck, You Are A Lying
"Mr. Wieck, You Are A Lying Rodent"
lol...
So, Mr. Wieck, busy little
So, Mr. Wieck, busy little bee, aren't you? Posh suit, nice digs, and yet you have time to visit our humble site--may I ask why, Sir?
See, you don't sound like a professional, certainly not like that wanker "moderating" the debate. For a big boy, you seem to have trouble behaving. And yes, how you say something IS just as important as WHAT you say, sunshine.
I'll let you in on a little secret--we're here to save the world. Specifically from the designs of US military and economic imperialism and those who would manufacture disasters to scare people into compliance. And if we're wrong? No harm, no foul. And please don't say you have to protect the administration et al. from dangerous, slanderous accusations: we both know the Bush administration is more than capable of defending itself if need be.
So, what are you here for, Sir? What motivates you? Not helping people, surely. From your posts I get the impression you rather despise people. You know, people--
seniors living on their pensions, knitting prezzies for kiddies: some of them are Truthers.
Your local over worked underpaid barrista who always gets your espresso just right--some of them are Truthers.
The welder that works double shifts because she wants her kiddies in college--some of them are Truthers.
The trucker who drives through the economic wasteland Wal Mart has made during his hauls--some of them are Truthers.
And half the citizens of New York City- - a group of people I would not piss off for no reason--continue to have many, various and reasonable doubts about the 911Omission. Of those, most of them would consider themselves Truthers.
So what kind of people precisely do you believe you are calling ridiculous? You have no idea who you are talking to here, you arrogant prat.
If I had one extra wish for this holiday season, it would be for you, Sir, to be locked in a convention center alone with the 911Truthers of any one city.
Disagree with us if you must in holding this administration accountable, but if you will not lead or follow, then GET THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF THE WAY!
Oh, and piss off from our site, please--a man of your age trolling is just embaressing.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!
I'm sorry, Sir, as much as I'd like to exchange witty barbs, I have to go to work. Not all of us can be toff commentators.
I leave you to the tender mercies of the lads and lassses. If there's anything left of you, I'll be back.
*two-finger salute*
BUGGER THIS--I WANT A BETTER WORLD!!!!!
How dare you, Mr. Wieck?
"The fact is, you're here seeking the community of like-minded America-haters."
The fact is, you are wrong, sir. That is the most ingorant and vile statement a person can make on this subject. It is the exact opposite of that, sir..the exact opposite. I love America and what America represents and what it is supposed to stand for. America is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both of which the "president" (yes, I do use air quotes when saying Bush is my president) has completely destroyed.
So, we're America-haters? I'm an America-hater because I want truth, liberty and justice? I'm an America-hater because I question our government and because I do not blindly trust them? I'm an America-hater because I know the history of our government that you will not see in the history books? I'm an America-hater because I know of the true evil that occupies the hearts and the minds of those who are supposed to be our leaders and our voice as a people? How dare you call us America-haters?
"after five years of screaming, your side has produced bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies. You have nothing else."
The exact same holds true for "your side". Do you see how you used the words "your side"? It's sad that, as Americans, "your side" is used in that way when all "our side" wants is truth, justice, liberty and to save this country, our families and all of mankind from fascism, tyranny and evil. Why do we have to be on seperate sides? Please, ask yourself that question, sir. The answer to that may be very confusing and difficult to understand, but my point is that we shouldn't have to be on different "sides".
If you're going to call us America-haters, you might as well get it correct and call us "global-haters" or something along those lines because this goes past saving and protecting America. This evil power that's behind all of this madness in the world has, behind it, a global agenda. So, if you still want to make yourself look ignorant by calling us "America-haters", I ask that you first attempt to see this world, your life, your family, your friends, the people you randomly encounter and the people you observe on a daily basis through the eyes of compassion and love. If that doesn't change the way that you view the world and us "America-haters", then what more can be said?
Maybe these "sides" that you speak of, is the willingness to allow anger to turn to hate. I can only speak for myself, but I love, no matter how much your words and the words of others might irritate me. That's why I want the truth and that's why I want to expose all of the lies that we are all told a daily basis. I don't want people to live in a false reality where they are constantly living in a state of deceit that comes from a world bent of the destruction of its fellow man because I love my fellow man, no matter how evil and corrupt some of them are.
God bless you, Mr. Wieck.
Excellent post, Jason! His
Excellent post, Jason!
His rhetoric exposes him as an O'Reilly-style Administration hitman rather than a credible debater of issues. When his argument is reduced to "You hate America," we know where he gets his talking points and where his bread is buttered. Sometimes it's good to keep them talking, as sooner or later they show their colors. If the next round of "debates" began with a reading of that post, he'd be laughed off the dais.
You know what's really pathetic? He thinks that by shilling for the traitors and keepers of the Big Lie he will be rewarded and protected in the sick world he is helping to build. But he's just another Egyptian on the pyramid, and just as likely to be tossed into the camps when his usefullness is over. There he will confront his rotten soul.
You're a dodge and weave twit, Ronald Wieck
Be a man, and consider who you are carrying water for. Tell me, DO NOT AVOID THE DIRECT POINT... tell me how I am to accept the oxymoronic concept of anticipatory self-defense, if I CAN NOT accept the 9/11 Commission Report?
You simply can't, so your only hope is to convince me of the validity of the 9/11 Commission Report. Your world view absolutely depends on your success at convincing me 'to give up on this American hating act of questioning the government's explanation of events'. Your failure to persuade me, represents a clear and present danger to your world view... so the stakes are quite high for you... and I at least appreciate what kind of dangerous person you are forced to be on account that your failure automatically implicates you in aiding and abetting treason and mass murder. Your life hangs by the phantom thread of "truth" in the story of 19 foreigners perpetrating the dastardly 9/11 attacks. Sucks to be you.
You must believe deep down in your heart that swarthy freedom haters might be hiding under your bed, and that the Great United States War Machine crushes baby skulls in far off lands... to keep you safe. You're entitled to you idiocy, but don't blame me when people call you a dumb ass.
Now what we have here is really quite the mind fuck that AT LEAST ONE of us is suffering under. Either I and my 9/11 Twoofer movement are completely wrong about the inside job theory, and we would be much better off accepting the baby-skull crushing method you seem to carry water for, "because that's the best way to keep us safe". Even if I did accept the Osama and his merry band of malcontents "did it", I might still have some doubts about the efficacy of the baby skull crushing method (the method you carry water for it if you don't oppose something so outlandishly repugnant).
Right, so either you have a problem with reality, or I do. Now since I at least know that crushing baby skulls is a needlessly worthless and disgusting thing to do FOR ANY REASON... and that those who would do such a thing (there are people doing that today, in the name of keeping you, Ronald Wieck, safe... and you don't seem to be voicing a clear opposition to this activity), those who would do such a thing (and not being opposed by you) might, MIGHT, just might also be the very same kind of people with every means, motive and opportunity to perpetrate 9/11.
There is no possible way to force you to consider the rational nor probability of this alternative hypothesis, but your willfull ignorance and/or refusal to consider, argue directly, or simply acknowledge the simple WHY this hypothesis exists, defines YOU, Ronald Wieck, as the tediously small minded shit who seems to hate Americans who exercise their right and duty to apprehend mass murderers, and see justice done. You're a dumb ass fuck, even IF you are right that no domestic malfeasance nor misfeasance was a contributing factor in the horror of 9/11. You're a dumb ass fuck, because you can not even bring yourself to consider how the proven Pay-Off of 9/11 stinks to high heaven, and thus who that points to.
You're a dumb ass first and foremost...
And who knows what kind of reasons a dumb ass like you would use to rationalize any number of dumb ass lines like calling me an America hater for perusing truth and justice no matter how ugly either might be. I trust that posterity will at least give me credit for not being blinded by a jingoistic servitude which seems to afflict you and your ilk.
I'm speaking more about you, and less at you or even posing questions to you... so I do not expect nor need you to respond in any way. From what you've already said I suspect your mind is locked, much to the same degree mine has solidified into accepting the reality of your idiocy, willful and/or paid which makes no difference anyway.
Best of luck living with yourself in the years to come... at least I can be proven wrong, and no one gets hurt or dies.
Same can't be said for you. The trail of dead bodies behind you, stinks. The trail of dead bodies before you, by failing to consider how you enable it... is simply sad and disturbing as you demonstrate the worst kind of sophistry to unworthy power.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Bottom Line
When we cut through the fog of your incoherent babble, it is clear that you are a typical America-hating loony-leftist.
Ya.. a Flaming First Amendment liberal...
... who dutifully upholds the conservative Second Amendment for the unfortunate shit-storms created by idiots like you.
You really should reconsider your impression of me as an "America-hater".
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
That's exactly right. Wieck
That's exactly right. Wieck talks about using critical thinking skills and all that, but then fails to practice what he preaches.
Ronald
.....A 110 story building collapsing in 10 sec can't be rebuttled either.You can't argue the laws of physics.
Oh Ronald!
His name is Steven Jones Phd From BYU.Along with alot of experts we have in the truth movement.
As far as an expert in physic's your right iam not,and never claimed to be.However simple high school physic's is more than enoungh in this case.
Conservation of momentum....Look it up.
The funny thing is i looked at both sides.Obviously you have'nt.
Don't believe it,or don't want to believe it?
You can fool the fans ,but not the players.
Forgive me if you've
Forgive me if you've answered this question before, but why don't you get Alex Jones on your show? I'm sure it wouldn't accomplish anything useful, but at least it would be entertaining.
Dylan and his crew are naive because they do not focus on the shaking before the collapse.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_split.wmv
The whole debate was pointless without addressing that, since it is clear that whatever caused that shaking is what initiated the collapse. And there is no way that shaking was caused by anything that happened on the ~78th floor.
It was not a setup!! The
It was not a setup!! The Joker and the Pimp was in it too, dont be fooled. It was an act!!!
JASON BERMAS
Jason Bermas did an outstanding job debating the Popular Mechanics guy, especially in part 2!
The Popular Mechanics guy was very skilled and knowlegeble, not an easy opponent.
But Jason has the truth on his side and knows the facts just as well.
He has obviousely read the most recent analysis on www.911.research.com
Loose Change
I have no idea how anyone could believe the towers were brought down by fire.
No where in recorded history has this ever happened.
If that’s true then how have we been using wood burning stoves for decades?
If we are to believe the official story, then we have no security in this country at all.
So, those you who wish to believe the official story, I think I would stay out to tall buildings and stop flying. Because security is only as good as the people who inforce it.
I hope people don't go away
I hope people don't go away thinking these are the major issues behind the inside job claim, 1 hour is never going to be enough time for either side to get across all the different diemsions of 9/11, you'd need a whole series on the subject.
I noticed they began with the shanksville crash, one of the more mysterious elements of 9/11 and hardest to actually say either way what actually happened.
You're right, no mystery about the Flight 93 crash
except for:
- a faint vertical tail impression left in the grass, but no tail even though it didn't penetrate the ground
- the lack of fire damage to the grass outside the crater
- the trajectory of the burnt forest doesn't line up with the trajectory that the plane allegedly came in at
- no burning between the crater and burnt forest section
- a 75 ton object only displaced enough dirt to fill back in the shallow crater
- the displaced dirt is in a ramp shape pointing toward the odd burnt forest section
- the thick tree-tops are broken off suggesting something heavy hit them, yet no sign of what did
- no clear mark in "soft soil" where one of the engines "bounced" and landed 600yds away
- no photo of this engine that was "found" 600yds away
- black boxes (which are at the rear of the plane) "found" 15 & 20ft underneath the crater, yet one engine only found 4ft underground with hardly any debris around it
- two medium sized fuselage pieces seen in the forest under the cover of trees somehow "escaped" being burrowed underground along with the rest of the plane
- metal scraps seen on top of crater and near/inside forest, but no debris seen on grass out side of crater
- pristine red bandana and bunch of books with relatively little damage "found"
- coroner reported not a single drop of blood at the scene
- lots of little pieces of metal scraps found at the scene 400yds away from a metal scrap yard (Rollock)
- only person to witness "757" hitting the ground was ex-navy working only 2nd day on the job at Rollock
- I called owner of the land (Svonavec) and they said "soft dirt" was a "relative" term
- Shanksville is a "military flight corridor"
- 13 witnesses report military plane near scene before and seconds after
But other than those, there's "no mystery" about the crash scene.
--------------------------------------------------------
Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.
Wow, so much disifo in that post w/nothing to back it up!
Show me the 95% of the plane that was recovered in Shanksville.
You know. I go onto this
You know. I go onto this website everyday expecting to see the trolls out and about. And usually, they're messages are predictable. This one takes the cake though. You say there is no mystery about the crash. Then, Killtown, of whom I don't always agree with, lists more than enough little tidbits to prove some sort of "mystery". He excluded other numerous strange occurrences too that would also make a common sensed person step back and think. And yet, your response to his list is: "You know full well Flight 93 crashed....we who have followed plane crashes know the evidence is perfectly....we know the evidence exists and is irrefutable...we know it was not shot down...we know it was flight 93 that crashed....."
And you top it off with "one can never underestimate the intelligence of the 9/11 denial movement"
First, let me just say that one can never underestimate the pathetic existence of someone who regularly visits a website that discusses something they disagree with only to insult those who are on the site. Hell, I disagree with the creative design theory. You don't see me bitching to Kirk Cameron and all those CD (other CD people, lol) believers every single damn day. And if I did, maybe I'd provide a shred of evidence to support my claims. You haven't.
Lets go back to the beginning of my post and yours. You, Mr. Anonymous-too-scared-to-input-a-real-nickname-little-bitch, said that you have followed plane crashes for decades and know the evidence is perfectly consistent. I ask you: did you do this as a hobby? or is this just straight from your ass? If its more than that, where are your credentials? Also, please provide links and evidence to show the consistency of the plane crash evidence. Let me guess, you can't and won't.
Please also provide the official theory's irrefutable evidence that tells us it was flight 93.
How do you know it was not shot down? Did you happen to watch it? And did you see pictures of debri that have '93' listed on the side to let us know it was Flight 93. Probably not.
Most of the time, its easy to brush aside trolls. In this case, I just had to respond to such stupidity.
You're a hypocrite. Look at
You're a hypocrite. Look at your very first claim,"...you loons of the 9/11 Denial Movement are here for political purposes...". Okay. What are these political purposes? You don't mention anything about the political goals of the "movement". You merely attack the hypotheses regarding the events of that day as proposed by people who do not accept the government story.
If you can't imagine why an airliner would be shot down after 3 other airliners had crashed into buildings, killing any one on the planes and anyone in the buildings they hit, then you're too god damn stupid to be criticizing any one here.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
Let us see where your lack of thinking takes you
The official name of what you call the 9/11 Truth Movement is the 9/11 Denial Movement. It has been that way since Nov. 2002 when your movement declared that it existed for the purpose of lying about the events of 9/11 because you wanted to see Bush impeached.
It has always been thus and it still is.
When you get your feet wet as a full blown 9/11 Denier you will see this is true, but for the sake of truth and reality, we will call you by your official name: the 9/11 Denial Movement.
You said, for some incredible reason: If you can\\\\\\\'t imagine why an airliner would be shot down after 3 other airliners had crashed into buildings, killing any one on the planes and anyone in the buildings they hit, then you\\\\\\\'re too god damn stupid to be criticizing any one here.
So let us get what you are claiming straight:
9/11 was an inside job (as everyone here declares, without evidence.) the Bush plot involves 2 planes hitting two WTC towers, having pre-planted explosives in the towers to bring them down so it looks like a classic controlled demolition. Never mind that no demolition company in history has ever blown up buildings from the top down and without spending months stripping and preparing the buildings for demolition. In addition, according to the official story of the 9/11 Denial Movement, a third tower WTC was also blown up with pre-planted explosives by Larry Silverstein who had just two-months prior signed a 99-year lease with the Port of Authority of NYC for the purposes of collecting on an insurance policy of the building. Notwithstanding that the official story of the 9/11 Denial Movement conveniently ignores the terms of the lease which blows their conspiracy theory out of the water, we now have a private businessman. Most curiously, this theory leads us to conclude that the U.S. Government had included Silverstein in the plot, the Gov. to scare us into going to war but allowing Silverstein to collect on insurance money. Also, 9/11 Deniers have had to include NYC firemen in the plot to pull the tower down, but to wait over six hours to make sure know was hurt rather than blowing the tower up when WTC 1 fell and killing anyone around.
Are you with me, still? Good.
In addition, the Bush plot had a 757 crash into the Pentagon, the third plane to hit a building, killing people intentionally again. Some 9/11 Deniers claim it was a missile, against all evidence, but nonetheless still sent by Bush to hit the Pentagon. BTW, 9/.11 deniers insist only a handful of people would need to know of the plot. Yes, really.
Now you, a newbie, comes along to declare that why would Bush NOT shoot down a plane presumably sent to destroy another building in Washington, maybe the Capitol or the White House. So, after going to all this trouble to intentionally kill as many people as possible by hit buildings with aircraft (or a missile), Bush suddenly decides not to finish the job? Is that what you want us to believe? Or do you want us to believe that Bush intentionally shot it down to make it look like he was innocent? But then was it Flight 93, as some hard-core 9/11 Truth Kiddies like the bumbling Killtown claim it was not?
Enlighten us with your new theory, Whitey. Please try not to be a hypocrite.
An airliner nose-dives @ 580 into the ground & the ID all the
"passengers"??? That doesn't even pass the laugh test.
The claimed to ID 100% of passengers from only
"8%" of total body parts "recovered" at the scene. Just do the math on that one!
Also, the same military morgue @ Dover did 93 and 77 ID'ing.
--------------------------------------------------------
Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.
It's over
Actually sunshine, it's just beginning. And it will go on long after you have lost relevance. What? Oh ya. You have never been relevant. By the way, where is that warehouse with the 95% of the flight 93 wreckage. All someone has to do is produce that and we will go away on this issue. No promises on building 7 or the pentagon though.
I see someone else besides
I see someone else besides me has taken to calling you "sunshine", 911debunker. Just consider this our sincere holiday wish that you will someday turn into a rainbow and not a pain-bow.
So I've come to the conclusion those \\\\\ are deliberate--you want to sign your posts, to know that we know that you know we know--and all that spooky bollocks, because you have multiple anonymous posts, all with different angles, and you want to keep them straight. Thing is, you could just pick a name--it would be so much easier on you.
Oh, and since you're such a fan of JREF--whose interests include the paranormal as well as debunking 911--how's the ghost hunting these days? Those alien abductions not interupting your holiday, are they?
Sorry mate--you're credibility is very burnt toast. Other trolls must laugh and call you names...
Yo cannot even get one thing right
JREF debunks all the paranormal crap you guys love.
You do not even know what JREF does. No wonder you believe in 9/11 conspiracy fantasies and hate when we easily debunk your nonsense.
"Welcome to the JREF Forum,
"Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way"
It's right there, mate--you DISCUSS the paranormal-- not you debunk the paranormal. Unless you debunk skepticism, critical thinking, and science as well.
And speaking of getting things right:
"Yo cannot even get one thing right"
I think you meant to say "you", sunbeam. "Yo" just doesn't seem your style. Be seeing you...
Too late. You blew it.
You are on record: how\\\'s the ghost hunting these days? Those alien abductions not interupting your holiday, are they?
Anyone who actually knows what JREF is about knows that JREF debunks ALL of that including your 9/11 fantasies.
Every time you open your mouth, bubba Jenny, you just inform us once again how bloody ignorant you are. You should give up the hate, reject the paranormal, and join the side of truth.
" how bloody ignorant you
" how bloody ignorant you are. "
You move across the pond or something, Ernie? Or are you desperately in search of style? It just sounds odd--you've sounded like a Yank or Canuck and now you're trying to sound Brit?
Point of order--I'm of English decent but I was born a Yank--I just had dual cultural immersion from since I was a little one. That's why is sounds natural from me. You just sound like a prat desperate for attention.
Then again, I suppose it's a complement--immitation/ flattery and all that...
LOL!
That was a good interview
That's the risk that that John dude is prepared to take I guess. A little loss of face is a small price to pay and you or me laughing about it is neither here nor there.
Still - having that Danny dude on his videos - might help pass on John's message so I respect John for going for it.
Considering that almost no Hollywood people have the balls to speak the obvious Truth - makes it no surprise that that Danny dude would - especially to a perfect stranger live on video.
Hollywood definitely knows about 911 Truth and demolitions.
The few people that I know do at least.
Keep up the work John. Good for you too Danny for saying what you believe in.
You can be forgiven for not saying inside job - but it takes a real monkey to actually like Bush and what he stands for.
how about a little science?
how many people viewed this? what was their reaction?
i thought the interview was a waste of time and i'm in the choir. don't think this would convert any. my two cents.
Your title is inherently a
Your title is inherently a false statement. If everyone knew that no demolitions took place then why are there individuals (mind you, they make up a subset of 'everyone') who believe they took place. That is a logical fallacy. Go learn how to use logic before posting something fully devoid of it.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
So..Hannity..Where's that warehouse with the flight 93 remains?
You don't know, do you?
So Danny Bonaduce-bag should deploy to Iraq a.s.a.p. then!
!
How to hijack the Dutch section of Amnesty International
This is almost too easy.... GO TO http://www.amnesty.nl/10dec2006/index.php AND MAKE SOME NOISE AGAINST THE 9/11 COVER-UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SPREAD THE WORD!!!!
They should've brought Kevin
They should've brought Kevin Ryan on to debate that jerk Roberts. Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas are well-intentioned, and have certainly tried to frame a debate for something other than the Official Story, but they are not scientists. This Roberts character pretends to be a scientist, so where are his credentials? Seems to me that these debates are done purposely to discredit the truth movement, and make people like Bermas and Avery look like juvenile nobodies. Roberts would be afraid of debating a real scientist like Ryan! And this Wieck character, what a piece of work!
OK guys, for the good of the movement....
Dick Cheney was secretary of defense under REAGAN? Look, no offense to the Loose Change guys intended, but they are far from the best people to be presenting the case for 9/11 Truth. It's really time to move on. We have David Ray Griffin's books, we have 9/11 Mysteries. We have growing interest among the populace.
It is time to grow out of the fetters that were put in place as the truth movement grew. I'm not terribly worried about this kind of interview harming the movement--it doesn't seem like it's a big time show. But we definitely need to begin to put some cognitive distance between the issue of 9/11 Truth and the personalities who "started it all".
The MSM would like nothing more than to be able to point to the usual suspects and say--see, this is who's promoting these outlandish theories. Sorry, but the truth movement is much more than Loose Change or Alex Jones. SO much more. And as each of us anonymousy truthers wakes up more and more people, the insistence of the MSM in defining what we are and who we stand for will grow more obvious and shrill. The MSM can beat on Loose Change all they want--let's make sure people know that that is simply part of the strategy of containment.
The debate didn’t go
The debate didn’t go particularly well but I regard this as a non-issue. More people were killed by rattle snakes last year than will watch this video, whereas millions of people have watched loose change. For the people pissing on Dylan and Jason a reminder is perhaps in order: Loose Change has awakened more people to 911 truth than all other 911 truth works combined. I’m sure they’d be the first to admit that seasoned veterans like Tarpley, Schoenman, Griffin and Scott are better suited for debates, whereas their primary skill is agitprop.
The clown on their right is clearly bought off and sold. His contention that the ’93 WTC bombing arose because of a dispute over finances is the most absurd conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard. Even the New York Times admittd that various…”enigmas caused local investigators to "dismiss Mr. Salameh as perhaps a patsy for others, someone who may have been duped into carrying out the attack and taking the blame." I recommend that everyone listen to Ralph Schoenman’s analysis of the ’93 bombing, by far the most comprehensive and astute. It can be found at TakingAim.info. He points out, among other things, that the Mossad also played a roll in this preliminary op, using their operative Guzie (Josie) Hadas. If you have any lingering doubts about who was responsible for the first WTC bombing, witness Mohammad Salameh’s behavior after the “sting operation” went live:
"He wanted his money back," begins a story by Ralph Blumenthal under the subheading, "Insistence on a Refund for a Van Led to the Arrest of Blast Suspect" (New York Times, March 5, 1993). Mohammed A. Salameh had returned three times to a Ryder Truck Rental dealer in Jersey City requesting a refund of the $400 cash deposit he had placed on a yellow Ford Econoline van that, he stated, had been stolen the night preceding the explosion.”
The definitive article on the “dry run” can be found here:
http://www.physics911.ca/Schoenman:_Who_Bombed_the_U.S._World_Trade_Cent...
I would suggest to Dylan and Jason that they regard the criticism of their performance in this debate as a manifestation of the passion people have on the subject 911 truth. Most of the criticism is constructive; only a few individuals (usually anons) have descended to petty ad hom. You did just fine, and your work speaks for itself.
If I can make one (respectful) criticism of my own, I would suggest that in future debates you try to steer the conversation away from the physical evidence. The physical evidence is essential but it can be argued ad nauseam; put-options, war games and PNAC speak for themselves.
I would also suggest you consider the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down. In my opinion, this was not a mistake but an essential part of the operation. I conclude this from the fact that Dick Cheney apparently said something like: “an act of heroism just occurred on that flight” [does anybody have a link to this quote?] before anybody knew (or should have known) what transpired. “Let’s Roll” was apparently conceived as an essential element of 911 mythology, providing Americans with a “real-life” example of “fighting back” against the evul terrists.
Finally, if you’re listetning, I would recommend placing more emphasis on the war games in Final Cut. The war games are the key, and likely the answer to the “cell phone” calls, the stand-down, the whole operation.
resting
i think its just time for others to pick up the torch. LC guys should not be critized. They are wonderfully human. Maybe we could convert Barack Jesus to the cause.
http://www.infowars.com
Food for thought
I would have liked to hear Roberts rebuttle to the following.Norad stand down.Almost two hours flying around.DOD'S ever changing story.Bush did'nt want the 9/11 commission,and he and Cheney's back room,no oath,no record account.
Mineta's testomoney...WHAT plane was 50 -30 10
miles out?
What about the Pentagon defense system?And planes from Andrews?Why a complex manuver from 77.,and last but not least....William Rodrigues,a true hero.A man of honor & integrity why would he say there was explosions in the sub levels,and why was it left out of the report?
I honestly feel sorry for
I honestly feel sorry for you. I don't know how you can say there are no questions about flight 93. This almost proves that you are on the CIA's payroll.
Do you try to debunk and deny the other horrible things that our government has done to us throughout history? What about all of horrible things the government has been involved in throughout the rest of the world? I bet you don't believe any of our countries history that does not appear in a history book. I know you see all of the holes in the official story. I know you see all of the blatant lies told in the "official story". Then, you look at the murder of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, you look at how our government's lied to us about the Gulf of Tonkin and the USS Liberty to get us into war, look at the FBI/CIA involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 World Trade center bombing, look at all of the US involvement in the various embassy bombings, you have a government that has experimented on it's own citizens (MKULTRA, Codename Artichoke, chemtrails, fluoride and other related programs), you take a president who destroys the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and gives the ok to torture (sexual torture, at that) all in the "war on terror" (something even Rumsfeld now admits does not exist). All of these things (I only listed a small amount) and you still get on your computer day after day to come onto this board to tell us that there is nothing more to the events of 9/11 and that we're the ones who are crazy and lying. How dare you, sir? How dare you?
Shame on you and shame on those like you, but what makes this country great is that you have the right to live in ignorance, but the bad part is that your willful ignorance not only hurts you, but it hurts those who know you that haven't researched the real history of the United States because they probably take your word for everything that you say, if you do talk about this outside of the internet. Your ingorance hurts not only you and those who know you, it sets us back as a free country. Your ignorance is contributing to the destruction of this country because it is people like you who give power to the president and his thoughtless and bloodthirsty power.
I just don't understand why you come to this board. I think it's great when when "official story supporters" come here or anywhere and ask questions or take part in a discussion, but you come here to say "it's all over now" and you post a link to a message board that is labeled as " a place for skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science" where people are watching this debate and swallowing up the governments evil lies like Americans have done throughout history. You have got to be kidding me. "Critical thinking"? That is some sick and twisted "critical thinnking". I suggest you and all of those other people learn what those words mean and what practicing those words truly mean.
You say that the 9/11 truth movement is based in politics. Well, any educated person knows what "politics" are about. The whole left/right lie is what is destroying this country. It has devided us, fueled our anger and it causes people to look down upon others while "choosing a side", all for what? All for nothing. It's all the same thing. People in position of power want more power and they will do anyhting they can to get it.
I used to be a huge supporter of George W. Bush, but I admit that I didn't know anything about him. I "supported" him because he had created an image of being a "good Christian man". Well, turns out that was a lie, also. I was ingorant for blindly following someone, especially a president, because I had this thought in my head that he was a good person because he was a Christian president. I argued with people, got mad with people and yelled at people who spoke out against Bush. Looking back, I still can't believe how ignorant I was. I knew some of the hidden history of America, but I didn't understand the full picture. Now, I see it and I understand it. I know that everything about Bush is a deception, everything surrounding "politics" is a deception and it's all about divide and conquer. I don't think Bush was the mastermind and I know these evil people who are involved in these evil things are not just republicans and they're not just democrats, they are people with ties to probably every political party. When you say that it's politically based, you couldn't be further off.
I didn't say "therefore,
I didn't say "therefore, there are questions about flight 93". That takes what I said and puts it into a different context. I said that almost proves that you are on their payroll because saying that there are no questions surrounding flight 93 is a complete lie. It's a fact that there are many unanswered questions about flight 93. It's a fact. Unanswered questions do exist and they have relevance and credibility.
Some of the things that I listed did take place decades ago and some have taken place in the past few years and some are still taking place. I do not have to and should not have to provide "evidence" to show you or anyone else about the things that I listed. It's public record and all you have to do is research it for yourself. Most of the true history of America is not in the history books. So, unless you research it for yourself, there's a good chance that you will never hear about most of the things that I listed. They're not conspiracy theories. Most of them are documented and they are real. The ones that are not technically documented, there is enough "insider" information, related documents and evidence to prove them to be true.
You said, "as if the government was a monolith institution that none of us have voted into existence every two and four years". Well, it's clear that you do not know what I was talking about. Yes, I am basically saying that's what the government is. Voting for presidents, congress and other government officials does not change the direction the country is going. That direction is made by those who control those in elected positions. If you think that the direction of this country and the world changes because of who we elect then you do not know how "government" truly works.
You have to take responsibility for your own arguments
You ignored your own argument. You claimed: I don\'t know how you can say there are no questions about flight 93. This almost proves that you are on the CIA\'s payroll. Then you proceeded to construct an argument that had absolutely nothing to do with any evidence about flight 93 whatsoever.
To show you the complete fallacious reasoning of your argument, I reconstructed it in standard form to show you your illogical and fallacious reasoning.
Now that I have showed you that fallacious reasoning, you tripped all over yourself again to assert, without a stitch of evidence, that there are unanswered questions about Flight 93.
The real world does not accept assertions.
The evidence demonstrates the Flight 93 crashed in PA after passengers stormed the cockpit in an effort to wrest control from Arab hijackers intent on crashing the plane where they could kill people has they had already done 3 times that day.
Here is a good resource for you to learn Critical Thinking:
http://www.amazon.com/Attacking-Faulty-Reasoning-Practical-Fallacy-Free/...
Well Hannity, what about you?
Most, if not all of the time, you are slamming people for their beliefs about 9/11;especially those who do not believe what the 9/11 final report claims.This is what you do, thats it.
What you don't do is explain the 9/11 commissions' final report
with "critical thinking" skills. Was the government so sure who did what they did on 9/11, that Bush and Cheney decided no investigation was needed? If a prosecuter is absolutley convinced he has a case, then He/She will gather the evidence and build the case by way of the evidence to get a conviction. This is the trust of a government FOR the people is given.
But if the government is so sure who was responsible for 9/11 without checking the physical evidence and deciding not to investigate what brought down the WTC towers,it is purely circumstantial unless evidence is presented.
To lie to the country about WMD's, about the connection of Al-Queda to Hussein, to try and coverup evidence and leave out many things on the final report is a disengenuous and suspicious act. So where's your evidence to prove us wrong?
oh, god! anything butt that!
There is very little worse than a Randi-ite. Talk about a bunch of unfortunate people (/Losers) following (read: worshipping, at the feet of, and literally) someone of their own ilk -- a half-rate magician, pseudo-intellectual, not stupid, but not-too-brite Skepter and joke of a human being who has used his limited skillz to mesmerise his followers into believing he is the "God of Skepticism." (all the while making a few extra bucks) All of whom couldn't define "True Skeptic" if their life depended on it. Which is why they are "Skepters" -- the antithesis of a True Skeptic, who is open, objective and unbiased, or at least attempts to be so. Most of these people are *immediately* anti- (so-called) "Conspiracy Theories", without even looking at the facts and evidence, which is the perfect definition of "irrational thinking and behavior." I gave up on Randi and all of them years ago when I realized who and what they are and choose to be. I don't even recognize them as worthy of my notice or time anymore. .... Dammit! Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in!!
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
This is BullShit
Mike Ruppert was right from the beginning, folks. Focusing on physical evidence is not the way to go about this. Melting points, the strength of the steel, the impact zone, the collapse, etc., opens the door for scrutiny and can be detrimental to the overall argument, as demonstrated in this BS debate.
We all know 9/11 was an inside job. However, when debating with people, it's all in the presentation. Mark Roberts and Ronald Wieck know that they can argue and debate and scrutinize these talking points. They are in denial and seem to enjoy picking on Bermas and Avery. Among many things about the collapes of the towers, they forget to say the CD experts don't think 1 and 2 were "traditional" controlled demolitions because they weren't "traditional". Hopefully we can learn from debates like this.
So what's the deal with Steven Jones? Why did he resign as a member of the Scholars For Truth? Will he still debate in the National 9/11 Debate? Is this the reason why there seems to be a bit of doubt within this movement?
Knock...
Yourself out.
"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."
Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member
Super-Controlled Demolitions
That's why I think people should start referring to them as "Super-Controlled Demolitions™". Because that's what they were. Obviously Towers 1 and 2 did not even look like standard controlled demolitions, and WTC 7 didn't look like any CD you will find anywhere. "They" obviously tried to hide the explosive forces, and did a pretty good job, actually.
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
Okay, Ronald, let's take the
Okay, Ronald, let's take the WTC demolition off the table for a moment.
So you believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is an absolutely unimpeachable, definitive account of all relevant aspects of the events of 9/11? Do you believe that any of the accounts are in conflict? Do you believe that admitted testimonial perjuries need to be addressed? Do you believe that there should be a truly independent investigation to lay all of this to rest?
Fair Questions
You seem motivated by an honest desire to exchange views. Let me address your questions in order:
The 9/11 Commission Report is a useful document, but I'd stop short of calling it "unimpeachable." In my preparations for the debate, I spoke with Chris Kojm, a former senior staffer for the commission. I wanted to know more about the omission of Norman Mineta's testimony from the book, although I believed that I understood the reason. Kojm confirmed that Mineta's timeline differed from everyone else's by more than twenty minutes. The commission, he maintained, felt confident that it had established an accurate timeline. He conceded, however, that Mineta should have been mentioned in the book and the methodology used in agreeing on a timeline should have been made explicit.
The main conflict was between Mineta and everyone else. When Mineta described the military aide asking Cheney if the order still stood, it was overwhelmingly clear from the context, as well as from the recollections of other people who were present, that they were talking about Flight 93--NOT Flight 77--and nobody had realized yet that it was already on the ground.
The ass-covering by NORAD and the FAA was addressed in Kean and Hamilton's book. Yes, people were trying to make themselves appear less incompetent, but that hardly adds up to a gigantic conspiracy.
Who would conduct the next investigation? If conspiracists had their way, all structural engineers, demolition experts, molecular chemists, avionics techs, and military personnel would be excluded. Issues of science and technology would be handled by literary theorists and theologians. Do you see the problem? If you're married to the belief that explosives brought down the Twin Towers and nobody with any expertise in demolition takes you seriously, who can validate your argument?
As to Mineta's testimony, to
As to Mineta's testimony, to my knowledge he has not publicly stated anything further about what he meant, nor do I recall hearing testimony from anyone else on the subject. Cheney has been clearly identified as a liar on many issues, so I don't trust his explanation of anything. However, I don't think this is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that day anyway.
The ass-covering by NORAD and the FAA was addressed in Kean and Hamilton's book. Yes, people were trying to make themselves appear less incompetent, but that hardly adds up to a gigantic conspiracy.
You're contradicting yourself here. If all the differing accounts over four years, plus the perjury and the destruction of tapes which might have shed further light on what really happened was simply a matter of covering up massive and unprecedented incompetence, you have just defined a large military and aviation conspiracy. And if it was incompetency, why was there no investigation and public accountability? The people who would have been involved in your scenario are expendable, and yet they were protected. Why?
And as long as we are discussing incompetency, do you believe the Secret Service's total breach of protocol in leaving Bush as the only administration official unprotected that day (while even Cabinet Secretaries were whisked underground) is of little significance? What about the lack of fighter escort from the Sarasota airport?
Why were all of the intelligence personnel who are responsible for the failure to heed warnings and take action promoted or honored?
Do you agree with the Commission's decision to not investigate the financing of the operation, which is the standard operating procedure? Do you think it is significant that all of the financial transactions that demonstrate specific, prior knowledge of the attacks were not chased down because they didn't trace back to al Qaeda?
Do you think it matters that the list of hijackers was identified within hours, and yet there has been considerable backtracking on their identities since the FBI has admitted that some are in doubt. Do you think it is significant that the FBI cannot produce a paper trail which could move a grand jury to indictment of either bin Laden or the 19?
See, the problem is that 9/11 was a large mass murder before anything else. All terrorism tactics that end in death are murders first, including abortion clinic bombings, the Unabomber, etc. No responsible investigator would expect to have a handle on what happened with a rush to judgment that fixed all of the evidence -- or denied inconsistencies of evidence -- around that judgment. The crime scenes were never reconstructed or analyzed. For the first time in recent aviation history the NTSB did not investigate the crash sites or reconstruct what was left of the airplanes. A bank robbery or drug ring in a small town would have had better law enforcement work than this.
Who would handle the investigation? Many believe it should be international -- you should be reminded that citizens of dozens of countries died that day, and their governments have a right to the truth as well.
Do you know how many whistleblowers would testify if they were subpeonaed and given protection? What light could they shed? But they weren't given the opportunity. Ever hear of Sibel Edmonds? Aren't you the least bit curious why she is the most gagged woman in America and wouldn't you be interested in hearing what she has to say?
How do you account for the redacted pages in the Commission's report if that decision wasn't taken to protect a foreign entity and the administration's relationship to it?
How do you respond to the dozens of accounts of multiple explosions before and after the planes hit the towers?
I would suggest that consulting a staffer from the Commission is inappropriate if you are attempting to critically review the report's contents. Have you read the list of questions compiled by the family members? Would you be willing to meet with representatives of the families in order to further educate yourself as to what the scope of the investigation should have included?
You may believe that you are "doing the right thing" by swatting away the "conspiracy theorists" and sticking to the official conspiracy theory. But with so many unanswered questions left hanging, this doesn't reflect well on you as an independent person who actually cares about nailing down the truth of that day. Any thinking individual knows that the OCT cannot be justified.
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!!!
He was clearly referring to FLIGHT 77:
“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”
http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv
Editor - www.911oz.com
Nope
Sorry, you're wrong. Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon. Flight 93 was the one they were talking about--BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT. They also didn't know that it, too, was down. The order was a shoot-down order. Otherwise, you're contending that dozens of witnesses heard the VP confess to a monstrous crime. Only the fantasists believe that--not the people who were actually present.
Horse Feathers!
I have to state for the record that Mineta is very clear and explicit in his testimony - he is asked to confirm it several times by Mr. Kean, and he makes it VERY clear that he is NOT referring to Flight 93.
Watch the video!
Editor - www.911oz.com
If not AA77
and they were refering to 93 The plane is 50-30-10 miles out from what?
Whoa! wait a second ."They did'nt know that 93 was down. Then what the hell were they tracking?
You seriously believe this?And you wonder why there's a truth movement?
But your bullshit is famous!
Congratulations RWFII.
No one has outed the 9/11 Truth Movement better than you and confirmed what we have all said about it for the last 4+ years.
We already knew that for you to focus on physical evidence would be your downfall! That is exactly why your movement has never gotten off the ground.
The evidence always refutes you. The evidence has been so scrutinized from top to bottom that there is no way you can get around it. It refutes your assertions totally and irrefutably. You all know that, in reality.
At least you have made an effort to see the light.
Now, your sidekick, Jon Gold, already knew this, too! This is precisely why his effort has always been to con you to think that evidence of what happened on 9/11 does not matter to your overall political goal. He even pretends that claiming that 9/11 was an inside job does not require analyzing what made it an inside job. So, to Jon Gold, it is irrelevant that the purpose of blowing up buildings and crashing planes to scare Americans to support a war in Iraq means having to demonstrate that is actually what happened.
Weird, isn\'t it? Yup. Jon wants us to believe that one needs evidence of anything to believe what he claims.
Such is the nature of 9/11 Truth Movement bullshit.
"The Shadow Government"
Sorry... Bill Moyers didn't call his documentary by the same name, but it is along the same line.
"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."
Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member
CoG
FYI: I'm not sure if they actually ever referred to it as "the shadow government", but what they are referring to is the "Continuity of Government", which was (ostensbly) setup to keep the government going if the President, Vice President, and other high-level members of the government are killed. There are concerns (constitutional and otherWise) about, for example, some 'arbitrarily' chosen person becoming president, or just being put in control, in a time of crisis, who isn't really the best person for the job in the 'official succession' sense.
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
Thank God, we have.
\"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public.\"
Good advice, Sally.
Americans need to be informed of the bullshit the 9/11 truth Movement tries to feed them. Yes, it is disgusting, immoral, and an insult to those who died on 9/11. Everyone needs to question dishonest people like Jon Gold and ask them why the need to lie to the American public.
DAMN!
Roberts has Cheney's butt prints all over his lips!
OMG thats all I have to say...
I keep asking myself...
When are the American people going to wake up and realize that the country you knew is gone!!! Its been taken over by a bunch of globalist criminals that are all compromised in some way...
The LC guys could have won this debate simply on the fact that the NIST models failed to collapse, this was enough to end the debate period...
I don't understand it, how much more evidence do people need, geezzzzz....
Also, body language tells 85% of the story and its clear the LC guys were uncomfortable, they need a lesson on this. Dylan looked like a stunned mullet and Jason was slouched over the desk looking intimidated...
The raised hands of Mark Roberts "also his MIC was LOUDER" made him instantly the authoritative figure in the debate, man i could go on for hours... Anyway, this was clearly all done to discredit LC by someone as simple as Mark " you know... Just a simple guy that bothered to read the report and compare LC to it and noticed all the errors..."
Hey, I went to Marks site...I have gotta say it's the worst synopsis I have ever read..!
Come on my fellow comrades, us Australians umm and the rest of the world need you guys to take your country back from these criminals and stop the world wide bulling, please....!
Christopher Bollyn needs to
Christopher Bollyn needs to be getting more coverage and publicity.
Watch the scramble to change the subject
when molten metal in the rubble beneath the collapsed buildings is thrown onto the table for discussion. Apparently they are not so confident they can throw enough doubt onto this topic to obscure the truth, like their feeble yet successful (to sheeple) molten aluminum pouring out the side of the building argument.
I guess they aren't prepared to debate the satellite photos showing temperatures well above anything jet fuel could reach. The rubble languishing for weeks after the collapse even when being drenched by firehose upon fire hose still MOLTEN. What could sustain such heat?
Official Government suckasses might theorize that this technology of raising energy potential underground had long been perfected by King Kamehameha when he tossed a single Kingsford briquet underground and discovered he could charbroil a large boar (or troll) simply by covering this blazing hunk of coal with palm fronds.
It seems the official Fantasy team has saved the planet from its energy dilemma with their wonderful science. Heat does not dissipate when buried underground! It will instead grow in intensity!
Not to mention concrete being turned to particulate matter fine enough to dust a Government conspiricists wife's nose when she visits the little ewe's room with five or six of the herd.
molten smolten
Mr. Wieck stated that "the stuff" cooked for weeks, speaking of the liquid metal in the pile.
Not being too scientific - however, I recall using my high school metal shop kiln last year. Seems to me that even in the kiln with a forced air hydrocarbon fuel source I can't recall getting any metal to turn liquid other than lead (which I used for soldering).
Is it possible in an open-air "dirty burn" environment to make steel flow like lava?
I'd like to give Mr. Wieck a can of JP4 (any quantity will do), a piece of steel (without fire proofing) and see if he can turn it to liquid.
Just a high school student, but how do you do this?
I'd like to show my shop teacher . . . why hasn't my dad's barbeque melted or how about our fireplace grate.
Sorry to be so un-scientific but can someone show me a hydrocarbon open air fuel source that can liquify steel much less keep it liquid for over a month? I'd like to do an experiment at school sometime :-)
not a dot com - just a dot?
the link is incomplte like the whole story
Link
Connect the second line to the first. For some reason, the entire address won't fit on the same line.
Hey RONALD!
I've been a welder fabricator for thirty years.The kid is right.The temperature to melt that quanity of steel would be incredible.
Remember Ron...The world used to be flat.
Look a little deeper.
Molten METAL is steel Einstein.The pile was melting the soles of work boots for weeks after.Sat thermal photo's showed the hot spots.Oh wait,that was the rescue workers taking a smoke break.
There were pictures of a trackhoe pulling yellow hot steel from the site.
Just like the molten steel flowing from the towers.Yes steel.Molten aluminun is silver in color,and does'nt glow red ,yellow or any other color when molten.
But hey ,these things could be argued over and over again. Why did the DOD keep changing it's story on scrambling interceptors? What plane was 50 -30-10 miles out. Why was Willam Rodreguez testomoney left out.
I've put up skyscrapers,although not as tall as the WTC towers.I've seen how they were built.
So i know any fool who belives the offical BS,is either covering this up,or just a plain idiot.
I guess that you will be contacting Ed Haas to inform him that you,and Mark will participate in the Team Liberty Debate.I would love to see the goverment stand up to all the questions,and end this once and for all.
Let nothing but fear stand in your way.
And
Maybe if Hani was an ex blue angle in an F-16. I might believe the Pentagon crash.
Hey! Here's an idea.Get a pilot,rent a lear jet,and fly into the pentagons restricted air space at 500 miles an hour. Let's see if the computer controlled missle sites work now.
Enough Sarcasim
It's obvious you have'nt educated yourself,and looked at all the FACTS us truthers have.After you have watched Dr David Ray Griffen UMW lecture,911 press for truth,911 mysteries for starters.Then come back
here.With all the unanswered questions we have ,we need only to prove one,and the offical house of cards will come crashing down.
Canard
There were no missile defenses protecting the Pentagon on 9/11/01. This myth has been exploded.
Half right
I agree there was NO defense on 9/11.But we damn sure had alot of incompetence.
Laughing
You mean professional bullshiter.The truth is iam a welder fabricator,ironworker.I've put up buildings in Chicago,and LA.
But hey! I am no threat to the offical fairy tale.
Iam just one of many with the experance,and basic common sense to know bullshit when i hear ,and see it.
Iam glad to see that you are on Ed's list.Kudo's to you.
Now lets see if the major media will cover it in full.I would be willing to bet they won't. The story of the century.
Ronald, doesn't think...
... and he doesn't think there are any aviation "techs" around here either. Sucks to be him.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Knowledge is Not Common Sense
To understand the collapse of the WTC, common sense is insufficient; knowledge is required. You could read Matthys Levy's book, Why Buildings Fall Down, or study NIST's abridged version of its comprehensive report, a 298-page pdf file. Your emotional need to create comic book villains to permit the real ones to avoid responsibility for their deeds stands reality on its head. It must be slightly inconvenient that those innocent jihadists are so damn proud of their success.
Knowledge
is not common sense....That's a good one.Thanks for the laugh.
Molten Steel
maybe this could make an impression, too:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1324
Would love to hear the "Official Accounts"
of how many times Donald Rumsfeld jacked0off on 9/11. What else could he have been doing?
Donsie Rummyskull was by all accounts
the Secretary of DEFENSE on a day when we had a major breach of DEFENSE....so skirt wearing boy....what are your transcripts of that day? I'd love to hear the SECRETARIES version. Are'nt secretaries supposed to gather all the info and type it up into a comprehensive analysis? Where is your analysis of our Department of defenses failure to defend? DEFENSE...DEFEND....RUMSFELD=FAILURE skullboy asswipe blackcovertboy....I think we are being way to polite here. look at the monkey.
JP4 JP5 JP7
it's all jet fuel, and it's all just keroscene with additives. Keroscene lamps do not melt, or weaken.
live demonstration . . . please!
Forget everything for the sake of the following simple thought.
Why doesn't someone (anyone) just demonstrate transformation of steel to liquid using jet fuel or any hydrocarbon, open-air combustion?
Heck, you don't even need to make it happen in an hour, take all the time you want and use all the fuel you want.
And for God sake don't relate the experiment to anything.
. . . let's call it a wood stove endurance test .
Like the old TV show, Dragnet "Just the facts ma'am".
Show us non-scientific types!
Beer cans
Ever go camping and pull a beer can out of the ashes the next day? The fire roared all night and you could feel the heat a hundred feet away and your socks would smoke if you got too close. The next morning the poor little beer can still had its original shape and even some of the lettering.
Dag-nab-it! Ain't goin' campin' N0 mo' !!
exactly
I don't usually answer rhetorical questions, but for the less brite anti-9/11 Truth types, I will point out that they can try that all day long and not get any results.
Not the ones they want, anyway.
----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
SNITCHES AT WORK
Nice theatre!!! ....This only confirms the fact that Dylan and Bermas really are "in"..stupid arrogant snitches like 911blogger and so many others..
They are discrediting the movement like so many others..sad but true.
Well, money is funny..and fear always works for weak and soulless characters.
People dont be naive, the movement has been infiltrated long time ago.
Think for yourselves.
911Snitch.com
Kudos to Jon
Jon, I'm usually pretty harsh with you, but I've been posting since last night and that suggests there may be hope for you yet. I trust it's not simply an oversight on your part. But, along with the pomeranian head, there are now two things I can commend you for.
ronald wieck
http://RatTube.com/blog1/
Ronald i am sure you already covered this but how do you explain the squib on the south tower appx 30 to 40 floors below the initial collapse? did osama run a tube from the top floors to that specific window? LOL LOL LOL fool... i guess the pressure funneled down the elevator shafts and contained itself in a tube like fashion to pop out that window. ok.. it is all clear now. whew... for a minute there you had me scared. [sarcasm off]
just a suggestion, why don't you invite steven jones and alex jones on for your next show? that would be entertaining. you could continue to be a biased host since you admit it. hey... maybe cheney can show up and execute his stand down?
http://RatTube.com/blog1/ i
http://RatTube.com/blog1/
i suspect i would(have real interest) if you answered the question. what caused the squib 30 to 40 floors below? from your vague response it appears to be a non-answer but i respect your effort and will give you another opportunity.
did these "papers" specifically detail the south tower initial squib that preceeded the collapse by an est. 30 to 40 floors? explain the pressurization neccessary to funnel or channel this blast 40 floors down an elevator shaft and out the window? you didn't even attempt this explanation .... i take no issue with your smart ass response at the beginning but if you choose that route then back it up.
DIfferent kinds of squibs...
The squibs you are referring to I believe are the ones that shoot out from the center of the building, like the picture on debunking911.com. There are many others that follow the typical pattern of a demlition squib that mushroom out like an explosion. The clip I am referring to is a clip of the south tower collapsing that follows the collapse down one of the visible corners of the building. In this clip it is very clear that there are rapid plumes exploding out near the corner of the building and not the center of the building. In other clips there are other smaller squibs that also follow this explosive pattern and not the syringe type.
P.S. Are you the host of Hardfire or do you just use his name?
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
Debunking911.com
I noticed that the section on the molten metal gives a few other possible explinations of the molten metal (aluminum mixed with other contents, etc.). One of the pictures on that page shows a Yosemite firefall. It appears that this photo was taken with a slow shutter speed to give the appearence that it was a liquid-like flow. I'm no expert in photography, but I think this is possible. In addition, I think you have to admit that it is "possible" that the flow is a thermite reaction. Wouldn't a thermite reaction look like this, if it was?
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
Mr. Wieck
We can debate squibs and whatever else there is that you stand by on the NIST report. But why do buildings collapsing, including ones that have been imploded, have never looked like Mt. St. Helens erupting, falling straight down while pulverizing concrete and tossing sections of steel beams hundreds of feet, and at the same time destroying 47 core colomns. Couldn't be from planes hitting them, they were built to take a hit from large Boeings, and I'm sure those guys presumed that those large Boeings wouldn't be tossed into the buildings, they would be flown into the buildings, which means they would have fuel in the tanks. Fireproofing was intended for a control measure, i.e. if a fire occurred, it would prevent it from spreading elsewhere quickly. Judging from the way these buildings appeared before the collapse, this concept seemed to be working fairly well. If the steel melted enough as all of the NIST people say, there was not any sag to speak of..just sudden collapse, straight down into the path of most resistance, but yet it came down through concrete and pulverized it, through steel beams that were not melted.
Come on...The American Association of Firefighters called that report a "Half-Baked Farce" You are in the realm of claiming these people have no idea whatsoever about tall building fires,which they do have knowledge and experience in fighting.
Answers
I am the occasional host of 'Hardfire.'
The squibs have been thoroughly explained on debunking911.com and in the Protec paper.
The key point made in the NIST report is that the buildings would not have fallen if the fireproofing had not been dislodged. The weakening of the core columns exerted a pull on the floor trusses, The trusses, in turn, pulled the external columns inward, as evidenced by the bowing clearly shown in many, many photos. When the load could no longer be distributed, global collapse ensued. Please, visit NIST.gov, read the FAQ, and download the pdf file.
dodging the question
http://RatTube.com/blog1/
Ronny???
please humor me and answer my question or admit you are wrong. explain the squib from the south tower that preceeded the initial collapse by 30 to 40 floors. please explain how the pressurization could have been maintained throughout the multiple floors and find its way out a window 40 floors below. was there tubing involved and who had time to carry out this fantasy task?
please don't cop out again and refer to some lame paper that doesn't discuss this specific dynamic... you don't seem so smug now... i wonder why?
Impact Floors
Smugness has little to do with my frustration at a question that is not reality-based. The reason no demolition experts take your fantasies seriously is that the collapse OBVIOUSLY--look at ALL the videos--proceeds from the impact floors. Let that sink in. No matter how you slice it, if you watch the videos, the buildings collapse from the floors where the planes hit them, NOT FROM BELOW. The "specific dynamic" you have invented is of no consequence to anyone who works in controlled demolition. Compressed air escapes randomly, and your so-called squibs do not suggest explosives to people who understand what they're seeing.
http://RatTube.com/blog1/ tal
http://RatTube.com/blog1/
talk about fantasies.. you have imagined questions that i never asked. Ronnie.. are you OK ??? this is the third time you have dodged my question... trust me i don't blame you. you are worse than the amazing randi. LOL LOL LOL
i guess your mind has blocked out the squib that precedes the initial collapse. i know this is difficult so i will go slowly for you ronnie. when i refer to precede this is not a reference to time but position/geography. the floors that fell moved in the direction of the squib which was 40 floors below it.
so put the crack pipe down and put on your little thinking cap. arbitrary pressure seems to be your best answer for the pesky little squib of which i say you are OWNED !!!!!!!!!! NEXT !!!
The key point made in the
The key point made in the NIST report is that the buildings would not have fallen if the fireproofing had not been dislodged.
Then NIST is making "key points" based on assumptions, since noone can verify howmuch if any fireproofing was dislodged by the airplanes impacts.
Stop Arguing from Ignorance
If you'd stop arguing from ignorance and actually read the NIST report, you'd understand how they determined how much fireproofing was removed.
"yeah, they're making
"yeah, they're making truckfuls of money by selling Loose Change DVD's for a dollar and letting other people copy it for free and sell it for a dollar." -Doughnut-
Hey, are you really stupid or naive?! I wasnt talking about DVD sales...This is just the start with Dylan & Co, you will see..
Dylan is a snitch, thats a 100% fact, its sad but very true..get over it..!
R. Siegel is one too, hell...., he would do anything for money...haha
Dont go around joining dubios movements, cause that way you will be easily controlled and your means and deeds will get suppressed. Think for yourselves! You dont need snitches to tell you what to think!
The Delphi Technique. What Is It?
They have divided the movement allready.., no planers, podpeople,energy beams directed from WTC 7, and on we go....They are trying to keep us busy arguing and fighting with ourselves, DIVIDE AND CONQUER!
AND REMEMBER THIS,
80% to 90% of the movements are controlled/infiltrated by the government, thats a fact!! Do your math!! Dont be naive!
_________________
"These bogus groups could serve many functions which might include attacking and/or disrupting bona fide groups, or even just simply creating a diversion with clever propaganda in order to attract members away so as to involve them with time-wasting activity designed to prevent them from doing anything useful. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties so that it looked like just a "disagreement" between two individuals or groups, a "food fight" or something, and there was no way to connect it to any government operation."
So, 8 to 9 out of 10
So, 8 to 9 out of 10 movements is controlled/infiltrated. Now, ask yourselves wich are the ones with most supporters or readers? And its not just that.., they are "sriking the root" also.
Dont go around donating money, cause its not about the money..,dont be fooled.., or please do if you want to end up blacklisted for supporting a "radical movement".
Its all about control.
Keep your guard up, ALWAYS!!
How sick are these fuckheads
like David Rockefellar that think only a "Global Elite" can lead the sheep? Only the intellectual asswipes who talk but produce nothing but shit washed down to the oceans can lead us? It's fucking assholes like this that are the reason things get so insane that we mus subsidise death and destruction with our tax dollars while they try to brainwash us int being the cheerleaders for this destruction.
Not good enough
Firstly, I would like to give my critique of this interview and my impressions of it.
Firstly, the LC crew were far too weak. It is true that they kept their cool, and on the whole looked respectable, but that is not good enough. They were outmanouevered consistently by the presenter and Mr. Roberts. Their grasp of the technical facts on the WTC towers, which they kept discussing, was visibly inferior to Mr. Roberts. They should read all 10,000 pages of NIST, FEMA and the EPA reports, so they can discuss with authority and confidence that which is wrong or ommitted in them. They cannot let someone like Mr. Roberts know the NIST report better than they do, it is denigrating to the movement. Everyone who purports to support the 911 truth movement should know the NIST, FEMA reports inside out and be able to point out the fallacies and ommissions contained within. On the whole Mr. Bermas was much weaker than what I have observed of him in the past, while Mr. Avery has markedly improved in his delivery, in the right path.
I would like to comment on Mr. Roberts, who seems like a competent enough guy. Why someone who has the ability to understand the truth should choose to ignore it can have many explanations, what is yours Mr. Roberts? It is true that LC contains many flaws, but it also contains many valid points, why not focus your research on the many inconsistencies contained in the 911 Commission report, and also things never mentioned in it, such as WTC7, the War games, the NORAD tapes, the ISI connection, etc... You should focus your energies, such as Paul Thompson is doing, on piecing together the true story behind 911, and not focus on the inconsistencies and fallacies in LC, which is largely a sideshow.
LC crew, we need to be much more precise, crystal clear? I expect much better quality research and debate in your final cut movie. Please take these criticisms on board in a constructive way, as I beleive that your heart and your intentions lie in the right place. Intentions, however, is not enough, we need to be the best, the most knowledgeable, and not necessarily just the loudest.
And finally the presenter, Mr. Wieck, if you are not already bought out by the system (CIA, etc..), I hope you have the courge to change your mind about things looking at the bare facts, and not the typical straw man arguments that you brought up in the interview. Discuss war games, ommissions and distortions in the 911 report, conflicts of interest, ISI, etc... there is a lot of explosive infomation out there if you have the courage to pick up the gauntlet.
Cheers,
B
How they control the movement
This is just one example:
The Delphi Technique — What Is It?
"A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.
The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process."
Read on..
The Delphi Technique — What Is It?
The Delphi Technique — How to Disrupt It
Ground rules for disrupting the consensus process (Delphi Technique) — when facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.
1) Always Be Charming. Smile, be pleasant, be courteous, moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
2) Stay Focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help you stay focused. Facilitators, when asked questions they don't want to answer, often digress from the issue raised and try to work the conversation around to where they can make the individual asking the question look foolish, feel foolish, appear belligerent or aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Always be charming, thus deflecting any insinuation, innuendo, etc, that may be thrown at you in their attempt to put you on the defensive, but bring them back to the question you asked. If they rephrase your question into an accusatory statement (a favorite tactic) simply state, "that is not what I stated, what I asked was… (repeat your question)." Stay focused on your question.
3) Be Persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long drawn out dissertations on some off-the-wall and usually unrelated, or vaguely related, subject that drags on for several minutes – during which time the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation/expose, then nicely, with focus and persistence, state, "but you didn't answer my question. My question was… (repeat your question)."
Remember…
always be charming,
stay focused, and
be persistent.
Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator "the victim." This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand on what they believe, are obvious threats.] If the participant becomes the victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections are written on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public discussion and public debate. It's called crowd control. It is always good to have someone else, or two or three others who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd; who, when the facilitator digresses from the question, will stand up and say nicely, "but you didn't answer that lady's/gentleman's question." The facilitator, even if suspecting you are together, certainly will not want to alienate the crowd by making that accusation. Sometimes it only takes one occurrence of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on, sometimes it takes more than one.
If you have an organized group, meet before the meeting to strategize. Everyone should know their part. Meet after the meeting to analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time around. Never meet during the meeting. One of the favorite tactics of the facilitator, if the meeting is not going the way he/she wants, if he/she is meeting measurable resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his/her "spotters" (people who wander the room during the course of the meeting, watching the crowd) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered measurable resistance. If the "resistors" congregate in one place, a "spotter" will usually gravitate to that group to "join in the conversation" and will report back to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of those who are "resistors." Do not congregate. Hang loose and work the crowd. Move to where the facilitator or "spotters" are, listen to what they have to say, but do not gravitate to where another member of your team is.
This strategy also works in a face to face, one on one, meeting with anyone who has been trained in how to use the Delphi Technique.
(spotters=snitches)
Time Constraints
There simply isn't sufficient time in two half-hour shows to do more than scratch the surface. The issues you mention are interesting, and perhaps we can examine them another time. I have invited Webster Tarpley to appear with me, but haven't yet received a response.
It was painfully clear that Jason and Dylan knew little about the NIST report, but that's the problem facing the conspiracists. No competent scientist disagrees with it, apart from minor quibbles. We're still waiting for people to show the errors, but that hasn't happened.
You know it was an inside
You know it was an inside job, Ronald, and we know it was an inside job, so cut the crap.
Stay focused!
No Inside Job
The reason I don't believe that the jihadist attacks of 9/11 were an inside job is that ALL evidence suggests that it was not.
That is a very ignorant
That is a very ignorant thing to say and it's wrong on so many levels. "ALL evidence"? Seriously, now I think you're just kidding around. It's more like every piece of "information" that exists points in the direction of it being an inside job.
I can't stand it when people can't face reality. I know people might suggest ignoring your comment, but I won't.
Not enough time
My last post on this topic.First i give credit to you for comming to this site.Just like truthers who visit those who support the official story.They get bombarded with
insults,and profanity.
Your right in the time constraint issue.Here is a chance to be a hero to those who believe the official
story. ALL of us truthers will agree to major media coverage,not just four minute clips on FOX to get bashed ,and insulted.
Assemble your experts,we will bring ours,and let the chips fall where they may.
All of this should have sparked you to look a little deeper,and i hope you do.
All us truthers want is a fair shake.Major media coverage with ALL our questions answered in the open.This event covered by all major media ,over a two or three day period.I would think it would be more watched than American Idol.
Good Points
You make several excellent points. I am always disappointed and frustrated when a conspiracist appears on a Fox News show only to be insulted. If the host hasn't done any homework, taking cheap shots at a guest is a poor way to disguise his own laziness. These blogs tend to bring out the child in most of us, but I assure you, I will never verbally abuse anyone on the air. Arguments should be refuted, not ridiculed.
I have invited both Tarpley and Barrett to appear on 'Hardfire' but as yet I have had no response. Fetzer and I exchanged several e-mails, but negotiations broke down when he asked for a plane ticket to NYC. As you may have noticed, we're strictly amateur night. We have no budget for my parking expenses, much less a plane ticket.
You sound like a rather normal guy...
... when you talk like that.
Then why do you hold such a clear stated position ("unsympathetic", I heard you say about Dylan and Jason) defending the official conspiracy theory about lone fanatical arabs perpetrating 9/11 with no domestic help? You hold this position, with about three basic sources to back you up (like Popular Mechanics, Myths and debunking911), whereas to the contrary there are literally THOUSANDS of independent and dynamic organizations backed by millions of people (from all over the world) who vocally share disgust with the inadequacy of the Official Narrative.
We want an investigation, which this government never actually did... it's as simple as that. The ever growing suspicions of "inside job", actually came about in strength only AFTER this government delayed, hamstrung, underfunded and avoided clear, plan, forthright talk, explanations and the SHOWING of evidence to the public directly and CLEARLY implicating those whom the government said perpetrated the attack.
If the story IS as they've always said it was... there is NOTHING more dangerous to national security that would be aggravated by a full public release of the implicating evidence, than to not... thus leaving so many people to be driven to suspecting the government that behaves AS IF they have something to hide. (I tell you in the most sober words I can muster... this is a recipe for some SERIOUS unrest in this country. The neophyte Department of Homeland Security hasn't a fucking clue what they are up against if Americans decide to crush this latest manifestation of bullshit government.)
Do you understand this point I'm trying to genuinely present to you, Mr. Weick?
Withholding truly sensitive details about the event, say for example air-force defense procedures and high-level communications protocols, is perfectly defendable under the concept of National Security Secrets... inappropriate for inclusion in a proper 9/11 Report. No one here is arguing this in some irrational manner.
On the other hand... WHAT future national security issue could be placed in ANY form of jeopardy, by the forthright presentation of forensic evidence such as part serial numbers for the otherwise destroyed aircraft, ALL security and DOT camera footage, DNA lab work, mortuary data, and other such things like the FAA conversation recordings?
In toto, there are far more likely reason than nation security, such as CYA, embarrassment, incriminating evidence and circumstances implicating gross domestic mishandling, OR INVOLVEMENT. This is NOT a "kooks" imagination, 'gone wild'. This is basic common sense.
Now the problem is, and only gets worse by the day as it remains un-addressed, is that this government CAN NO LONGER release exculpatory evidence of its innocence. For a deed as bad as the first has been CLEARLY perpetrated by the government After the Fact of 9/11 alone. That is; destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, mass-media manipulation and the execution of aggressive warfare (a bullet that CAN NOT be put back in the gun).
The TOP SUSPECT is now recognized as the very same entity holding BOTH the evidence that could convict it, as well as to clear it. Now what kind of material do you think a lead suspect is going to supply if 'given' the opportunity to produce "as the government sees fit"? Shit, they could actually "plead the Fifth" at this point... well if they hadn't burnt that one to a crisp as well.
A mighty fine mess we have here... and you, Mr. Weick, are not helping. Rather, it seems you're either too small minded, insufficiently informed, or actually 'getting a clue' but still think buying time is worth it. No matter, it's still quite clear to me at least... that you're on the Wrong side of the issue any way you slice it. Best of luck to you.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Dear Ron
I was just curious.Did you look at more of what us
truthers have? I would really like to hear what you think
if you looked a little deeper. Thank you
Straight to the point
Firstly, thanks for responding, your frankness is appreciated.
You mention time constraints, and whilst that may be a constraining factor in the debate, all that would be needed would be to go straight to the most conflicting points, rather than debating some obscure and largely irrelevant issues (which can never be proven) such as the (mistaken?) identities of the hijackers, the technicalities of the fires and damage in WTC1&2, etc..
Instead, you could have brought up: why are we in a position that we don't know with certitude how the towers collapsed (and we don't)? Why was over 95% of the physical evidence in the WTC destroyed before it could be examined? What is the mechanism behind the pulverisation of the concrete into fine dust (this is not even touched upon in NIST or FEMA or anywhere else)?
Who was in charge of the war games on the morning of 9/11? Why did Norad change their version of events 3! times after 9/11 over a span of 4 years? What are the connections of Atta/etc.. with covert military operations like Able Danger? and the ISI, which allegedly payed them $100,000?
Spend some time at Paul Thompson's site to find the most pressing problems with the official version of events, so that next time you can cut straight to the chase and not be sidetracked by side issues.
I applaud your decision to give these pressing issues some more attention, and also commend you on your treatment of your hosts during the interview, which although quite biased, was much better than is usually expected in the US mass media.
Cheers,
B
One last point....
Listen to the interesting presentation on google video on "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" where Prof. Peter Dale Scott highlights the interesting point that the FBI had already "identified" the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 even before (as according now to the 3rd version of events by NORAD) NORAD knew that it had been hijacked! Isn't that at least surprising in your eyes? Does it lift the veil a little bit?
Cheers,
B
Calrify
ie the FBI had "identified" the hijackers even before NORAD knew flight 93 had been hijacked...
Endless Recycling
When you write that we don't know the reason for the collapse of the WTC, you argue implicitly that NIST's ten thousand pages of graphs, tables, illustrations, analysis, and commentary shed no light on the subject. How can this be possible? Has anyone ever found a specific error that I could mention to Mike Newman and request that he account for it? What questions are not answered in the NIST report?
Does Thompson's site raise any issues that are not covered on 911myths.com? Why are conspiracists so unwilling to address what the rationalists actually say about their favorite canards? People are still pretending that "pull it" means "blow up the building," even though there isn't a demolition specialist in the world who agrees. Hasn't Fetzer's nonsense about the "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars been proved an outright lie? Did you read the debate between Fetzer and J.R. Dunn on americanthinker.com (look in the archives for Dunn)?
I have read the NIST/FEMA reports
I'm sorry to inform you that I have actually taken the time to read the NIST/FEMA reports and, perhaps unfortunately for you, am also educated in physics and maths to postgraduate level, so understood it as well.
The many thousands of pages do a geat job of detailing the inner structure of the WTC1&2, showing how it met all design and construction specifications (NIST NCSTAR 1-1) and in general praising its construction. Specific mention is made of the engineers taking into account the impact and ensuing damages caused by a Boeing 707 flying at 600mph (which actually has more kinetic enegry than the 757s of 9/11) in a study by the Port Authority in 1964 (see page 70).
In summary, the WTC1&2 are shown to have met all construction specifications and were in fact extremely robust buildings.
In the crucial chapter, NIST NCSTAR 1-6, which discusses structural fire response and probable collapse sequence of the WTC towers, is however were a lot of the disappointment, in a scientific sense, arises from.
They conducted a finite element analysis of the sequence of structural failure that led to the collapse initiation. At no point did they consider the manner of collapse, ie global, symmetrical collapse inducing pulverisation of concrete and pools of extremely hot molten metal in the basements. Furthermore, they have never released, to my knowledge, any of the models they used, which, under their own admission, had to be tweaked in order to induce failure of the structure. We would like to know how much they had to tweak their model. Another reason that raised a few eyebrows was the fact that the experiments they themselves performed on the floor assemblies did not show the behaviour, ie extreme sagging, that they had predicted, and did not fail the test in that sense.
On their contention that a lot of the fireproofing was dislodged, and that this somehow initiated failure after only 50 odd minutes, there are several things wrong with this picture. There is an analysis by Kevin Ryan that discusses this aspect of the report quite well.
So my question to you is: are you satisfied by a "scientific" report that a) has not released in public the finite element analysis and code used in modelling the collapse initiation, b) by its own admission had very few pieces of physical evidence on which to base their calculations, c) does not take into account both the manner and form of the collapse, AFTER initiation.
These three points you should find quite worrying Mr. Wieck.
Cheers,
B
Oi! Dylan, Jason, or even Mr. Wieck-got a question for you lot
When was this two-part interveiw first scheduled?
Humor your Aunt Jenny, please. It'll help my research.
Cheers.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Schedule
You can call me Ron, Jenny. People call me far worse things.
I posted the confirmation on JREF on November 21, so I probably spoke to Jason a few days earlier. Hope that helps.
That's very kind of you, sir, but...
"You can call me Ron, Jenny."
That's very kind of you, sir, but considering we are not chums or even allies--in fact probably enemies--, I'm keeping it formal if you don't mind. You can call me Sparks, but you're going to do what you're going to do anyway--I'm not going to sweat it.
Thank you for the info--however I asked when this was FIRST arranged--not the confirmation. Appologies if I wasn't clear. Now, a confirmation/clairification from our lads, Jason and Dylan, please?
Hardfire Schedule
Sparks, I'm assuming that you are very young. If you're not, the situation is completely hopeless. If I can communicate anything at all to you, it is to avoid joining a lynch mob until you have established proof of guilt. The Nazis did unspeakable things to Jews based on fraudulent science and trumped-up charges. Conspiracy fantasists seek to demonize a group of American politicians on the basis of a hypothesis that is so absurd that it falls apart wherever it is touched. Your side has absolutely no evidence to support its outlandish claims; all available evidence flatly contradicts those claims. Why not familiarize yourself with the position you want to reject for purely emotional reasons?
Regarding the arranging of the debate, I told you that I had contacted the Loose Change team a few days before announcing the confirmation. Perhaps Kirstin, their PR rep, would be able to provide an exact date. I had invited Mark Roberts to appear on the show earlier in November to fill a December 14 slot in the taping schedule. Originally, I envisioned interviewing him, then I got the idea to stage a debate. I tried to persuade Fetzer to argue the conspiracist side, but he wanted a plane ticket to NYC, something our budget will not permit. Next, I tried Mike Berger, but he, too, was unable to make the trip. Checking my e-mails, I see that my last communication with Berger was on 11/15. I must have contacted Jason and Dylan immediately thereafter.
The significance of the exact date escapes me, but I'd be willing to bet that it is something dark and sinister.
The Nazis did unspeakable
The Nazis did unspeakable things to Jews based on fraudulent science and trumped-up charges.
Yes, and the Administration has started the exact same process with Muslims, who are the new Jews, both at home at abroad. It's amazing that you cite historical precedence, but can't see how it relates to the present. You are like one of those pathetic old Germans, shaking their heads 50 years later, saying "But we never knew!" In this case, some of us are intuitive enough to try to cut it off at the head.
Can you present any evidence that the official conspiracy story is true? The FBI can't, but as you are so pre-occupied with lack of evidence for alternative versions, it seems incumbent on you to show us the goods.
Compelling Evidence
Where to begin?--your moral confusion is total. No, the Bush administration is not attempting to orchestrate a genocide of American Muslims. Please explain why Bush was heavily favored by Muslim voters in 2000, while Gore received overwhelming support from Jews.
The number of American Muslims is comparatively small, but growing. Politicians do not want to alienate them: they want their votes. The Bush administration leaves office in January, 2009. Do you imagine that its members have committed all of their unprecedented and wildly implausible crimes to benefit Hillary Clinton? Really, at some point, reality must intrude on your fantasies.
The evidence supporting the mainstream accounts of the collapse of the WTC, the attack on the Pentagon, the identities of the hijackers, etc., is exhaustive. Have you bothered to read the 9/11 Commission Report? I have to laugh when people try to pretend that a report co-authored by Democrat attack dogs like Richard ben-Veniste, who would cut off his own arm to burn George Bush, is a whitewash. Why are Bush's enemies protecting him?
Moral confusion? I think
Moral confusion? I think not. Your statements about Muslims are simply too stupid for words. They have been disappeared, rendered, tortured, and detained without legal rights, and are considered guilty until proven innocent. The right-wing bloviators are never admonished by administration officials when they promote racist propaganda in the name of conservative media. (Do you read newspapers?) Please read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" to see the blueprint for our current demonization of Muslims and the conflating of the words "Muslim," "extremist," and "terrorist."
And those reams of evidence were never produced, bub. Keep in mind that the Commission said at its outset that this was NOT an investigation, nor was there going to be any attempt to assign blame. Can you produce a single document which proves that the 19 were on the planes? WIth each post you make it more and more obvious that you are either tasked with shilling or still refuse to actually crack the concrete in your mind long enough to logically sort through the issues.
Your problem is that you insist, either by nature or posture, on framing this issue as a Republican vs. Democratic or Left vs. Right issue, and that somehow this entire thing has been trumped up as an elaborate campaign to bring down the Bush administration (as if it needed any help in this regard). That framing is blatantly false. Most of us here are not motivated by any political ideology -- there are both life-long Republicans and conservatives represented here in very large numbers. (I am an Independent, with no belief system or ideology that railroads my logical ability.) And it USED to be that conservatives were the ones most concerned with preserving the Constitution, which this Administration uses for bum wipe -- you can therefore call yourself a Bushie, but you can't call yourself a conservative if you don't agree that the many assaults on constitutional rights is abominable.
Furthermore, most of us believe that both corporate Democrats (like the Clintons, and the ones on the Commission with strong ties to oil and defense industries) and Republicans are implicated in this mess. Certainly they have ALL been complicit in the cover-up. If you think this can't be true, remember that the two Democratic leaders who were mailed anthrax that has been traced to the U.S. military have refused to push to investigate their own attempted assassinations. That suggests that they either know much more than they are letting on and have been blackmailed or they have been threatened on so many levels that they dare not go there.
You'll never understand one bloody thing about 9/11 until you remove political ideology from its consideration. And the fact that you will not acknowledge a single fallacy in the report proves your dishonesty.
See you in the FEMA camps.
Nonsense
Your statements about the treatment of American Muslims are nonsense--pure fabrications and falsehoods. There is no campaign to demonize Islam.The passenger manifests prove that the jihadists were on the planes, as does the DNA evidence recovered at the crash sites. Your hopelessly strained Nazi analogies are extremely silly.
No, there are not many conservatives in the ranks of the fantasists. With a few exceptions, most tinfoil-hatters are hate-America leftists who, if their throats were being cut by Islamic terrorists, would die thinking it was Dick Cheney in disguise.
Most Muslims are not jihadist terrorists, but ALL jihadist terrorists are Muslims. Why moderate Muslims are so reluctant to criticize the extremists remains a mystery.
Damn, you're right Mr. Wieck..
... how could I have been so fooled all these years? Dick Cheney is really an Angel of God, disguised to look like a self-serving war profiteer and sociopathic mass murderer. But really he's an angel... the manipulation of public impression is just a front so that he can sleep safer from the pilgrimage hordes who would want to lick his socks and bath in his Godlight presence.
How could I have been such a fool? To EVER question my glorious government's truthful story of the boogymen who clearly want to slit my throat. Oh the shame of my ways... to have forsaken my great protector, the Glorious, Holy and unfailing United States Government. To have disgraced the memory of the crushed innocents of 9/11, and the tearful images of brave heros brought to me by ABC,NBC,CBS, and FOX.
I repent. I beg you Mr. Wieck, to forgive my dissent. I should NEVER have questioned ANYONE about something we all saw on TeeVee, and know for fact, that Islam-o-killers DO want to suck my blood, eat my babies and rape my wife on their alter to Satan.
cough.
You're a blind, deaf and dumb twit... Ronald Wieck.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Time To Wake Up
Dick Cheney is neither an angel nor a devil. He's merely a politician with whose policies you happen to disagree. Your abysmal ignorance of the ideology animating the jihadists is inexcusable. These people are not the passive, faceless puppets of your fantasy world. They are steeped in the teachings of Sayyid Qutb. They want to recover a purer Islam and unite the Middle East under its banner. Leave your cocoon and learn something.
Your absurd fairy tale about Americans attacking themselves in order to fight two costly wars that have brought us no benefits is idiotic. Stop railing against imaginary comic book villains and deal with reality. Will you still be screaming when the next administration takes office? When do the fools who rant that America wants to steal Arab oil ever acknowledge that America has NEVER stolen any Arab oil and obviously has no intention of doing so?
You act as though we have a totalitarian government that releases propaganda that no one questions. Are you mad? The Bush-hating media has undermined this administration's foreign policy at every stage. Are you the only living soul who hasn't noticed? Your nonexistent jihadists celebrate their triumph on 9/11/01 over and over, as they launch attacks from Indonesia to the Netherlands. How out of touch with reality can a person be? Perhaps Theo van Gogh was murdered by the CIA?
DAMN!
I thought i was done on this topic.......Ron us truthers don't want back and forth childlike arguements.
Please look deeper into what we have.I am sure that you have'nt.
And to all us truthers.......Remember no mattter what. We respect all veiws,unlike FOX.
Please try to be civil.Remember the truth is on our side.
Incorrect
Sorry, there is absolutely zero truth on your side. The conspiracist position is a tissue of lies. In five years of screaming, the tinfoil-hatters have produced bogus science, distorted quotes, fabrications, and outright falsehoods. There is not a shred of evidence supporting these insane and pernicious fantasies.
This Wieck post is a prime example
of why he is no different than Bert, Ernie, Grover and our miscellaneous anons. He just happens to use his real name, but he isn't worth wasting time on any more than they are.
Dear cassiea:
Please see below for my long-winded response to both your sound observation, and to the likes of Wieck's muppets.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Erin, excellent post. Thank
Erin, excellent post. Thank you.
Some people, like Mr. Wieck, will continue to live in ignorance to what is really going on in the world we live in. They will always believe what they are spoonfed with because they fail to see the real issues behind current world issues and current world events. They see everything as "politics" when we all know that it's way beyond anything "ploitical".
Mr. Wieck shows his ignorance everytime he says things like:
"Your hopelessly strained Nazi analogies are extremely silly"
It is dangerous to not see how close and accurate they are.
"With a few exceptions, most tinfoil-hatters are hate-America leftists who, if their throats were being cut by Islamic terrorists, would die thinking it was Dick Cheney in disguise."
It's pointless to even use that type of situation as a hypothetical because most of us aren't afraid of the "big bad scary Al Qaeda monster".
"Dick Cheney is neither an angel nor a devil. He's merely a politician with whose policies you happen to disagree."
It's not just about a "politicians policies". We are able to look beyond that and look at him as a person because that's what he is. Either way you look at him, he is an evil, crooked and thoughtless man. It's not about his politics. It's about his history, the things he has been ivloved in, the things he is involved in, has been involved in and the decisions that he has made.
"Your absurd fairy tale about Americans attacking themselves in order to fight two costly wars that have brought us no benefits is idiotic."
"Stop railing against imaginary comic book villains and deal with reality."
"Will you still be screaming when the next administration takes office?"
Yes, because we know that it doesn't matter who is elected. These things will continue. You need try to understand that this isn't about right VS left because none of it matters. These people will continue to carry out their agendas, no matter what "party" is in control.
"You act as though we have a totalitarian government that releases propaganda that no one questions."
I would say that's a very accurate statement. Except that we know it's not "everyone". It's more like "almost everyone". Ask yourself why the most important issues always seem to be the least discussed in the mainstream media.
"The Bush-hating media has undermined this administration's foreign policy at every stage. "
And the most ignorant and absurd comment from Mr. Wieck is,
"Your absurd fairy tale about Americans attacking themselves in order to fight two costly wars that have brought us no benefits is idiotic."
Mr. Wieck, do you not know that we have attacked ourselves, more than once, to get us into war before? No benefits, huh? Yet another ingnorant statement. Do you know how much money is made in the selling of arms? Do you know how much money companies like Haliburton are making from this war? Do you know that permanent military bases are being set up in the middle east? Along with ex-military personel, Bush has recently said it himself, this is about oil. This is now common knowledge, even to those in the media. To think there have been no benefits, in the eyes of our "leaders", is idiotic.
My apologies, WISDOM and Mr. Wieck
... for being so crude.
I will only comment on this from yours above, Ronald; "He's merely a politician with whose policies you happen to disagree." Yes, Sir. I do very much disagree with both the stated direction and the actions of Mr. Cheney.
However, call this politics or not, but what he is doing endangers me, my family, my friends, and the future of ALL children... by orders of magnitude, beyond that which any band of fanatical "haters" could ever do. He becomes, and with the help of a great many people just like you Mr. Wieck, you have helped to create a Hate which is focused, funded, and structured with MIC actuaries, mercenary mad men, and a sympathetic media. "Sympathetic", if I recall correctly... is your expertise, Mr. Wieck.
Truth be told... if you, Mr. Wieck, are sympathetic to what has supplanted The Constitution and Bill of Rights... then you Sir, Mr. Wieck... define the term "America hater", and traitor to a capital T.
You can swing with them all.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Fables
You comfort yourself with childish fables, while determined enemies of the West battle on. Tell us what rights we have lost in the last six years. In reality, we have lost none. What are the parallels between America and Nazi Germany? In reality, there are none.
Your Halliburton fantasies cannot explain why America fought two wars. A single company earns profits, while billions are spent manintaining an army overseas--and the Democrats don't care?
Grow up.
9/11 TRUTH WILL WIN MR. WIECK
You cannot win, Mr. Wieck. You can try with your petty arguments, but you know deep down that at an absolute bare minimun, elements within our federal government Let It Happen On Purpose. However, as most of you believe, they Made It Happen On Purpose.
Mr. Wieck, would you conduct another interview on your show, this time with Alex Jones or Mike Berger or David Ray Griffin vs You or Mark Roberts or whomever else is willing?
Why do you suppose that as of November 11, 2006, the 9/11 Commissioners, NIST scientists, and other key personnel responsible for the government’s account of what happened in the United States on September 11, 2001 all refuse to participate in the National 9/11 Debate?
War Games? Disgustingly gross negligence of multibillion dollar Defense system? Warnings from 14 other countries? NO accountability?
You are the strawman, Mr. Wieck. You make the petty arguments. You will lose. We will win. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB and you know it. You remind me of Mancow. Maybe he would agree to be on your show. He did a segment on Fox "moderating" a debate, like you did. Google it. I'm sure you'd like it, even though it made people who believe the official story look uninformed and in denial.
Happy to Debate
I have invited Webster Tarpley and Kevin Barrett, but there has been no response as yet. I'd be happy to debate, with or without Mark, any of the prominent conspiracists.
It's funny that you mention Mancow. I watched his special on Fox with considerable disappointment and frustration. He allowed Kevin Smith to make the totally false claim that the conspiracists have science on their side. But that happens to be the reason I'm not a conspiracist: Absolutely no real science lends any credence to these farfetched claims that members of the government orchestrated attacks on American institutions. Apart from the complete lack of evidence. the whole concept is deeply flawed, wildly implausible, and poorly thought out. It makes no sense. The coercive muscle to keep hundreds , if not thousands, of co-conspirators quiet could not possibly exist.
Anyway, Mancow's producer, in reply to a rather critical e-mail I sent, invited me to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories on the radio for a half-hour. There are no stations in NYC that carry Mancow, so most of the people I know didn't get to hear me. But I did receive a call from an old friend who now lives in Tennessee. We had lost touch, but the show reunited us. Nice, huh?
Erin
You lost me on that one? Iam not standing up for Ronald,quite the opposite.Although Mr.Wieck was obviously biased,he did'nt go the Orielly way.
Yes i commend Jason & Dylan for all there efforts,and their movie loose change,but they did'nt set Ron straight.The point that i try to make is all the childlike name calling from both sides.We are better than that.
My thought throughout these blogs was that Mr
Wieck must have looked a little deeper into some of the things we had on this site,and it raised an eyebrow.
From reading the latter posts i find i am wrong.
So in that respect i could go on to bash & insult him,but i won't.
I feel sorry for those who refuse to look ,and don't want to believe it.
In early posts i did bash him a little,and after reading the recent post i won't apologize.
There is simply to much to ignore in our truth movement.Only a fool would refuse to at the very least question it.
So Ron at least for now we live in a country of free speech,and the freedom to believe what we want.
Iam sorry Erin,and to the rest of us truthers for seeming like i was defending Ron.I thought for once it might be cool to try to rationally point out things he obviously has'nt looked at,and to set an example in a web page for those that are blind to the truth.Allowing them to look at BOTH sides ,and decide for themselves.
WISDOM: I did not see you as defending Mr. Wieck.
I was only apologizing to you and our fairer kindred, for my crude language.
I never thought you were defending him, but that you wanted to remind us of a higher commitment to civil discourse. I am trying my best... but Mr. Wieck is a very curious one indeed, and tries my patients in all things. THAT is why I choose to engage him in words, even if my clumsiness with the practice of rhetoric descends me to curse him.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
I disagree Casseia:
The logic of these supporters of this War on Terror (to defeat the "Haters" both foreign and domestic) is flawed in two distinct and astonishingly tragic ways. Before I go into that, I will offer how I do agree with your suggestion that arguing with the Sesame Street Gang is a large time hog, yet Weick and Roberts at least have enough balls to drop a little skin in the game by using some form of corporeal identity. The anon with neither face nor name identity, calling us "traitors, America-haters and terror sympathizers"... is a laughably coward little shit. At least Weick and Roberts are slumming it in person with us down here in the rabble. If they want to stick it out to the end, at least we won't be shadow boxing.
(Ronald: Since you have repeatedly suggested that I must hate America, and that you think I'm somehow providing aid and comfort to an enemy by spreading its propaganda, know that I inversely think the very same of you. Yes the stakes are quite high, either you're found right in which case you should get on the phone RIGHT NOW and call DHS and report my "America Hatting, Terrorist Aiding" name to them. I fucking mean it! Because know this Sir, if I'm shown to be right, what people will do to you and your skin will reflect the savage injustice you yourself have sown. Me personally, I'd just knock your fucking block in... but that's because I'm a gentleman... no telling what kind of sick and twisted shit your inevitable turncoat merc-terror thugs (your Frankenstine) will do to the real propagandists such as yourself. Best of luck, dumb ass.)
Two fold tragedy of the road chosen by believers in The Swarthy West-ending Night Stalking Hordes of Allah, and a War To End Terror:
First, let's try really hard to pretend that the Popular Narrative is true. Dr. Osama Evil along with his Allah Troops, cracked open 50 trillion Fortune Co. Fortune Cookies until they found just the right combination of luck, lucky words, lucky advice and the winning lotto of how to thread the needle's eye of American air-defense to strike a life threatening blow to the American Ship of State. (I want to puke, just pretending like this... but let's keep trying). By succeeding with his 3 out of four targets of choice or opportunity, somehow this is conflated by the likes of Mr. Weick as representative of a clear and overwhelming threat to our way of life. "Just look at what They (Allah's Swarthy Hater Troops) were able to do, if we don't commit fully unquestioning unified America to back, fund, support in every word and deed our commitment to War against this Terror... we will perish from this Earth."
I can't even begin to comment on how dangerously naïve people are who voice such idiotic calculous... but it becomes imperative that we (those few who seem to have some grasp of the both the actual horrors of war in ANY terms, and the simple fact that "terror" is a tool which cares not who handles it, and thus can not be consider the sole realm of only Terrorists, let alone Swarthy Terrorists.)... it becomes our imperative to try to the very last, with all our mental might, with every ounce of our persuasion and plea... for Mr. Weick to reconsider his misunderstanding. Should We fail, and Mr. Weick's logic of the West-Hater is proven correct... he will still have a rude awakening when this Terror War (the one he supports by failing to oppose in toto) actually, fully, and completely comes home to roost and evolves into the War between American brothers. It will be the War between otherwise family and friends, as we try to one up one another to prove how asymmetrical war and flat out terror can be made into a horror show beyond Mr. Weicks apparent comprehension... and this is as incontestable as the waxing and waning of the moon. What IS contestable, that which Mr. Weick seems to avoid or willfully remain ignorant of, is first the illogic of shadow boxing a phantom and largely ethereal manifestation of "the Terrorist" (you simply can not know who is and who isn't) until a crime is committed. (too bad you seem to care so little about crime investigation techniques honed over centuries, which have a far better batting average at apprehending and proving the actual culprits of a crime vs. the guaranteed looser tactics of booms and guns. Your stated commitment to logic is belly-ache laughable.)
Now if Mr. Weick was as committed to logic as he insists that he is, he may wish to view into the future some of the possible down sides to his Great War to Defend the Western Way of Life. While he dreams of our heroic triumph over terror (a fool's errand), he may realize what kind of psychosis can be let out of the bag 'in the homeland' as people fight an un-winnable contest of Gun vs. Fear... as the vastly more realistic doom of the West runs its final course... the fiat bill, the fiat economy, and the fiat patriot fighting to the death for a fiat profit model of the fiat person-hood of the multi-national corporation protected by its fiat answerability. Ya Mr. Weick... keep sympathizing for your Great War of Distraction, you ninny-minded fool.
Inducing terror in the hearts and minds of the comfortable, will ALWAYS remain the final weapon of last resort to those who are dehumanized for either there dizzy fanatical beliefs OR their actual inequitable lot in life. Physically attacking "the fanatic" with booms and guns will always prove you tragically impotent at achieving your stated goals, as you multiply your "enemy" like tossing mutant Gremlins into Lake Erie. Please get a fucking clue.
Now, as you forcefully and malignantly multiply this enemy of yours (terror and fear), as if you're force feeding it nuclear waste like some absurd Saturday afternoon horror flick (which ironically you actually are)... the enemy LITERALLY grows stronger just as you grown weaker. By ignoring the tangible and terrestrial inequities of both remote and local people from all around the globe, which ARE fightable and fixable conditions, you again empower "the enemy" by orders of magnitude as you lower yourself down from the moral high ground (such as jurist prudence, habeas corpus, and the repudiation of torture, ALWAYS!) at the same time proving in spades your indifference to inequity in all its forms but particularly those formed between actual human beings vs. a malevolent sophistry for the insulated position of corporate person-hood.
Really Mr. Weick, if I'm talking past you, over your head, or in any manner you fell should be attempted or made more clear and simple... I will try. But this is NOT a simple and easy to grasp situation for our current human condition... but if you could at least back off from your fixation and non sequitur of "fighting terror by making war on some form of religion"... things would be a lot easier to work through.
If you could take just a moment to reconsider the prescription you support, for the sake of reconsidering the diagnosis, at the chance you may actually see the actual and tangible environment of BOTH patient and doctor... maybe just maybe you will achieve a vantage point and perspective vastly more superior to the hole of POSSIBLE ignorance you currently seem to have dropped into.
I beg you to do this, to reconsider your premiss, additional facts, and a calculus a bit more enlightened than "they hate us".
Duh, of course "they hate us"... because far too many people like you seem to think inequity is a self inflicted wound of the poor, and that A War can be successfully waged against something which EVEN YOU Mr. Weick... may find to be your last and only resort... when your own world view comes crashing down. Will you be so strong in character, a champion of logic and committed to civil debate when that time comes... I do wonder.... I do so wonder.
erin
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Many Words
You use many words to demonstrate that your conspiracy theories are based on absolutely nothing but your desire to make America appear the villain.
The jihadists are proud of their victory. You pretend that they are not independent actors, but nothing could be further from the truth. They may lack our sophisticated technology, but they are well-financed, they train hard, and they are utterly resolute. Animated by Sayyid Qutb's scathing critique of "moderate" Islam, Islamic radicals seek to purify their faith, to eradicate any Western influence. They are implacable enemies.
You proceed from the premise that America's motives are always malign, ignoring the manifest reality that there are people out there who want to hurt us badly. The vacuum you imagine we live in is imaginary.
Let me repeat what I've been saying: No evidence of any kind supports your conspiracy theories.
Call your fucking DHS, you raging dip shit.
You have absolutely proven that the America in your mind (one completely incapable of introspection), is nothing I wish to defend. In fact, I am the sworn enemy of such a state as this. Call your Justice Department, call your FBI, call your Department of Homeland Security, call any fucking person you're convinced should now that I will see you hang, before I accept the terms of the War you wish me to wage.
I am convinced YOU are the traitor. I am convinced YOU are the America Hater. I am convinced that your kind of thinking reflects a clear and present danger to me far more threatening than the fanaticism "Animated by Sayyid Qutb's". I am convinced that unless our nation, society, culture, The American Way (whatever you want to call it) reconsiders its place in the world... that it dooms me and my future in far more concrete ways than the diffuse and gossamer manifestations of this chimera you clearly state your willingness to commit blood and treasure to fight.
Your and idiot of tragic proportions which forces me to focus upon YOU far more than the foreign Enemy you insist is more real than economic, political, and social inequity.
Am I supposed to hunt you down, and silence YOU because I see you as the greater threat? If I am convinced that your domestic logic represent the greater threat, a threat greater than fanatical radicals building upon the momentum and simpathy created by your retarded logic... and that YOU feed their fanaticism by the trainload.... what dear Sir am I to conclude?
You really should call your great protector, this state craft which you support, and I oppose. You should call and report me, Erin S. Myers... report me as the self professed enemy of your brand of thinking, and that of this current state of affairs.... because I just might be forced to Preemptively Defend myself. Preempt the State, which I am ever more convince not only fails to serve me , but actually targets me and my family because We the People are being cheated by this impossible protection racket that you dream can provide for your safety.
Call them, Mr Wieck... call them and get me off the street... because I may have to rip your stupid throat out before you can build this psychosis any further. Anticipatory Self Defense works both ways, and thus moronic because it has no logic nor any promise of peace for the human condition.
You God awful dumb fuck you!
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Erin
Far be it from me to tell you to rein in any rant you feel is useful (especially since your rants are entertaining and the REAL patriotism you express is moving and infectious.) I would simply point out that like Bert, Ernie, et al, Wieck will respond to your thoughtfulness with thoughtlessness -- really mindlessness -- which probably has something to do with the diseased member planted to the hilt in his cerebrum.
Sincerely, a local representative of "our fairer kindred" ;)
Empty Rhetoric
More empty rhetoric to disguise the painfully obvious FACT that your absurd fantasy lacks even a shred of evidence to support it. Face it: when America became the victim of an unprovoked attack, your world was rocked.
Tantrum
Your mindless sputtering temper tantrum merely confirms my strong suspicions about many tinfoil-hatters. You are long on abuse, but painfully short on facts and logic. You pretend that America threatens you by defending itself against the jihadists. Are you a follower of radical Islam planning to murder thousands of us? I doubt that strongly. It's far more likely that you're a typical loony-leftist who despises the society that enables him to live a comfortable life. I will never comprehend such foolish people. What are some of the concrete ways America "dooms" you? I don't believe any of your silly nonsense, but I do take you at your word that you are the sworn enemy of the greatest nation in the world, which is what I stated in the first place. If you think that makes ME a traitor, your dispute is with the dictionary, not me.
Ron
You must mean "No confession of any kind supports
your truth movement"
To this we can all agree.
Looks like you pissed Erin off.So much for being civil.Looks like your meat.
Tricks are for Kids
I'm afraid word games won't do the trick. In five years of screaming, the fantasy movement has produced bogus science, distorted quotes, fabrications, and outright lies--nothing else. There is not a shred of evidence supporting these pernicious and absurd myths.
ERIN
I truely believe in being civil,but then again respect is something earned ,not given.
So to all of us on this web page.Truthers ,and visitors please forgive me.
Ron your a FUCKING IDIOT! Who knows if
all your buttkissing will pay off.You might get a guest apperance on FOX,or better yet Dick might invite you over for the holidays.
Yes the offical fantasy has produced all of that.
You dumb fucker.I wonder why Jason,and Dylan agreed to go on such a low budget show hosted by a moron.
We should have known it would be a waist of time.
Games is right.....The truth is comming
I love you too, cassiea:
I do think I understand the uphill push, if not wholly quixotic attempts, to see Mr. Wieck and his street gang of puppets with stuffed heads, turn on their heals and voice a reconsideration of their position. It is probably quite similar to their own desires to see us do exactly that, turn on our heals and join into their version of The Good Fight. This is called parity in conviction, and the most repugnant aspect of the psy-op being conducted on American soil. It almost guarantees a fight here at home, with nothing "Civil" about it... by condemning We the People to an asymmetric war FOR civilization.
Can you get that through your dim skull, Mr. Wieck?
Appallingly, the domestic Mr. Wiecks seem incapable of grasping hold this aspect of psychologic mind-fuckery they carry and disseminate. And History repeats.
They more doom freedom and liberty by begging for a police state to bring under control that which they NEVER can; Freewill and the unquenchable human desire for happiness and tranquility. What he and his kind refuse to consider (ironically when they are so quick to point out the "intractable" malevolence of "Others"), is they themselves are just as susceptible to bad thinking, and that they are not impervious to manipulation. That 'NO WAY would any person or group of people here in America manipulate their thinking so as to support, rather than oppose, subtle underlayments of unjust profit and egocentric hegemony.' cough
They are frightened to the core by any thoughts such as REAL domestic traitors. Yes, an enemy vastly more insidious, threatening and America-ending, than ANY foe outside the gates which truly come to do us harm. Yes, there are always such 'haters' beyond our shores (too bad Mr. Wieck is so myopic to refuse consideration of the machinations aggravating these 'haters'), however should he insist upon his apparent course, he seems mindless to the loss of tranquility now almost banging on his front door. "Swarthy Killers for Allah", haven't a spark of the conviction which burns in ALL people for liberty and justice.
Their position (the domestic Wiecks) believe with all their heart, that "War can bring Terrorists to their knees." At least that's what they keep saying over and over and over again.
We believe Nothing, I mean nothing could be more foolish and wrong headed. Backing away from our position is impossible, just as they profess that backing away from their position is equally impossible. Hummmm.... what to do?
If "War is the only way to make peace" (as they say), than the peace makers are actually forced to take up arms in defense. Utter madness, and the mad maddeningly march on in complete oblivion to their own madness.
Mr. Wieck, I promise that I can make War better than you. How could I know such a thing? Because I know that only chicken hawks like you and George wave the flag of war. Those of us who have ANY clue, know what kind of ugliness you represent, and regardless my stated insistence to peaceful means... if you push me to the end... I will lash back at you with untold, bare fisted animalistic rage if you give me no choice. An otherwise peace-nick by choice, is that last person on Earth you want to make into a warrior.
Be mindful of the Dogs of War you so carelessly taunt and poke with sticks. That's why I call you a dumb ass, Mr. Wieck.
Freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A constitution of law, not men. A Bill of inalienable human rights. A deep-felt reverence for jurist prudence, habeas corpus, and respect for ALL human dignity no matter how repugnant the accused OR convicted...
These are your birth rights to uphold and defend against all enemies, Mr. Wieck. Abandonment of these principals, truly defines you as a Mother-Fucker. For you are fucking the mother of your freedom, liberty, republic and/or ANY democracy you may wish to fantasize.
Please state for the record, that which drives and motivates you. Please state for the record, the principals upon which you stand no matter the trials and tribulations which they may produce. Please state for the record, that which you are willing to truly fight and die for... even if you yourself are too limp to carry your own damnable sword.
At least I'll know where you stand... and whether I should fight to defend you, just ignore your impotent ignorance... or to place you in my sights should such an unfortunate time arrive.
Thanks bunches...
erin
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Tired Refrain, Still Nonsense
You can babble your idiocy until the cows come home. The 9/11 fantasy movement has not produced a shred of evidence in five years of deranged shrieking--NOTHING! You are incapable of pointing out a single error in the NIST report. You can find no flaws in the Protec paper. You can't refute anything in the Popular Mechanics book. You can't find errors on 911myths.com or debunking911.com. You can't refute any of Dr. Greening's technical papers. There are still no structural engineers, avionics techs, or demolition experts who take your nonsense seriously.
You are people who have a deep animosity toward America and are willing to make yourselves look ridiculous promoting these absurd, preposterous conspiracy theories. You can't even invent a remotely plausible motive for bringing down WTC 7 (obviously, it doesn't fit in with any conceivable scheme hatched by the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy). Do you really plan to scream yourselves blue in the face until the next administration takes office?
Get a life.
For all your rhetoric, Mr. Wieck,
you have so far declined to comment on the factual response I gave you back on page 6 of this thread concerning the NIST report.
Cheers,
B
ps 911myths.com and the "Greening" papers are a bit of a joke, in a scientific sense, if I may take the liberty to say so.
pps Did you know that the first Bazant&Zhou paper (which the NIST report references) was accepted by the journal on Sept. 13th 2001? Less than two days after 9/11... i wonder how much critical thought went into writing that article....
Excellent points. I noticed
Excellent points.
I noticed he did not respond to your questions. I wasn't going to point out anything because he had already ignored them.
Greening is No Joke
Dr. Frank Greening is a distinguished molecular chemist, His papers are very far from being jokes. If you are unable to comprehend them, the problem is yours, not his. That doesn't change the validity of his findings. He refuted Jim Hoffman's bogus science very convincingly and he was the first to show the flaws in Steven Jones's erroneous thesis.
Let's look at 911myths.com and the Greening papers, shall we?
Anyone interested in the WTC demolitions might happen to click on the menu item "WTC (demolition)" on the left side of the screen. A list of objections then appears, and we click on the first option, called "Progressive collapse doesn’t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident". Let's see what it has to say about this, seems interesting....
Alas, once we actually read the article, it starts of with "L'Ambiance Plaza was planned to be a sixteen-story building with thirteen apartment levels topping three parking levels" Still in construction, "At the time of collapse, the building was a little more than halfway completed. In the west tower, the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor slab package was parked in stage IV directly under the twelfth floor and roof package. The shear walls were about five levels below the lifted slabs (Cuoco, 1992). The workmen were tack welding wedges under the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor package to temporarily hold them into position when they heard a loud metallic sound followed by rumbling. " In this temporary and relatively precarious construction phase, "Kenneth Shepard, an ironworker who was installing wedges at the time, looked up to see the slab over him "cracking like ice breaking." Suddenly, the slab fell on to the slab below it, which was unable to support this added weight and in turn fell. The entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only 2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height. " So let's see, a 16 story building, not even half-finished, collapsed due to instabilities in the relatively delicate construction phase it was in. Clicking on the link to the source of this information, we arrive at a web page were we can read "An unusually prompt legal settlement prematurely ended all investigations of the collapse. Consequently, the exact cause of the collapse has never been established. The building had a number of deficiencies; any one of which could have triggered the collapse. The question, however, remains which one of these failed first, triggering the rest of the failures and ultimately total collapse" Iin other words, this example is completely useless since the building was still in consruction and presented numerous deficiencies. Deficient temporary connections and instabilities contributed to the sudden collapse. None of this circumstances were present in the WTC1&2 collapses. One interesting thing to note, however, is that the picture of this collapesed building in the 911myths.com website shows a rather large pile of rubble, with the floors visibly stacked on top of each other. There has been no pulverisation of concrete such as that which occured on 9/11. This is one of the most salient features of a controlled demolition where high-powered explosives are used.
Another example of an unfinished bulding follows, the Bailey's Crossroads disaster at Fairfax County, Va. It is ironic that this is used as an example that is somehow relevant to the WTC collapse since, clicking on the source of this information we find, reading down the article "In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35.
Several investigations came to the same conclusion for the Bailey's accident. The concrete had simply not attained sufficient strength to carry the construction loads that were placed on it. The shear strength of the slabs would have been acceptable if the concrete had reached its specified capacity before the shoring was removed. "
Again, none of these things are in the slightest bit relevant. It is interesting that no picture is supplied for this disaster, but there is indeed a picture if we go to the original article. The article in the 911myths.com site makes us imagine that it somehow ended up like the WTC site, but this is what happened:
At Bailey’s Crossroads, concrete was placed on the 24th floor while shoring was prematurely removed from the 22nd, causing a progressive collapse down to the ground level.
So nothing like WTC. No pulverisation of concrete, no global collapse, no hot spots in basements, etc...
There follows another example of finished building this time, a nice refreshing change, a 6-storey building - the Lian Yak building - which according to the source, however, " root and main cause of the collapse lay in the grossly inadequate design " Again, none of this is even remotely relevant to the WTC, which were incredibly robust biuldings.
Again, this article is totally irrelevant to the WTC disaster, the only interesting features being that there is no pulverisation of concrete but indeed a large debris pile when building collapse due to gravity assisted reasons.
I'm afraid I don't have time to comment on the Greening papers at the moment, but that will be done too. Just to say that, according to your logic, they aren't relevant anyways since the guy is not a structural engineer... right?
Hope this helps you and others to see past these flimsy "debunking" efforts that try to obscure the fact that there are many things wrong with the official account. We should be questioning authority, Mr. Wieck, unless you want to be on a fast track to tyranny.
Cheers,
B
Hello dick head:
What you still seem incapable of understanding, is that the onus of "producing evidence", IS NOT upon the shoulders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The responsibility which the The 9/11 Truth Movement has plenty of shoulders to bare, IS THE DEMAND that the U.S. Government and its lackeys have the indisputable obligation of producing the evidence which clearly and beyond reasonable (and probable if you and Hayden-The-Fuck can remember that one) doubt proves the case of a strictly foreign attack.
Until such time, you and this government stink to low hell, of covering SOMETHING up. And that something looks an awful lot like Treason and Inside Job... because otherwise the exculpatory evidence would have been produced.
So far and to your great credit, you and the government who's cock you loving suck, HAVE ONLY SUCCEEDED in temporarily persuading the TeeVee dulled senses of unthinking people. You have NOT succeeded in making the same case to people who still remember what a lasting conviction demands of the accuser.
You must make your case... NOT the people who, oh shit imagine that, are prone to great speculation when shit just doesn't add up. You've got a mountain of bull-crap dodge and weave sideshow hand-waving at the ready, the moment some person asks... "even IF foreign swarthy freedom haters were able to make it through... wtf happened to building 7?"
"Why the fuck wouldn't George and Dick testify under oath, even after delaying and hamstringing an investigation into the greatest crime ever committed on American soil?"
"How do tin-darts and lamp oil cause multimillion ton structures to fall symmetrically from asymmetric damage?"
"How did Red Baron Hani hit lamp poles AND the Pentagon when the NTSB released a Flight Data recording which indicates neither was possible... at least according to the NTSBs own release?"
This can go on... and on... and on... But you see Mr. Butt, it IS NOT MY PLACE to answer such questions, it the governments'. (do you remember that last part of the First Amendment? Probably not... that's most likely the source of your confusion.)
This Government, with the indispensable aid of Mass Mainstream Media, and the likes of jackass motherfuckers like you, have TOLD we the people that scary freedom haters perpetrated the attack of 9/11. Yet you fail to prove it. Instead, you pretend as if it is We, the people who must prove something else if we don't want to accept the convoluted, mathematically impossible, wholly illogical, and laughably silly explanation provided to-date by your media and government.
You are suffering from abject poverty of thought, dear dumbass.
It is impossible to shift the responsibility of burden of proof away from the accuser, onto the shoulders of those who laugh at the accusers bullshit story. All We the People have to say is "Bull shit, Tell us another one!" We can do this until the cows come home, and the next day, and the day after that.
I suggest that the only way you will succeed in shutting me up... is to come clean with a plausible story, and yes, a story which adequately explains and reveals who exactly was jerking off in the watch tower. Now after we get past that, sorry to say, you'll still have to PRODUCE evidence which actually implicates those who YOU Mr. Wieck, continue to accuse of America-hating and thus worthy of our Great U.S. Army's ability to crush baby skulls.
Get on it, dick head. Get to work producing that evidence, with a trustworthy chain of custody (damn that one will suck for you), because short of that.... you'll have to lock me up in one of those Traitor Camps for steadfastly doubting your honesty.
I do feel sorry for you, for you've painted yourself into a corner which only has two ways out; prove your case, or kill me trying to escape... you fucking traitor.
p.s.: Scream your own mother-fucking self apoplectic... my breathing is quite calm, if I do say so myself.
p.p.s.: And you can also STFU about me and my relationship to country and constitution. Who's the one dumbfounded by the concept of habeas corpus, dumb ass?
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Erin, thank you. Thank you
Erin, thank you. Thank you for everything you have expressed in your posts on this page.
Mr. Wieck, "we" will be "screaming" until the end of time because the global "elite" will rule this world until there is nothing left of this world for them to destroy, but they will fall. A day WILL come when they will fall face down on their knees. What a glorious day that will be.
Mr. Wieck, you, sir, are a traitor. I refrained from calling you a traitor before because I do not throw that word around loosely.
You say that Erin's reason for feeling and thinking the way that he does must be because "his world was rocked by the attacks". I can't speak for him. I can only speak for myself. I am a human being who tries to imagine what people are feeling and thinking. Seeing 3,000 people die on live TV tore me up beyond belief, but it wasn't because I thought terrorists were attacking us. It wasn't because I was scared or afraid. It was because more than 3,000 people had just lost someone they loved and I watched it happen on TV. It was because 3,000 people had just experienced extreme panic, fear, pain and despair. As a 21 year old, I promised myself that I will fight for those people for the rest of my life because they could not. I promised myself that I will fight against tyranny and terror, not for myself, but for my fellow man. My "world" was not "rocked".
My world was rocked when I began to research the events of 9/11 and other "events" throughout history. I began to see that almost everything that I had been taught was a lie. "History" was a lie.
My world was "rocked" when I learned the real history of America and the real history behind Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty, the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, Cubana Flight 455, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. My world was rocked when I learned the facts...when I read the documents, when I read the reports, when I heard the accounts of those who were there and those who were involved, when I researched day after day after day for months upon months. My world wasn't "rocked" by "Islamic terrorists". It was "rocked" when I learned that some kind of "power" based somewhere inside elements of the US government were behind past most, if not all, of these "terrorist attacks".
"Are you a follower of radical Islam planning to murder thousands of us? I doubt that strongly. It's far more likely that you're a typical loony-leftist who despises the society that enables him to live a comfortable life. I will never comprehend such foolish people. What are some of the concrete ways America "dooms" you?"
It is very clear that you refuse to face what this is going on in this country and the rest of the world. Once again, I can't speak for Erin, but I can for myself. Our country has been destroyed by our own "elected" officials. It's not just Bush or Clinton or Bush Sr. or any certain "elected" official.
The Constitutuion and the Bill of Rights were destroyed with the passing of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act (both passed bacause of the on the "war on terror"). That is what dooms us. The destruction of everything this country was founded upon and everything that our forefathers fought for has been destroyed. Was it all for nothing? Did we give up our liberty for what some feel is "safety"? In the words of the great Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The difference between me and you, Mr. Wieck, is that I wouldn't want to take away your liberty.
Rock On
So, your world was rocked when you learned a lot of silly conspiracy theories that consist entirely of falsehoods and fabrications? Why not try reading a real book?
Sure, the Constitution was "destroyed" by the Patriot Act. Some day, you may get around to telling us what rights we've lost. There aren't any, you know.
Of course you throw around the word "traitor" loosely. All fools do exactly that. You live in a cocoon, wrapped up in your ignorance and inability to think. You imagine that reality will never intrude on your fantasy world. Perhaps it won't. Perhaps the brave men and women fighting to keep us safe and free will prevent your bubble from ever bursting.
The American government has been behind the jihadist attacks all over the globe, from Indonesia to Africa, from Spain to the Netherlands? Blind stupidity is not a suit of armor.
You can't possibly be that
You can't possibly be that ignorant to this world.
The things I listed are not "conspiracy theories". They are facts. You have proven yourself to be completely out of touch with reality.
"Why not try reading a real book?"
Are you one of those people who thinks that because you read something on the internet it is not real?
The things I listed are facts. It will be the known history of the United States whether they put it in the history books or not. You can find these things in books. So, does that mean that you automatically believe them now? I would guess not.
You live in a cocoon, wrapped up in your ignorance and inability to think. You imagine that reality will never intrude on your fantasy world. Perhaps it won't. No, that's not me quoting you.
"Perhaps the brave men and women fighting to keep us safe and free will prevent your bubble from ever bursting."
"Fighting to keep us safe". Is that the safety from "liberating Iraq"? That doesn't even make sense. Is that to keep us safe from WMD's? Oh wait, it is now on record, that was a lie. So, it must be because Saddam had something to do with Bin Laden and 9/11. Oh wait, it is now on record, that was a lie. So, what else is left? Hmm...can you think of anything? I can. It's called "oil".
So, who's the one living in a bubble. We are in a war...a war, man. Do you get that? Do you understand that? A war...for what? Well, the first two things we were told have proven to be lies. The president himself has been caught lying. I've watched him lie with my own eyes. He used to change his story from month to month and he still does.
So, who's the the one who is wrapped up in ignorance with the inability to think? I can't believe how you call everything a conspiracy theory.
Merry Christmas and God bless.
Altough we
have to speculate why building#7 was brought down,we don't have to come up with some lame bullshit as to HOW it was brought down.
9/11 TRUTH WILL WIN MR. WIECK
I applaude you soley for forcing 9/11 Truthers to be more critical of the movement. You like to throw the words "conspiracy theorists" around a lot. I'm sure you realize that you are a conspiracy theorist as well because the official fairy tale is a "conspiracy theory". Saying "conspiracy theorists" helps validate your ignorance in an attempt to label the 9/11 Truth Movement. You seem to be an intellectual guy who happens to still have faith that our government wasn't involved with 9/11.
You've obviously pissed off a lot of people on this blog. Personally, I don't believe that you Really think that our government wasn't involved whatsoever. There must be some doubt of the official fairy tale in your mind. Why do you suppose it's taken NIST well over 5 years to "figure out" what happened to buiding 7? Along with most of the official fairy tale and the Iraq war, do you suppose its because they come to conclusions first and then put together information to support those conclusions second?
Do you believe that the wargames on 9/11 helped facilitate the "response" like Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers said to Cynthia McKinney? Sounds like a great cover to me.
Do you believe there has been a cover-up, to any degree?
Can anyone answer my questions about Steven Jones? Why did he resign from the Scholars? Does he still stand behind his 9/11 related work? Will he still debate in the National 9/11 Debate?
Reasonable Questions
Unlike some of the people here, you maintain a civil tone. The ones who put on the loudest show are frauds. They know that I know that they know they're lying (I sound like Ralph Kramden).
Of course I don't think the government was involved. The whole idea is completely insane. We suffered a devastating defeat that our enemies are still crowing about.
Jones is a puzzle. Dr. Frank Greening asked Jones to perform a series of experiments that would settle the issues he's raised definitively. Jones appears unwilling. I tend to doubt that he will subject his discredited theories to scrutiny in an honest debate. Like all charlatans, he is most comfortable preaching to the choir.
9/11 TRUTH WILL WIN, MR. WIECK
Ah. You tend to stay focused on the discrepencies in some of the science, particularly surrounding the building collapses. You did a good job keeping Bermas and Avery focused mainly on admitted, misguided statements made in LC. Folks, this was done by design.
Did you contact every single person that has ever worked in controlled demolition? Did you record any of those conversations? Why won't any of the invited government scientists and experts agree to debate at the National 9/11 Debate?
Here's another reasonable question: Why do you suppose most of the evidence from Ground Zero was removed and destroyed so quickly? Do you find it horrifying that the government lied to the American people about the severity of breathing in the dust at Ground Zero, now causing thousands to suffer?
Mr. Wieck, the 9/11 Truthers who get upset and engage in verbal assault exchanges (myself included at times but I'm learning) are not frauds, but they are in panic mode. They know 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, and they are panicing (and they think you are the real fraud here).
Hey Truthers, remember there is a difference between Panic and Urgency. Ken Jenkins speaks of this subject very well. We're all in this together. Mr. Wieck may be in denial, but at least he's willing to debate and he's not as disgusting as Bill O'Reilly.
Mr. Wieck, you Know that the "argument" of "the whole idea is completely insane" is insane.
Break it down to the basics: Who benefits? Who has the power to cover it up?
The history of US government sponsered terror is overwhelming. I'd recommend Terror Storm by Alex Jones and What I've Learned About US Foreign Policy by Frank Dorrel (amazing).
Quit kidding yourself, please. We know that you know that we know that you know that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. It's OK to face hard truth, Mr. Wieck. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. You could make it your mantra...
Honest Debate
Honest debate is vital to a democracy, but most people don't have a taste for it. We live in a post-literate age, in an infantilized culture of short attention spans. Doing original research is extremely difficult. It requires expertise in a relevant field and the talent for separating the wheat from the chaff. Assimilating recently-produced information is less difficult, but it still requires the ability to process it-- the critical thinking skills necessary to determine who is a genuine authority and who is a charlatan.
I get the impression that many people here simply cannot accept the reality of an attack on this nation by a foreign foe. If your worldview demands that America be regarded as the fount of all evil in the world, that it requires constant condemnation, it can't be allowed to appear as the victim of an unprovoked attack. You "know" that 9/11 was an inside job because you want so desperately to believe it. You don't care that no evidence points in that direction. You are indifferent to the sheer implausibility of the whole concept. Above all, you are the deaf to the triumphant cries of our enemies who continue to proclaim their victory.
I should have made more explicit the distinction between the America-haters of the far left and the Government-haters of the far right. The two groups, however, share a belief in the malevolence of elected officials who have, somehow, established a private army to enforce criminal acts. That this army must be imaginary is a dose of reality too bitter to swallow.
NIST will not send a representative to the National Debate because, according to Mike Newman, "our job is to determine why buildings fall down." The NIST report speaks for itself. It is a scientific study, not a political tract. If you can find errors in it, by all means send them to NIST. Nobody has found errors, which should tell you something.
I'm not quite sure what I'm being criticized for in my focus on the Loose Change teams's "misguided" statements. Of course, Mark and I wanted to stress the inaccuracy of the film, its complete disregard for evidence, so to that extent our approach was "done by design." How could it be otherwise? The film purports to reveal truth and it supplies only falsehoods.
Incidentally, I neglected to recommend in one of my posts the other day 'The Liberty Incident,' by A. Jay Kristol . Published in 2002, it remains the definitive study of the 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S. Navy ship.
Help me out, Mr. Wieck:
For the sake of "civil" argument, let's agree for the moment that your house is actually on fire. Now, I'm trying to point out to you that your house is on fire, yet you for some reason don't seem to notice yourself, nor even seem to care "if that were true". At first, I think I'm just doing what any normal Good Sam would do, and maybe even say, "hey there Ronald, how's the wife and kids. By the way, is that a fire in the back I see, smell and hear?"
You look at me and say, "the kids are fine, but the wife won't stop nagging me about the heat. Can't seem to get her off my back. Oh well. Have a nice day, Erin."
I think to myself for a moment, 'well, maybe he really knows that his house is on fire, but being the grown man that he is... maybe I just have to leave him to his own devices. At least his wife seems to know something is up.'
"Well, sorry to hear that, Ronald. Umm, you have a nice day... ok? see ya around."
I walk back to my place, just a few blocks down... and take a seat on the porch to look back and watch how your house is continuing to burn. No, it's not a normal fire. Moves slowly, but damn sure... it really is a fire. But like in some strange dream, very few people seem to notice. However, the little old lady from across the street, she steps out and walks over to me and says, "Erin, did you notice that Ron's house is one fire?" I say, "Why yes I did, and I asked Ron if he noticed too. But now that you mention it, I better go and check again to see if he really knows."
Knock knock: "Hello, Ron. Don't mean to be a nag or anything, but did you actually notice that your house is on fire?"
"Erin, please. If MY house was on fire, don't you think I'm smart enough to notice for myself? Besides, if that were true, don't you think I would have seen it on the news? You know, fire trucks would have come, and police would have investigated, and the News would have done a great expose on how the fire started, who started it, how badly it burned everyone, where all it burned, when was it put out. Please, Erin, enough of this silliness. Why are you talking like a crazy person? Only crazy people talk about such things like "look.. look.. the house is on fire", when we all can see perfectly well that it's not. Use your head, stop this crazy conspiracy theory talk."
"Well Ron, in all due respect... I never said anything about a conspiracy... I asked if you knew that your house was on fire?"
"Erin, please stop with this insane talk of your conspiracy theory. Now I'm going back inside my house where it's peaceful and quite, I suggest you leave me alone now... otherwise I'm going to call the police and have them pick you up for threatening to burn down my house."
"Mr. Ron, I'm not threatening to burn your house down... it's already on fire. Now are you going to help me put it out before it spreads down the street and burns down my place, and the little old ladies place too?"
"Erin, I've already told you, if my house was on fire, I would know. Now since it is not but you keep talking about your conspiracy theory to burn it down... I can only assume that you're a paranoid, tin-foil hat wearing, America-hating kook. Now please stop this nonsense, before I call the cops."
"Ok, you ass-hole mother-fucking shit-scum piece of crap dumb-ass. Call the fucking cops, call the god-damn National Guard... you douche bag! Call the president of the united fucking states and tell him I think he should hang for treason... but besides that... your house is on fire."
"Erin, there you go again with these crazy conspiracies about how 'the President Of the United States is burning down my house'... now why would he do such a thing? You can't answer that, can you? You have absolutely no proof that The President of the United States of America wanted to nor tried to burn down my house. Why do you hate America so much?"
"Look fuck head, I'm really getting annoyed here. At first, I was just trying to help you out. But instead... you go off calling me all these names and accusing me of trying to make up some kind of "crazy conspiracy theory".
Now I don't really give a crap what you think of me anymore, Mr. Ron, but your frack'n house is on fire, Sir. It should be put out, before it spreads any further. If it's NOT put out, it will surly spread down the street, block to block, until enough people decide to ACKNOWLEDGE that that is actually, in fact, a darn real fire, Ass-hole!
So yes, if you must... please call the police and tell them that I, Erin S. Myers said 'I hate America, and therefor I'm going to burn down your house'... just so long as you get some fucking fire trucks here to help me put this damn fire out, ass-hole."
"Erin, have you read the report by Dr. Frank Greening? It's really great stuff, he talks about how aluminum will incandesce at its melting point in the presence of Super Duper Hot Jet Fuel and the raging inferno fires caused by office equipment and supplies. Did you read it, Erin? Erin, why won't you answer me this simple question... why would The President want to burn down my house. You can't answer that one, can you? You don't have any proof or evidence from a single engineer, architect, aviation tech, or government whistle-blower... to back up your claim that my house is on fire... why do you persist with these silly and puerile conspirinoid tin-hat kookyness? Why do you hate America? Erin.... Erin.... ?"
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Very nice analogy.
I would perhaps tweak it just a bit. It's actually an assisted-living residence for the cognitively impaired. Don't waste *too* much time arguing with the residents -- just make sure they're out of the way and get the fire put out.
This is a gem of a post...
This is a gem of a post... Great analogy...
When??????
It's been over five years.What,are they turning it into a career?
Blind faith in poor leaders ,is not patriotic.
I've read ALL of their side.That is why it is so easy to see it's bullshit.
Then Point Out the Errors
If it's easy to show where the real scientists are going wrong, do what no fantasist has done: point out some errors in the NIST report, the Protec paper, the Popular Mechanics book, Dr. Greening's papers, or on debunking911.com, 911mythscom. You can't advance your case by complaining that the evidence is inconvenient to your politics. We already know that.
If my house is on fire, you are doing me a favor by alerting me. If you are waking me up in the middle of the night to tell me about a nonexistent fire, you're annoying me. Where's the fire. Show us something.
Mr. Wieck, it seems your
Mr. Wieck, it seems your only job here is to appear intellectual and focus soley on the NIST report. I wish there could be a debate between scientists, engineers, and the like, but the ones who support the official fairy tale refuse.
You only focuse on disputable particulars of some of the science of some of the physical evidence. You continue to ignore all the other questions posed by myself and others. You won't touch any of the other evidence, this is your method of debate. I would love to see you debate Alex Jones..
I am pointing this out to expose your methodology of intellectual rhetoric followed by focusing on disputable particulars while ignoring the real questions the whole time. You will lose in the end and realize how blind you were.
Don't continue to be a traitor to the people of this country. I invite you to open your eyes. It's easier than living a lie.
This last post was sent by
This last post was sent by me. Before I finished editing it, I accidentally hit return and sent it.
NORAD standout? War games? Fore-knowledge? Sickening negligance on so many levels? NO accountability? Norman Minetta's testimony? Money ties to ISI? Al-CIA-da history? Bin-Laden? Massive cover-up?
Even if the jihadists you speak of are still celebrating their "attack on our freedom", perhaps it's because of the US wars of agression against Afghanistan and Iraq, among several other crimes against humanity.
At a bare minimum, these jihadists had support from the Military Industrial Intelligence Complex. It's obvious. The PNAC documents and the CFR called for it, and then it facilitated it, with the help of the jihadists you speak of, aka the patsies.
Quit clinging to the refuted and disputed NIST report.
Stop fooling yourself and face reality, sir.
Nothing but Canards
Your post contains nothing but canards. Saying that the NIST report is refuted because you fervently wish it could be refuted doesn't change reality. The NIST report has not been refuted; none of its conclusions have been significantly challenged by anyone. It remains a fact that not a single demolition specialist believes that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.
Norman Mineta's testimony is another myth. His timeline was off by more than twenty minutes, something the 9/11 Commission determined by comparing his sequence of events with everyone else's. It turned out that everyone involved was describing the same events, but Mineta's version had them happening roughly a half-hour earlier.
The PNAC documents were not clandestine communiques; they were public papers.
LIve Free or Die
So, I'll ask you again, did you ask every single controlled demolition expert? I'm guessing not.
You continue to stay focused on the NIST report. This must be your only hope to continue your side of the debate. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan refuted and disputed the report, as well as others.
In regards to Norman Minetta, I wish we could have Cheney and Bush testify under oath in front of a grand jury to be seen by the public, but they seem to be above the law. Do you find it odd that they would only testify together, behind closed doors, with only one person taking notes which had to be cleared for authorization by their minions?
Too bad the 9/11 Commission didn't investigate Minetta's testimony. Do you think William Rodriguez's testimony was valid, even though it contradicts the official myth?
You say my post contained nothing but canards. What else then would you say is a canard? Do you think the wargames or fore-knowledge are canards? The ties between Bin Laden, Al-Queda and the CIA, are these canards? The discrepencies between reality and the 9/11 Commission report, are these canards too?
I never suggested that the PNAC documents were clandestine.
Conspiracy Theory Doesn't Add Up
What I'm attempting to communicate is that NOTHING points to a conspiracy orchestrated by our own government. Everything suggests that Islamic terrorists had trained diligently and succeeded in executing a plan they had been preparing for years.
The problem with the fantasy promoted by people here is that it consists of nothing but loose ends. The whole scheme is so preposterously convoluted: fly planes into buildings that have been wired with thousands of pounds of explosives; fire a missile into the Pentagon, then fly the plane that fired it into the hole; invent a fake bin Laden to deliver messages that rally his supporters and create problems for our troops; fail to the announce the death of the real bin Laden--who is already dead--when a huge election defeat is looming and a public relations shot in the arm is needed desperately; vanish four planes with all passengers onboard. The list goes on and on.
Just in case you missed it Mr. Wieck
Perhpas you are not intentionally ignoring my factual responses earlier in the thread, or morelikely have no reasonable response to them, in any case i thought it wise to remind you of them since you continue to propagate your blinkered diatribe unchecked.
I'm sorry to inform you that I have actually taken the time to read the NIST/FEMA reports and, perhaps unfortunately for you, am also educated in physics and maths to postgraduate level, so understood it as well.
The many thousands of pages do a geat job of detailing the inner structure of the WTC1&2, showing how it met all design and construction specifications (NIST NCSTAR 1-1) and in general praising its construction. Specific mention is made of the engineers taking into account the impact and ensuing damages caused by a Boeing 707 flying at 600mph (which actually has more kinetic enegry than the 757s of 9/11) in a study by the Port Authority in 1964 (see page 70).
In summary, the WTC1&2 are shown to have met all construction specifications and were in fact extremely robust buildings.
In the crucial chapter, NIST NCSTAR 1-6, which discusses structural fire response and probable collapse sequence of the WTC towers, is however were a lot of the disappointment, in a scientific sense, arises from.
They conducted a finite element analysis of the sequence of structural failure that led to the collapse initiation. At no point did they consider the manner of collapse, ie global, symmetrical collapse inducing pulverisation of concrete and pools of extremely hot molten metal in the basements. Furthermore, they have never released, to my knowledge, any of the models they used, which, under their own admission, had to be tweaked in order to induce failure of the structure. We would like to know how much they had to tweak their model. Another reason that raised a few eyebrows was the fact that the experiments they themselves performed on the floor assemblies did not show the behaviour, ie extreme sagging, that they had predicted, and did not fail the test in that sense.
On their contention that a lot of the fireproofing was dislodged, and that this somehow initiated failure after only 50 odd minutes, there are several things wrong with this picture. There is an analysis by Kevin Ryan that discusses this aspect of the report quite well.
So my question to you is: are you satisfied by a "scientific" report that a) has not released in public the finite element analysis and code used in modelling the collapse initiation, b) by its own admission had very few pieces of physical evidence on which to base their calculations, c) does not take into account both the manner and form of the collapse, AFTER initiation.
These three points you should find quite worrying Mr. Wieck.
and also
Anyone interested in the WTC demolitions might happen to go to 911myths.com and click on the menu item "WTC (demolition)" on the left side of the screen. A list of objections then appears, and we click on the first option, called "Progressive collapse doesn’t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident". Let's see what it has to say about this, seems interesting....
Alas, once we actually read the article, it starts of with "L'Ambiance Plaza was planned to be a sixteen-story building with thirteen apartment levels topping three parking levels" Still in construction, "At the time of collapse, the building was a little more than halfway completed. In the west tower, the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor slab package was parked in stage IV directly under the twelfth floor and roof package. The shear walls were about five levels below the lifted slabs (Cuoco, 1992). The workmen were tack welding wedges under the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor package to temporarily hold them into position when they heard a loud metallic sound followed by rumbling. " In this temporary and relatively precarious construction phase, "Kenneth Shepard, an ironworker who was installing wedges at the time, looked up to see the slab over him "cracking like ice breaking." Suddenly, the slab fell on to the slab below it, which was unable to support this added weight and in turn fell. The entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only 2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height. " So let's see, a 16 story building, not even half-finished, collapsed due to instabilities in the relatively delicate construction phase it was in. Clicking on the link to the source of this information, we arrive at a web page were we can read "An unusually prompt legal settlement prematurely ended all investigations of the collapse. Consequently, the exact cause of the collapse has never been established. The building had a number of deficiencies; any one of which could have triggered the collapse. The question, however, remains which one of these failed first, triggering the rest of the failures and ultimately total collapse" Iin other words, this example is completely useless since the building was still in consruction and presented numerous deficiencies. Deficient temporary connections and instabilities contributed to the sudden collapse. None of this circumstances were present in the WTC1&2 collapses. One interesting thing to note, however, is that the picture of this collapesed building in the 911myths.com website shows a rather large pile of rubble, with the floors visibly stacked on top of each other. There has been no pulverisation of concrete such as that which occured on 9/11. This is one of the most salient features of a controlled demolition where high-powered explosives are used.
Another example of an unfinished bulding follows, the Bailey's Crossroads disaster at Fairfax County, Va. It is ironic that this is used as an example that is somehow relevant to the WTC collapse since, clicking on the source of this information we find, reading down the article "In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35.
Several investigations came to the same conclusion for the Bailey's accident. The concrete had simply not attained sufficient strength to carry the construction loads that were placed on it. The shear strength of the slabs would have been acceptable if the concrete had reached its specified capacity before the shoring was removed. "
Again, none of these things are in the slightest bit relevant. It is interesting that no picture is supplied for this disaster, but there is indeed a picture if we go to the original article. The article in the 911myths.com site makes us imagine that it somehow ended up like the WTC site, but this is what happened:
At Bailey’s Crossroads, concrete was placed on the 24th floor while shoring was prematurely removed from the 22nd, causing a progressive collapse down to the ground level.
So nothing like WTC. No pulverisation of concrete, no global collapse, no hot spots in basements, etc...
There follows another example of finished building this time, a nice refreshing change, a 6-storey building - the Lian Yak building - which according to the source, however, " root and main cause of the collapse lay in the grossly inadequate design " Again, none of this is even remotely relevant to the WTC, which were incredibly robust biuldings.
Again, this article is totally irrelevant to the WTC disaster, the only interesting features being that there is no pulverisation of concrete but indeed a large debris pile when building collapse due to gravity assisted reasons.
I'm afraid I don't have time to comment on the Greening papers at the moment, but that will be done too. Just to say that, according to your logic, they aren't relevant anyways since the guy is not a structural engineer... right?
Hope this helps you and others to see past these flimsy "debunking" efforts that try to obscure the fact that there are many things wrong with the official account. We should be questioning authority, Mr. Wieck, unless you want to be on a fast track to tyranny.
Cheers and good luck to you Mr. Wieck,
B
Bellerophon, I'm afraid he doesn't like you.
I'm waiting for a response to any of your well-reasoned posts... but for some reason, none are forthcoming.
Dearest Mr Roberts and Mr. Wieck:
You can say to yourself and those you hope will listen, that "there exist no objections nor refutations" of the NIST category and other officially sanctioned reports such as those from FEMA, NTSB, FBI, FAA, and so forth... you can say that until you're blue in the face, but that does not mean there are no refutations and objections.
You can say that there are no objections by people who are actually "qualified", competent, capable and willing to question these reports and the general Official Narrative, but you will always be wrong on that assertion too.
You can overt your eyes and fail to acknowledge, that the U.S. dollar sits on the fence between hyper/inflation or/AND astonishing depression, but your failing does not make the situation "go away". You can ignore the alarmingly dangerous threat of domestic unrest, when you deny that our country (nation/culture/society/whatever) is as addicted to debt-dependent hyper-consumerism akin to that of a heroin addict. You can pretend (to your guaranteed demise) that our nation has retained the habits and skills necessary to satisfy just basic needs without great turmoil when the notes are called and we have to provide for our own infrastructures and the distribution chains we've grown so deeply accustomed.
The recipe for a kind of unrest not yet seen on this Earth, Mr. Wieck... has been slow roasting in the oven of our national hubris for quite some time.
That you blatantly ignore this situation by your fixation upon a tick-turd of a problem by comparison, The Swarthy Freedom Hate[r] problem... vs. culture/economic/infrastructure breakdown, completely baffles me. And yes, I do SUSPECT that the "Freedom Hater" is NOT so much opposed to the spirit of America expressing her liberty, but that they oppose our inequitable expressions of egocentric "Liberty", and our "Freedom" to lie with impunity about pretext for War... and far worse... our "Freedom" to lie a hideously unjust economic structure upon other people.
I am endless astonished at your pretense that Fanatical Radicals represent a danger to you and yours... above and beyond the level of concern you should have for your own house.... BURSTING INTO FLAMES.
If you're not actually cognizant of the psychological operation hard at work to maintain the Hollywood-like facade of the American Dream... cognizant like that of a willing shill or paid agent of the Lie Machine... if you really are a truth searching and patriotic fellow American... please just place upon the scales of importance, inevitable economic breakdown of an unsustainable fiat vs. Swarthy Freedom Haters skulking in the alleys.
It is possible that you have not looked nor considered the numerous unsustainable fiats our culture currently indulges. If you haven't even looked, I can then certainly understand (not that I approve nor agree) how you may have come to a seemingly logical conclusion that Islamic fundamentalism, combined with small time funding and intel to carryout highly disruptive behavior (to a precariously delicate economy)... might represent the greatist threat you've ever considered to-date. And in that, We also find that simply by failing to consider the delicate underpinnings and unjust machinations of American dominated Western economic structures... you may naturally conclude that Swarthy Boogymen are your greatest Fear, and somehow worthy of your War commitment.
But I contend, not so much that your logic is completely flawed (even if I still wouldn't agree with your prescription created in the vacuum concept of "Freedom Haters") so much as I feel your logic calculus is based on incomplete data. I contend much further, that the information you leave out of your calculus, is two fold denied you. First, the structures, media, and spheres of influence which DEPEND on the current paradigm, of which you are deeply dependent on have no interest is revealing itself to you, and thus secondly you likewise would have to have a deeply counter intuitive motivation to look for it, your self-denial. This all assumes that you ARE NOT working either for pay or for self-delusion... but that you simply haven't actually looked at the ground below your feet.
One is truly forgivable.... the other is not. I call you a traitor, in the off chance that you would be so offended so as to actually look around you... otherwise I dare you to call "The Authorities" and have ME taken into custody. I AM willing to bet that one of us is dangerously wrong headed, if you can cogently refute what I am saying here, you should call DHS and have me locked up. If you can't, I lovingly beg you to reconsider your position, and that which you have focused upon as the "seminal problem of our nation" (swarthy freedom haters) in favor of a vastly more holistic approach to America's relationship to the rest of the nation states, and the planet herself.
In the psychological approach, you are nearly guaranteed to not even want to look it this, let alone allow yourself to consider deeply disturbing and unsettling responsibilities you will have to take should you do so look and consider at-all probable... thus you enduring insistence of "impossible", that which is rather most probable.
Have you ever dealt personally with a heroin addict, Mr. Wieck? A person whom you otherwise love and appreciate, yet who lies to your face, steels your things, engages in fraud and banking confidence schemes... all to maintain an unsustainable way of life pumping her veins with instant Joy she didn't actually work for, and can't very well catch up to cover the costs? America, a place and idea I'm absolutely in love with, has non-the-less become addicted to a fraud-based economy which WORSE that just that alone, doesn't even represent a production economy anymore... this is a double recipe for assured disintegration. It doesn't matter which lie is confronted first, the ever growing web of fiscal slight of hand... or the fact that America will go through a VERY difficult time recovering the means and ability to sustain ANY level of reasonable self-sufficiency.
Now I would be one of the last people to say "America can't", I hold that she most certainly can relearn the skills and responsible behavior of self-sufficiency... but much like the recovering heroin addict, the withdrawal and recovery, is not just a quick overnight fix... the turmoil can go on for weeks, months... possible years... and sometimes the patient can't survive the rebirth. Guilt, shame, debt, and retaliation from those she's wronged will often haunt her the rest of her days. Redemption and recovery, full and complete.... is not an easy road to slog, Mr. Wieck.
Do you actually still deny that America has a deep problem with her inequitable economic structure? Do you maintain that trillions or even zillions of dollars blasted through the muzzles of tanks and dropped from stratospheric heights, could EVER bomb a lie INTO reality? IF, there is a very real and looming domestic rearrangement of western financial structures, will fighting an endless and asymmetric War against Terror EVER make the first problem go away? Your response on these particular questions will be most telling.... your failure to address these questions at all, will be even more telling.
Here's what I do consider the crux, listen closely whether you're simply another case of the well-intentioned-but-deceptively-misguided, or a shill type functionary of a gigantic mind game actually being perpetrated against our highly susceptible culture: Will people like you hold your ground and/or even grow your numbers, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to reconsider... OR, will you reconsider your measuring stick of "What's important and most worthy of attention and corrective action?"
The crux, I do so promise, is the parity in conviction between people saying what you say vs. the people saying what I say.... one of us will have to give up serious ground, or be destined to duke it out in the streets here in America.
I think I have looked FAR beyond the popular mainstream news coverage of Swarthy Freedom Haters... Thus I maintain that as real they may be, their numbers and ability to actually impact our lives, pales by comparison to the economic and social unrest brewing below the surface as We fixate on an impossibly difficult foe to actually defeat, and the ludicrous costs associated with trying to do so when that money and effort would be much better spent putting out the fire here at home... or saving and actually preparing to the rebuilding which will need to be done, no mater what.
Please, Mr. Wieck... look past my cursing profanity, bad writing, and/or my difficulty conveying that which I have tried to impress upon you as the greater challenge facing our society... please, Sir... I do NOT speak from a mindset of self hate or treachery to my country... but rather love for her as well as the help I need from people like you.
Take care.
Erin
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Wow, Erin--all good stuff.
Wow, Erin--all good stuff. How very erudite of you. But then I have my literary moments, too---then I usually post as "V".
As for Roberts and Wieck, think they scarpered. They're afraid of what it takes to build a better world.
Cheers for you post.
Impeachement. Accountability. A better world.
Excellent post, Erin. Thank
Excellent post, Erin. Thank you.
Thank you both Jenny and Jason:
Sorry about that smell of stale subway piss... Mr. Wieck needs a whore-bath.
Note to later visitors: I'm returning here with thanks, after-the-fact of finishing with Mr. Wieck below. He's quite the yank.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Attainable Goals
Erin, Mark doesn't read any of the comments posted here and I can't speak for him. I do appreciate your civil tone, however. I am willing to acknowledge that you love America and wish to improve it. Election campaigns used to be the time when honest debate on real issues was possible, but that is no longer the case. Relentless ad hominem attacks have replaced attempts to persuade voters of the correctness of one's views.
I happen to believe that the market system has been a remarkably successful engine for the production of wealth. The competitive nature of capitalism will always ensure that the higher-educated, more trained get to advance, while those lacking in marketable skills fall behind. Addressing the inequalities resulting from disparities in knowledge and ability is a philosophical as well as a political/economic question.
My purpose here is simply to stimulate debate on the validity of a belief system that defies reason and logic in ignoring a mountain of contradictory evidence. If you convince yourself that Utopia is attainable merely by removing the corrupt fools who stand in the way, you will have allowed yourself to be seduced by the same siren song that animated "reformers" over the past three hundred years; the zealots of the French Revolution, the Communists in Russia and China, the deranged followers of Pol Pot. Human misery on a cosmic scale has resulted from misguided attempts to establish heaven on earth.
Ron, you need to get on it and respond to Bellerophon
who has made several posts on this thread.
No Slight Intended
I'm not ignoring Bellerophon, but I thought I had responded. He tries to draw analogies between the WTC and buildings that a) were constructed differently and b) not hit by commercial airliners. Dr. Greening's papers address the issue of pulverization.
Quite an amusing insight Mr. Wieck
Firstly, thanks for responding.
I quote part of your reponse,
"He tries to draw analogies between the WTC and buildings that a) were constructed differently and b) not hit by commercial airliners."
Amusingly though, it is not I that is drawing these analogies but rather 911myths.com, the website to which you directed me to search for 911 truth.They contend that those examples of progressive collapses in buildings are somehow relevant to the WTC. It is nice to see that you and I both agree that this type of comparison is not sensible, and 911myths.com puts forth a rather weak argument.
Thank you for admitting the weakness of the 911myths.com article. I assure you that if you apply the same discerning logic to every other article in that website, you will get much closer to 911 truth.
Cheers,
B
ps Thank you casseia for your help ;)
I think you're being unfair,
I think you're being unfair, Bellerophon. The 911myths article states:
"This building had a very different design to the WTC, of course. And it was under construction, with the cause of collapse being primarily temporary issues:
But nonetheless this does show a structure can undergo progressive collapse, when it no longer has the capacity to support a given load. Which surely has at least some relevance to the topic here. And there are other examples of progressive collapses occurring during construction, again due to temporary issues, but illustrating the same point:"
No attempt is being made to suggest an exact analogy. The weakness you allege is hard to discern. Conspiracists often contend, falsely, that progressive collapse is an extraordinary phenomenon and the article simply shows that it isn't all that uncommon.
>Erin, Mark doesn't read any
>Erin, Mark doesn't read any of the comments posted here <
How the bloody hell you know that? Sounds a bit dodgy, that does! Can't imagine saying that about anyone I know with certainty---I don't know what they do on their own time when I'm not there. Unless you're saying you have psychic powers.
I could say casseia doesn't read any comments at JREF, but I don't KNOW. Not unless I've access to her computer somehow. That's bollocks, Mr. Wieck--at the very least, if you're such mates with Mark, you know he's a registered user at 911Blogger now.
And let me tell you, that knowledge is causing allot of questions in some quarters, it is!
That's insane!
You said: "Erin, Mark doesn't read any of the comments posted here "
Nobody would say this--except for Mark himself, which would be redundant. People don't speak like this, Mr. Wieck! Not unless you KNOW for a fact he's in a coma and not reading anything!
You didn't say you don't think he reads the comments here; you said "he doesn't". People don't talk this unless they do know--so HOW DO YOU KNOW HE'S NOT READING these comments, if you're not him? He tell you that in the pub? Email you? It's something...and how are you familiar with his behavior, anyway?
You know it sounds dodgy, so don't dodge.
Don't even try to shut me up, mate!
No sane person makes that wild of an assumtion! People don't talk like that!
And FYI, I owned a retail store for five years--had plenty of opportunity to know how all sorts of people talk. If it was a slip, you'd have come back and edited your post--without needing to be hounded.
Sorry, this is as strange as you "joining" us. I considered becoming a member of JREF, just to point out how they're driving away skeptics who don't toe the line, calling them troofers, even when they're not. But it's not worth my time-- "MaryBeth" is on her own.
So whys being here worth yours? And don't forget the Mark question...
You Pick Pointless Arguments
Sparks, I have attempted to maintain a civil tone with you, but you make it difficult.
That Mark is not reading these messages can be deduced from the demonstrable FACT that he isn't responding. This is not a difficult concept.
It is not strange that I visit fantasist sites. I prefer not to insulate myself by seeking only the company of people who agree with me. You are welcome to visit JREF and raise any issue that interests you. You will encounter highly intelligent, extremely well-informed people, some of them engineers and physicists, who will respond with data and real science.
Oh man, you gotta love it
when debunkers like Ron clearly but inadvertently demonstrate the logical skills common their ilk.
"That Mark is not reading these messages can be deduced from the demonstrable FACT that he isn't responding. This is not a difficult concept."
Demonstrably incorrect, as we can all testify from personal experience. And yes, that includes threads in which we might be personally addressed. Sorry.
This is Not Difficult
My logical skills are quite good. When Mark visits a blog, he responds to posts addressed to him.
Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Not true...
Bzzzzzzzzzzt!
Not true...
Puzzle
I'm wondering why you know so much more about Mark than I do. After all, I do know the guy. If he were here, he'd be responding. Why is this concept so difficult for you?
Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that you are presuming to correct me on a subject you know nothing about? Wait--what am I saying?
I think you're dizzy, Ronald:
I banged out several thousand more words for you, even ran it past some good friends who offered excellent edits and feedback... all for you... Was just about to add a little bit of assurance to you that I in fact DO NOT live in nor fantasize an impossible human utopia free from strife, suffering and even the occasional war. Yet I suspect you are incapable of imagining anyone confronting you on your curious avoidance to the subject, the subject of simply striving for a better world through honesty, integrity, investigation and due process, equity and respect for human dignity... as anything but a crank.
I see that in the time I've worked on considered, polite and civil challenges to your odd avoidance of truth, justice and that tired and warn refrain "the American way"... you spittle and prattle on in flaccid circles.
I've wasted my time, and their time... all for you...
"misguided attempts to establish heaven on earth." Hello McFuckhead! I'm not the one sucking the cock of a war machine which is claiming to attempt JUST THAT!
You couldn't even SUCK THE PENUTS OUT OF MY SHIT... YOU CROWN ROYAL FUCK!
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Yawn--Much Heat, No Light
Erin,
Your typical foul-mouthed drivel fails to impress, as usual. The fantasist movement has not produced a shred of evidence in five years for their pernicious and absurd views. You can continue to spew your bile, but keep in mind that you are a fact-free zone.
By the way, 'The Black Book of Communism,' written by several French socialists, calculates that the ideology of Marxism claimed over one hundred million lives in the Twentieth Century. The authors are liars, right?
Did the good guys win the Cold War?
Just curious.