Ghosts of the Firemen

David Dees is one of the most brilliant artists around. All rights are owned by and all and credit goes to DeesIllustration.com

As a personal side note, this may be my last post for a while. Keep on fighting the good fight for 9/11 truth and justice.

AttachmentSize
Fire.jpg233.64 KB

Great, emotion-stirring image.

Good luck wherever you are going, George. Make sure to check in when you get back.

Where are you going George?

Where are you going George?

Show "what a bunch of CT" by Anonymous (not verified)

Brilliant work. These

Brilliant work. These b*stards make me sick and their day will come. .

Ghosts of 9/11

Unfortunately they are immune to haunting because they have no souls. Same w/Lucky Larry.

Show "no, the lack of souls are" by Anonymous (not verified)

Hi, Ronnie! Impeachment.

Hi, Ronnie!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Open mic material

Actually, put these two anon posts together and imagine them spoken aloud as bad hipster coffeehouse poetry. Then laugh your head off.

I hope this guy posts some more.

Bad poetry is where it's at,

Bad poetry is where it's at, mate!

BTW--over at JREF Ronnie, aka pomeroo, is trying to workout some way to post this art on a first responder tribute site called something like "fallen brothers'" . The idea is to rile up firefighters against the "conspiracy liars". *yawn* Busy little bee, my Ronnie.

I would have contributed my .02, but I tried to register on the JREF and had my account removed, TWICE. Before I got a chance to post or anything! LOL!!! Think my rep preceeds me? Nothing to do with my new blog I hope...

Question: anything planned locally for the 11th?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Local action on the 11th

I don't think we're going to manage a group effort, although we do have one more meeting the night before. I'm planning to put something about the dust/FRs in my car window, at the very least.

I had a great time at Pioneer Courthouse Square this afternoon, incidentally, during the "die-in." I hung with a guy who had a cool 9/11 sign and a lot of people approached us with questions. I had a big stack of "911 Mysteries" to hand out, and I had a very interesting conversation with two guys, one from China and one from Mexico, who are here to do biology research. They wanted to know all about demonstrations in the US. I think the guy from China was pleased that we could just show up and hand out stuff and carry signs without being carted off to have our organs harvested, but the Mexican guy was comparing our action to demos in Mexico and was like, why don't you have 500,000 people and shut down the city center? Sorry, dude -- Portland ain't Oaxaca. Yet.

Show "Nothing New" by Ronald Wieck

You're right, Ronnie, I

You're right, Ronnie, I should show everyone the emails from Lisa Simpson:

>>>From : JREF Forum
Sent : 03 January 2007 02:47:15
To : [REDACTED]
Subject : Account removed at JREF Forum!

Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox

Dear Jenny Sparks,

*Automated response*

Unfortunately we couldn’t complete your registration at the JREF Forum. The
most likely reason is that some required information wasn’t entered during the
registration process (First name, Last name, Country and State if in the USA).

Please either try again to register or drop me an email and I will do my best to
sort out any problems you may be experiencing.

Regards

Lisa Simpson
lisa_simpson@randi.org<<<

And again:

>>>From : JREF Forum
Sent : 03 January 2007 14:17:56
To : [REDACTED]
Subject : Account removed at JREF Forum!

Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox

Dear Jenny Sparks,

*Automated response*

Unfortunately we couldn’t complete your registration at the JREF Forum. The
most likely reason is that some required information wasn’t entered during the
registration process (First name, Last name, Country and State if in the USA).

Please either try again to register or drop me an email and I will do my best to
sort out any problems you may be experiencing.

Regards

Lisa Simpson
lisa_simpson@randi.org<<<

..later on the same day. So, now you believe me, pom-pomeroo, let's have no gratuitous name calling--I KNOW Lisa wouldn't approve, Ronnie.

As for your plan to take the picture on tour, I stand corrected. Perhaps that was another JREF post in the same thread I was thinking about. I appologize if that mischaracterization upset you. But there is no need for name calling, now is there Ronnie? I should say, the artist will probably be grateful for the exposure!

Try not to work too hard, pom-pomeroo, and you'll avoid these unpleasant conversational slips!

Hugs and kisses!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "Unpleasant Logical Slips" by Ronald Wieck
Show "Don't flatter yourself Jenny" by resipsa

Well, that's a lovely little

Well, that's a lovely little theory of yours, "chum", but Lisa actually explained it, still later on the same day:

>>>From : Lisa Simpson
Sent : 04 January 2007 01:23:04
To : Jenny Sparks <[REDACTED]>
Subject : Re: Account removed

Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox
Are you on holiday somewhere? Because your IP address isn't resolving to your stated location.

Lisa S.

Jenny Sparks wrote:
I'm so sorry to cause a fuss, but both Chippy and pomeroo have so highly recomended JREF forum, I thought I'd give it a go.

Please tell me what additional information will help.

Thank you, madame, for your time.

Jenny.<<<

Now don't you look like a right GIT.

I don't really care whether they want to "silence me for my views"--but I do think it is HILARIOUS that a forum that makes SO much of the fact they are SO open and logical, and mock people for paranoia, has the strictest registration process I've run across. And while we've resolved it--Lisa says they had concerns about Nigerian emails--it hasn't been worth my time to try to register again.

Now be a rainbow, not a pain-bow.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "We Get the Idea" by Ronald Wieck

Now, Ronnie, be honest:

Now, Ronnie, be honest: being rejected TWICE, and then needing to exchange emails with the admin is NOT an easy sign up process! Ha,ha!

But we all know you're working very hard here, so, in the exhaustion, that probably slipped past you. Take a nap dear.

Hugs and kisses!

Show "Not Rocket Science" by Ronald Wieck

It is a valid email

It is a valid email address--that's how I knew I was rejected and how was Lisa able to contact me. It was all through the same email account....they email you when you're rejected...so it has to be a valid email address or it won't work...

Oh! Pom-pomeroo isn't much with the technical know how! Much like your friend, cliff-notes Mark! Maybe I should pass your statements along to Lisa? Does she know how you behave away from home? Perhaps I can have her explain this to you?

Hugs and kisses!

Show "Another Conspiracy" by Ronald Wieck

I've sent an email to Lisa

I've sent an email to Lisa Simpson, with a copy of your post expressing your concerns. Oh, and some other stuff about your behavior away from JREF--but you wouldn't be interested in that would you?

If you want me to post my email to Lisa here, just say so!

Hugs and kisses!

As Usual, No Point

Lisa Simpson doesn't know me from Adam and I don't know her from Eve. As usual, you have no point.

My "behavior" here consists of attempting to stimulate brain waves among people who are accustomed to substituting emotion for thought, people who shun real evidence and are wedded to baseless fabrications.

Instead of continuing to make a total jackass of yourself, why not emulate the many fantasists who post on JREF and see how much scrutiny your favorite myths can actually sustain?

We all figured out that your sign-up "difficulties" were either an indication of truly uncommon stupidity or another deception.

Ronnie, sometimes you just

Ronnie, sometimes you just have to admit you're wrong. Just say it:

"I was wrong, Jenny; I see your email is valid."

Because you were WRONG when you said my email was invalid. It's not a big deal--unless you keep denying you were wrong. Then it looks strange.

Lisa Simpson, the admin of JREF--who specifically does not approve of name-callling-- doesn't know you in any way what so ever? So, you're not pomeroo? Well, if you're not JREF I'm sure she'll mention it when I check my email--which is the same email I tried TWICE to register with and is valid email.

Hugs and kisses!

Time to Cut the Crap

Jenny, either you suffer from serious cognitive problems, you enjoying pretending to be crazy, or (my choice) you are serially deceptive. The regular posters at JREF who know more about their sign-up procedures than I do have suggested that the only conceivable problems you might be experiencing would involve failure to submit a valid e-mail address. One guy said he had some problems himself with, I believe, hotmail.

You are pretending, for the purpose of clouding the issue and manufacturing a bogus mystery, that I have an opinion on the validity of the e-mail address you submitted to JREF. It is impossible for me to have an opinion on such a technical matter. I do have an opinion on your honesty in recounting your alleged problems. Simply put, I think you're faking.

We all get the idea that you want to pretend that people have heard of you outside this blog and you are greatly feared by the rational community for your extraordinary ability to marshal evidence and craft incisive arguments. I must remind you that your delusional self-portrait is far from being realistic.

We see examples of your distinctive style in your most recent post. No, Lisa Simpson does not "know" me. Surely, records to which she has access indicate that I post at JREF as "pomeroo." Again, where can you be going?

My impression is that you're continually playing a weird sort of con game with people. The idea here, I'm guessing, is to insinuate that I have a relationship, the exact nature of which is purposely left vague, with a woman named Lisa Simpson who apparently serves as an administrator at JREF. The implication must be that I have influence over who gets to post there and who is forbidden. That we have been transported to a realm of pure fantasy is, of course, no obstacle to you. You will play this embarrassingly weak hand as far as it will take you and, undoubtedly, you will manage to confuse and con a few of the more obtuse rubes here.

It remains manifestly true that signing up to post at JREF is quite easy provided that you supply a valid e-mail address. If you have asked Lisa Simpson to help resolve your sign-up problems, we can only wonder why you have not yet dazzled all the science-and-math types there with your unique brilliance.

Ronnie, it's simple, dear:

Ronnie, it's simple, dear: you were wrong. My email address is valid. You were wrong.

So simple, yet you make it sound so complicated...

Hugs and kisses!

Minimalist Offering Reveals Truth

Jennie-poo, it's even simpler: You were caught lying.

No, I wasn't, pom-pomeroo:

No, I wasn't, pom-pomeroo: my email address IS valid. Just say it: you were wrong.

Show "Oh, We Believe You!" by Ronald Wieck

"Better still, show an

"Better still, show an e-mail that addresses your complaint--period."

I did. Several posts above. I didn't say it couldn't be resolved--I just said my account was removed both the times I tried to register, with my valid email address. YOU said the problem was an invalid email address--WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

So, you were wrong.

Hugs and kisses!

Mr. Furtive & Mr. Defensive

God knows they have reason to be....

I hope people hold this up at future public appearances by the Cheerleader-in-Chief and "Mr. 7 Deferments".

Now this is interesting........

Seeing as Abramoff owned SunCruz casinoe boats in which Atta and the boys liked to party....

White House pact cloaked visits amid scandal:

Accord with Secret Service locked up records during Abramoff imbroglio

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16491370/

Extremely poignant artwork! Very inspirational for us truthers

to keep up the good fight. I would like to see much more art like this.

BTW, I'll miss all of GeorgeWashington's excellent posting! I hope he returns very soon.

Show "dolts r us You guys are" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "Let's Ignore This" by Ronald Wieck

Ronald Weick needs to answer these 6 points

1. evaporated steel was reported in the new york times by Thomas Barnett, its in jones paper.

2. Wille rodriguiez and at least 20 others heard a big explosion in the basement BEFORE the plane impact.

3. Molten dripping steel, i love the way you dodged that. FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL. Please explain. Jones paper was peer reviewed.

4. Since NIST in there recently released FAQ says its basically a pile driver theory , how does the alleged pile driver turn to dust in midair, how can it crush the building if it turns into dust in midair? i love the way you ignored that.

5. Since no fire has ever caused a building to collapse, why did building 7 collapse? How did all the core and perimeter columns fail at the same time? Its going to be a tough one to answer BC even nist cant answer it. DR. Sunder from NIST in mar 2006.

NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

6. Plenty of experts agree with the CD theory. Two swiss structural engineers and an explosives expert jowenko say building 7 was a CD. Charles Pegelow a structural engineer agrees with the CD theory. Stephen jones a phd in Physics.............many more do, read the comment on Jones paper, structural engineers, civil engineers and a professor of Physics from MIT AGREE with him. THEY DO SO AND LEAVE ONLY THEIR FIRST NAMES BC OF PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO RIDICULE AN OPEN AND HONEST DEBATE. THERE WAS ONLY ONE GALILEO, LUCKILY MORE AND MORE EXPERTS ARE WAKING UP DESPITE THE RISKS TO THEIR CAREERS AND LIVES.

Show "Evidentiary Reasoning." by Ronald Wieck
Show "That's the type of response anyone should expect" by CB_Brooklyn

why dont you and ronald weick answer the points below

HAVE FUN, ILL BE WAITING IM UP FOR A WHILE ACTUALLY I JUST HAD SOME COFFEE

Credibility Absolute Zero: CB and Wieck

"Wieck and the 9/11 Truthlings deserve each other"

What are you saying CB? You mean you aren't part of the truth movement? Is this an actual moment of honesty?  I'm speechless.

You and Wieck have about the same level of intellectual honesty.  Let me put it this way—your credibility approaches 'absolute' zero. 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

thanks for dodging everything Mr. Weick.

hey thanks for attempting to answer the questions, even though you evaded practically everything.

1. Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.) hahaha Dr. Barnett is a fire expert who anaylzed the steel, i guess he mistook it for milk!

2. They were 20 witnesses at least that you ignore, including Willie Rodriguiez and Felipe David who skin was ripped off by a huge explosion in the basement before the impact. Seismic records didnt pick up the 93 bombing either. But youre such a comprehensive investigator, im sure youll just ignore these witnesses.

3. "Fire melts steel" yeah thats why Thomas eagar clearly states that fires dont melt steel, hence molten pools of steel by firefighters are very indicitave of super high temps only available via explosives.

4. What your doing is giving a pre collapse theory, i know you couldnt answer how the part above the impact zone turned into dust because the Nist report ignores all the data from that point on. Instead of making ad hominem attacks at DR. Jones, why dont you reply to this paragraph from his paper..................................

We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team admits they did. But why did they follow such a non-scientific procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)

I CANT WAIT TO HEAR YOURE ANSWER, REMEMBER NO PERSONAL ATTACKS MR. WEICK, ITS A TEXTBOOK FALLACY I LEARNED AS AN UNDERGRAD.

5 .After 5 years Dr. Sunder from NIST says about building 7, "I dont Know" thats hilarious. NO BUILDING THATS DISPLAYED ALL THE TRAITS OF A CONTROLLED DEMOLTION HAS NOT BEEN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. EXPLOSIVES CAN EASILY EXPLAIN BUILDING 7, 2 SWISS ENGINEERS AND JOWENKO AGREE WITH IT.

Youll know say " no demolition experts agree" well first its not an honest academic environment. Any expert that comes forward will beattacked like DR. jones by people like you. STEPHEN JONES RECIEVED EMAILS BEFORE HIS PAPER FROM THE DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY THREATNING HIM NOT TO RELEASE IT. There is every incentive to support the official lie and huge consquences of losing your job, losing govt contracts and recieving death threats by speaking the truth. The disparity of "experts" is because of this, not because of facts. What kind of demoltion company or expert would have the courage to speak under these circumstances and risk their buisness and careers? Luckily DR. jones is our modern day Galileo, which must be true because you cant answer his claim in the paragraph above, and continually make ad hominem attacks.

Experts said the world was flat, smoking was good for you and that Saddam was throwing babies out of incubators( where were the experts in international relations to debunk this in 1990?) to get us involved in a 15 year war. Experts are notoriuosly pro establishment, i suggest you read 1984 and learn about thought control and groupthink. You dont need to be a part of a conspiracy to lie, its called THOUGHT CONTROL.

6. Im going to bed soon, nighty night, yes theyre typos but im tired.

Show "Invincible Ignorance" by Ronald Wieck

Breaking the laws of physics just for fun

Quoting the NIST FAQ I see.

That has to be one of the most hilarious documents ever posted on the internet.

I quote:

"6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

…the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation."

NIST just said that it's possible to break the laws of physics.  An object can crush itself at the same speed as if you dropped it through thin air!

See Conservation of Momentum.

How much were they paid to utter this nonsense? 

Top 10 reasons the NIST report is absurd:

#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.2

#9. This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.3

#8. They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.4

#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.5

#6. Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.6

#5. Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.7

#4. They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.8

#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.9

#2. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theorythey do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began!10

NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?

#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”!11

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Undaunted Ignoramus" by Ronald Wieck

NIST in their own words

"Aren't the impacts of the planes any sort of factor?"

According to NIST: NO

“The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”

What about the building designers? 

"[Building designer John Skilling states that] our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there."

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Frank A. Demartini, World Trade Center Building designer

Make up your mind.  Are you a hard-line NIST supporter or do you think their report has problems?  If you choose the first option don’t go around people calling people ignorant if you don't even know NIST’s actual position that you are supporting let alone the counter argument.

You don’t want to make us think that you are an ad-hominem “ignoramus” do you?

Here is the evidence of molten steel that you claim doesn’t exist.  Perhaps you were “ignorant” of this evidence:

FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.” 1

 “The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."2  WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”  

Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:

“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:

Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

More evidence of molten steel:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html


“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality.

Show "Get Real" by Ronald Wieck

And remember these were

And remember these were LARGE PLANES, that, once high-jacked, turned into Delayed Resonance Impact Projectiles,(DRIPs), capable of destroying buildings many times their size, even long after the DRIPs themselves had crashed.

We are very fourtunate that the whole of Manhattan was not demolished that day!

Show "Condition Unchanged" by Ronald Wieck

still working on the cover up

and still sounding shrill and desperate — and there remains: "Angel is next," security stripping: no fighter coverage for 30 min. in the school and 45 min. in Air Force One and then that whole mess about Able Danger — all points to a coup d'état — which you can't explain — you are failing and it is coming unravelled — time for a new assignment — time to move on

Get Reality

FEMA's report (reporting molten steel that you said doesn't exist) doesn't count because NIST wrote a report later?

What about the New York Times article mentioning the molten steel—I guess that doesn't count either. Or all of the other reports, and eye-witness statements? Or Rudy Giuliani who claimed to see molten steel? Or the NASA photographs showing the high temperatures.

The Molten Steel doesn’t exist because NIST ignored it?

Someone is living in their own reality.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

FYI, Frank DiMartini was not

FYI, Frank DiMartini was not an engineer or building designer. He was the site manager.

Frank DiMartini

Sorry, my mistake.

WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

dear loser

Your a frustrated loser thats probably an alcoholic thats never gotten laid by a hot girl.

THe concrete on the top 30 floors turned to dust. Greening is a phd in physical chemistry,. Greening "accounts" for the bottom 70 floors turning to dust, not the part above the impact zone, loser. Thats what DR. JOnes pointed out but you were to stupid to answer, because you dont have an answer. You conveiently ignore witnesses of molten metal. I clearly stated above why most experts support the official story but your to dumb and drunk to mount a response. youre a washed up wannabe Robert Novak thats never made it big. Gordon Ross debunked greening bogus calculations, Dr. greening wants us to beileve that 80 floors of cold undamaged steel offered no more resistance than air.

IS THERE ANY OBJECT IN THE WORLD THAT WOULD OFFER NO RESISTENCE THAN AIR EVEN THOUGH IT OUTWEIGHED THE OBJECT THAT WAS DOING THE CRUSHING BY TEN TIMES? YOU IDIOT.

YOU MUST BOW TO STEPHEN JONES HE IS OUR GALILEO, GET EDUCATED GO TO COLLEGE LOSER.

Show "Yeah, You're a "Winner"" by Ronald Wieck

Ronny Wick said-"I've gotten

Ronny Wick said-"I've gotten laid by more beautiful women than you've spoken to, kid."

yes, because in my experience a man who needs to state that usually really has been laid by a lot of beautiful women. no sarcasm here, nope. and by the way ronny, im not gay, but if i was, based on how you looked in that Loose Change debate i would think you were so attractive with the whole bulging eye, sweaty, pudgy, bad hair style thing. really, no sarcasm here.

Show "Aha!" by Ronald Wieck

uh oh, Ronny is mad!!!!

jeeeez ronny, i didnt mean to hurt your feelings. so touchy. oh well, at least you didnt argue with the bad hair comment. it looked like your eyes were fighting to get out of your head in that Loose Change debate,haha. sweaty douchebag. and ronny, you've "gotten laid by beautiful women" like you said right? why the need to defend yourself against some nobody like me? am i hitting too close to home ronny?

Ronys condition

"I've gotten laid by more beautiful women than you've spoken to, kid."

People, i really think we need to take this quote from our dear Rony very serious. I have a feeling it might teach us something about the medical condition he is in (i mean, even more than what Dr. Casseia already diagnosed, though sure not contradictory to those findings), and therefore might enable us to respond more thoughtful and sensible to his incredibly sacrificing work towards the absolute truth.

i think we should throw that

i think we should throw that comment in his pudgy, sweaty face every time he posts here. what a fool for feeliing the need to post that,haha.

Too Obtuse

Of course the point escapes you because you're a sub-moron, but some of us noticed that as it is demonstrably true that I do not have a bulging eye, nor do I sweat on camera, you must be a liar about other things as well. You see (actually, you don't), the reason most adults don't tell obvious lies (adults tend to tell lies that are harder to prove) is that gaining a reputation as a liar discredits THEM, not the targets of their dishonesty.

so i lied about you having

so i lied about you having bulging eyes(i didnt, watch the tape) and i lied about you having sweaty disgusting features?(again, no lie, check the tape) and that means everything i say is a lie? nice logic. did i touch a nerve ronny? how are those "beautiful women" that you told us you sleep with all the time doing? lucky girls.............BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Dr Jones paper; Junk, no

Dr Jones paper; Junk, no peer review, just a nut case CT review by idiots who believe CT nut case ideas.

These are the facts; too bad CTers open minds have led to no brains.

The terrible lack of facts makes you CT guys nut cases.

Thermite is not used for CD. Never has, but it could if it was cheaper. but alas, it is not, it takes a special device to cut steel in the veritcal with thermite, and those devices would have been spotted, some of the would be the proof to put away you CT guys bad guys.

But in the real world you guys come up short on facts and short on brains. Everything you say is crap.

CT guys wake up and research you idiot leaders who tell lies. It could take an extra hour to find the truth, but you may feel better when you stop the total disrespect of other by forging your ideas on lies.

Would you mind keeping your style consistent?

I like the short, truncated phrases more than paragraphs (even short ones.) I'm going to be saving your posts to use as an open mic pseudo-hipster poetry act. Thanks.

Show "Suggestion" by Ronald Wieck

9/11 Blogger Coffee Hour

[Pungent smoke hangs low in the air, RT under a single dim spotlight, cigarette hanging from corner of mouth, softly tapping out the rhythm on a djembe crafted from a single piece of unfinished wood. As his hands paw the goatskin, he oozes the following classic, modified in Ronnie's honor...]

Some people say >bum bum boom bum boom<
Ronnie's posts are garbage. >bum boom boom bum<
But garbage has some meat in it >boom boom<
Ronnie's posts are trash. >bum<

[inhales, exhales, falls off stage]

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

pulverization too obvious

why bother — Angel is next — security stripped — over an hour — nation under attack — POTUS hung out — threatened — surrenders — takes orders to this day — molten steel or no molten steel — Agnel is next —won't go away

when you need a poet, ask a real poet
at your service - jtg

Rony in action

its great fun to "debunk" the same thing over and over again, isnt it, Rony:)

Debunkers

I'm reading everything in this blog for many months now and I just can't
understand those "debunkers"... What are their goals? Are they working
for Satan Bush? They surely must have a secret agenda...
some influences they obey.

There's something I notice too:
those people are the only one to use insults in their messages.
Attacking the people they are adressing just like if they
could'nt help it : "I beter impress those conspiracy fools with my
disrespectful attitude" - cause in fact I don't have arguments good
enought to sustain my opinions.

Another thing: we have wonderful internet sites to help us finding the
truth about 911 but are those debunkers have their own sites?
I would like to see that.

what are their goals/purpose?

i ask them that all of the time and have yet to get a real answer from any of them. the non-answers say a lot though.

Show "Good Arguments" by Ronald Wieck

Right you are, Ronnie! We

Right you are, Ronnie! We need "good arguments", not this insistant denial debate! That's why I've started my own blog CrossBall, "where we let you decide what we've decided".

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5427

People NEED help deciding, don't you think?

Well, I think you'll like it! And you can bring your friend--assuming he's well enough to travel. ACI--it's a devistating disease, isn't it?

Hugs and kisses!

Show "Hopeless" by Ronald Wieck

Hopeless

Looks like someone's got a crush on Jenny.

I'm blushing!

I'm blushing!

"Discussion" style

Could this really be the same person who interviewed the Loose Change guys a while ago?

http://www.911researchers.com/node/19?q=node/19

Show "Same Question" by Ronald Wieck

Here's my blog

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Please read it through first before commenting.

And here's a blog by another Finn:

http://911inmemoriam.blogspot.com/

Alas, the latter has not been translated into English, but it deals e.g. with the Mineta testimony, which the 9/11 Commission completely disregarded (Mineta said he saw Cheney in the command bunker discussing what to do with the plane approaching the Pentagon, while the Commission said Cheney didn't arrive at the bunker until after the Pentagon had been hit) -- in the same way in which it disregarded the FAA memo or Richard Clarke's book which supported Mineta's testimony.

Perhaps I'll add this...

... picture of the Al-Nasr skyscraper fire to my blog's section dealing with other skyscraper fires:

http://img457.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5an702950vh.jpg

This fire seems to have received very little publicity, considering how... all-engulfing it was.

And that was the second time the building was on fire:

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=88799&...

Show "Time to Bury This Canard" by Ronald Wieck

C'mon

Ronald,

Mineta clearly testified that he saw and heard Cheney talking about what to do with the plane when it was *approaching* the Pentagon ("The plane is 30 miles out... the plane is 20 miles out... The plane is 10 miles out... Do the orders still stand?").

How could Cheney have talked about what the do with the plane approaching the Pentagon *after* the Pentagon had already been hit a good while ago?

The Commission also ignored the FAA memo stating that Flight 77 was being tracked while it was approaching its target -- as you also very well know.

The relevant parts of Mineta's testimony, by the way, are the only excerpts that have been cut from the Commission's video archive, as I have verified myself. Why do you think they would do that?

I'm still waiting for your comments on the evidence presented in my WTC 7 blog -- including conclusions by structural design professors.

Come on Mr. Weak!

Come on Mr. Weak! Spit it out! Tell us. We know you're working for the government. Tell me now what is your ultimate goal? To have a promotion in the defense
departement or... maybe your young brother is in Irak.
Well, well,...

Show "Boring" by Ronald Wieck

ah,

so what drives you to do boring stuff like recycle nonsense with us all the time?

as usual ronny has no answer

as usual ronny has no answer for that one because he would have to admit how pathetic and empty his life is. hes clearly obsessed with us.

Show "Plugged Ears" by Ronald Wieck

HE WORKS HARD!!!!

Perhaps you could tell us more about your research, Ronnie! And what project you're working on. It's got to be gripping stuff! The rest of these twoofers--of which I was regretably one--have no idea how hard you work at bringing the Truth to this blog.

This man worked at least 8 hours straight one day, posting on greenback's blog! You don't get that kind of dedication every day, me buckaroos!

So spill Ronnie! It's got to be exciting, this new project! Or, if your feeling shy just tell me about it in MY comments forum:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5427

Where I can guarentee you will get the recognition you deserve!

Hugs and kisses!

Show "No, I'll Do the Guaranteeing" by Ronald Wieck

Poor Ronnie, the strain of

Poor Ronnie, the strain of over work is finally showing. He even sounds frightened of posting in my comments forum--not like Ronnie at all! My Ronnie is afraid of nothing!

Take a break, love! Get some rest!

research? for what? what

research? for what? what kind of research demands that you act like a child and scream "FANTASIST" over and over? thats research? grow up old man. does your wife know you do this shit?

Wait a minute! WIFE? HE'S

Wait a minute! WIFE? HE'S GOT A WIFE?!?!

Ronnie, we need to TALK. NOW.

hahaha, no actually, i cant

hahaha, no actually, i cant imagine he does. you saw his Loose Change interview right? not much of a looker and based on his actions here i just cant imagine he found a woman desperate enough to put up with a man-child like himself. but hey, we all get lucky sometime right?

Show "Statement of Purpose" by Ronald Wieck

what exactly is your

what exactly is your "project" and how does insulting people help it? you are so mature Ronny.

"I started out believing

"I started out believing that your views are driven purely by a deranged political agenda, that you have absolutely nothing that passes for supporting evidence."

This man is brilliant! And so correct! The BEST way to start research is with a solid preconceived notion that never changes, reguardless of the facts presented!

I use this technique liberally at CrossBall, the blog that "let's you decide what we've decided!"

This man is a genius--I owe him everything!

Show "Condition Still Unchanged" by Ronald Wieck

Angel is next!

won't go away — about there's nothing you can say

Don't you hate it ..

... that this site has censored your remarks.
"Falsehood is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth and no opinions so fatally mislead us as those that are not wholly wrong." - Charles Caleb Colton

The NIST report did not

..explain how the human remains were pulverized either.
They are still finding human remains at Ground Zero.

Why hasn't the area been designated as a crime scene ?

Bush and Cheney'd better

Bush and Cheney'd better hope there's no life after death and no judgement and no God or I'd say they're fucked.

I suspect they do not have

I suspect they do not have any faith what so ever, not to state atheists are bad or anything, I admire atheists.

ghost of the firemen

One off the most chilling pictures i have ever seen, please spread it around, email your local fire department with that picture..- Jenny

Show "Caution" by Ronald Wieck

WRONG.

That's not what I've seen. You might have been right 2 or more years ago, but now they're catching on, and that's due to the efforts of the New York Truthers reaching out to them. It's the result of all the vigils, raiiys and marches. And of course, the promotional work they do for the sick first responders. To win a fireman over to the truth is one of the sweetest accomplishments. Sure, there's still a few who can't emotionally deal yet....

Show "Living Dangerously" by Ronald Wieck

You don't get to choose OUR

You don't get to choose OUR Heroes, their actions make them heroes, not your blessing...

oh and EAT SHIT! 

Good answer

Good answer

Show "Correction" by Ronald Wieck

easy for you to say?

incrediblle, literally, as your handlers orchestrate mortality on a magnitude of millions

Show "Lame Artist" by Anonymous (not verified)

Why you are nothing

You are nothing because daddy killed Kennedy. You are nothing because you waste a billion dollars of tax payer dollars each week of your wasted excuse for a life. You are George the not so curious monkey!

Show "New Champion" by Ronald Wieck

Ronny

Oswald killed JFK.......You really are a moron.What a sucker to believe everything you hear.

Show "Sucker" by Ronald Wieck

John Judge

refutes him pretty convincingly

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?show=13

Wednesday, November 15th, 2006
"The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Part One" with author and researcher, John Judge.

Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006
"The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Part Two," with researcher John Judge.

Show "Nope" by Ronald Wieck

Ronny

It was such BS that the goverment had to open it up again in 77.
Classifed till 2029.........Natonal security reasons?
You are a fool,but you make me laugh.

Here's my guess on WTC7.

Here's my guess on WTC7. This had to be a large event. Instead of 2 planes hitting towers, I think the plan was for 3. Why else would they plant explosives in WTC7? One of the planes that crashed over somewhere I think was a defect and was brought down by our government. The pilot's probably refused to route the plane to WTC7 and they ended up just shooting it down and pulling the last building.

If you think about it...

this is actually a pretty reasonable hypothesis. Why the hell else would they hand us this smoking gun?

huh?

Sorry, I don't buy. More likely is the fact that WTC7 housed a lot of stuff that needed to be destroyed--evidence of financial shenanigans, SEC investigations, etc. Also 7 may well have housed some operational equipment used in the elctronic hijacking of the planes that hit the towers....

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

i tend to agree with that.

i tend to agree with that. both of your points.

Well then...

they must be really, really stupid to demolish a building in the controlled manner witnessed now by millions.

they didnt underestimate the

they didnt underestimate the medias ability to ignore the hell out of it and shape the narrative though, thats for sure.

Maybe you're right...

one thing is for sure; they underestimated the hell out of us!

goddamn right!

goddamn right!(not to mention the new media-the internet,they totally underestimated that.)

when I saw how successful they had been with the OKC coverup

I realized that we were dealing with people who really think they can get away with something as sloppy as demolishing building 7 in broad daylight so to speak. I mean, come on, when you've got TUCKER CARLSON on your side, you can convince just about anyone of just about anything!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

building 7

There's always the possibility that 7 was meant to come down in the same time frame as 1 & 2.
Thousands of possible scenarios. One solution. An independent investigation.
"Just give us the truth." J Lennon

Sure, that's possible

There was in fact a big explosion (Barry Jenning's words, not mine) that "blew [him and Michael Hess] back into the eighth floor" of building 7, which occured almost simultaneously with the crash of the plane into the south (second) tower. But the media pretended he was in the south tower, and he has refused to comment, citing amnesia (Hess makes similar excuses). We see this again and again that morning--explosions related to the demolitions timed to coincide with the plane crashes so as to distract attention from them and onto the more spectacular plane strikes. I think that the idea all along was to pretend that Building 7 was so traumatized by the collapses that it had to be brought down. That's why Larry "boom boom" Silverstein made the pull it comment in the first place. At first I thought that that was that, that everyone accepted that it had been damaged and delibertaely pulled. Then I learned that he was now denying he meant that, through a spokesperson. But hey, for all we know there WAS supposed to be a third plane in New York. I just don't think that's all that relevant, if true...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Welcome back RT, we were

Welcome back RT, we were worried about you man...

it's good to be back

I can safely report that all is well in the homeland--I travelled on a plane during an ORANGE alert, but the security was tight--aboslutely NO LIQUIDS were allowed on board. I know because they asked every third person "are you carrying liquids"? And every third person answered "no".

You just don't mess with the Chertoffs.

Now I honestly thought my plane might go down, but apparently I have not been truthing hard enough to be on that kind of hit list.

On my journeys I did do some truthing, and even picked up a copy of a 9/11, or 11-S book by a spanish journalist named Bruno Cardeñosa. It is full MIHOP, I can happily report, and very fairly mentions everything from the dancing Israelis to the Bush/bin Laden ties, the missile at the Pentagon to controlled Demo.

I will be doing a review of it for this site later, there are lots of good details that don't get much play around these parts, like the names of two companies that took the WTC steel, Sims Metal of Sydney, Australia, and a Chinese comapny named Basotell. Also, the names of a few Raytheon employees mysteriously appearing on the passenger lists of the planes headed from Boston to LA, neither city that has Raytheon offices, apparently.

Anyway, glad to see the gang is all here and that there would seem to be little talk of space beams or video fakery. Gosh, you'd think that was like all BS or something...

:)

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

it's good to be back

I can safely report that all is well in the homeland--I travelled on a plane during an ORANGE alert, but the security was tight--aboslutely NO LIQUIDS were allowed on board. I know because they asked every third person "are you carrying liquids"? And every third person answered "no".

You just don't mess with the Chertoffs.

Now I honestly thought my plane might go down, but apparently I have not been truthing hard enough to be on that kind of hit list.

On my journeys I did do some truthing, and even picked up a copy of a 9/11, or 11-S book by a spanish journalist named Bruno Cardeñosa. It is full MIHOP, I can happily report, and very fairly mentions everything from the dancing Israelis to the Bush/bin Laden ties, the missile at the Pentagon to controlled Demo.

I will be doing a review of it for this site later, there are lots of good details that don't get much play around these parts, like the names of two companies that took the WTC steel, Sims Metal of Sydney, Australia, and a Chinese comapny named Basotell. Also, the names of a few Raytheon employees mysteriously appearing on the passenger lists of the planes headed from Boston to LA, neither city that has Raytheon offices, apparently.

Anyway, glad to see the gang is all here and that there would seem to be little talk of space beams or video fakery. Gosh, you'd think that was like all BS or something...

:)

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Show "Underestimate" by Ronald Wieck
Show "trick Question" by Ronald Wieck
Show "Minor Inconvenience" by Ronald Wieck

WAIT- Apathoid says it? It MUST be true!

As everyone knows, the Avionics Expert Known as Apathoid (a.k.a. AEKA) is THE authority on remote control technologies developed by Raytheon. And since he is quoted here not just by *A* Ronald Wieck but THE Ronald Wieck (we all know that people who make up names (pseudonymous posters) are more trustworthy than people who post under handles or anonymously) I think we can all hang our truthing hat's and put forks in ourselves, i.e. we're done!

Thanks Ron, copying all those DVDs was starting to eat into my crack money!

Give my regards to Dr. Apathoid and the other good folks at Popular Methaddicts!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Show "Real Liar" by Ronald Wieck

Apathoid wrote a paper?

Was it peer-reviewed?

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Show "Real Liar Trapped" by Ronald Wieck

Apathoid's paper WASN'T peer reviewed?

Gosh Ronald, do you have any credible sources, or just "papers" by internet wack jobs to back up your claims? And why does this avionics expert not use his real name? Does he write all his avionics papers under the Apathoid brand? You're just not making a very strong case for your bizarre claims is all. Just sayin'...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Show "What Have You Got, Fraud?" by Ronald Wieck

what have you got

to answer "Angel is next?"

the obvious truth

Look Ronald, I realize that this is your job, and so it doesn't really make sense to try to reason with you. But here goes. The technology for seizing control of an airplane's navigation system via remote existed before 9/11, as was revealed after the events when the news were abuzz with stories about how the technology was "being developed" and that it it would help prevent future hijackings. Now quit trying to peddle some amateur's scribbly little report as if it were anything but.

You are someone who expects people to believe not only that Lee Harvey Oswald just one day decided he would kill the President and in fact did the impossible given the circumstances (distance, moving target, type of rifle) but also that building 7 just happened to fall, and though for five years no one has been able to explain it except as controlled demolition with explosives we should trust you that "everyone agrees this was normal". You ignore facts such as that there were explosions in building 7 before either tower collapsed (as reported to the media by one Barry Jennings, ON CAMERA mind you. According to you that didn't happen. You also can't account for Appendix C of the FEMA report--that is a government document, not something posted online by someone named "Apathoid".

Speaking of Apathoid, here's a little trick you should know about. Whenever shills like you start making an effort to discredit something like remote control technology, you just make it clear that we're on the right track. I will now begin researching this issue more and talking more about it. I wasn't sure before but the fact that one of you has gone so far as to concoct an actual paper disputing the facts, I know we're onto something.

Now, my sources say it was something being developed by Raytheon, but I've also heard that Dov Zakheim was involved with a company that was developing it. So which one is it Ron? Or should we just wait for you to give it away despite yourself?

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Fraud Called Out

Sorry, Real Liar, you've been exposed as a complete fraud. Your "sources" are ignorant fools like yourself. The Boeing Corporation has stated that their 757s and 767s CANNOT be flown by remote control. Apathoid, who you stupidly and dishonestly call an "amateur," tore the cover off your feeble deceptions in his paper. If you care to dispute the matter with him, feel free to visit JREF.

In fact, I'll make it easier for you to parade your ignorance. I will post a direct challenge on JREF. Let's see how you do. We won't be too impressed by your bravery if you try to pretend, as did the moron Jenny, that you're being "prevented" from posting.

I love your "proof" that Oswald didn't kill JFK. How many times over the decades has the Mannlicher-Carcano been shown to be a highly suitable weapon for the job? How many teams of shooters have concluded that the shot was an easy one?

You lying jackass.

is it peer reviewed? does

is it peer reviewed? does apathoid have a real name? credentials? try using your own standards on yourself ok ronny? you hypocritical man-child you.

can someone please explain what this JREF thing is?

Ronnie is kee to have me make a guest appearance but I'm not sure what to wear...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

never mind... here's the scoop on JREF

Ronnie has been trying to get me to contribute to his and his friends little "rational thinking"-type forum. Nothing special, just people making fun of Nico and the like. So I looked for it and found the trhead where Ronnie calls me a particularly smug twoofer who insists on clinging to the theory of remote control having been used on the planes that hit the towers.

They keep saying (like Ronnie here) that we are afraid to debunk "Apathoid"'s debunking paper. Now I STILL haven't been offered a link to Apathoid's paper by anyone, which would increase the likelihood that i would read it and comment. But since they admit it hasn't been peer-reviewed and the writer admits that he wrote it based on his work experience which we can't assess because he is an anonymous internet wack-job, I'm not all that sure why it's worth bothering to debunk.

If my suspicions are correct, it will be a bunch of mumbo jumbo about how "Boeing says its 757s cannot be remotely flown." Well duh, they have to be modified, and that ain't so hard to do given that the planes ARE navigated and flown by computer. This ain't space beams, folks. This is simple and documented technology already used in countless unmanned aerial vehicles.

So whatever, Ronnie. Post a link to this paper and I'll tell you what I think. But don't expect me to go hang out in your little playground of denial for the pathologically dense. I like this here blog site just fine, and as anyone can see, other than making people click an extra button to see your crap (for good reason, with how voluminous it is) people are free to post here.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

"Real Liar" Battered on JREF

Well, Real Liar, you have been soundly trounced on JREF. Oh, wait--the guy who was exposed there posted as "Rebel" or something clever like that, so it couldn't possibly have been Real Liar himself. Tricky, huh?

The link to Apathoid's paper is well-known to you, as I have posted it here many times:

911myths.com, the section "Investigations, more."

Just another example of your dishonesty.

The pretensions of an ignorant fraud like yourself cannot survive long on JREF.

For anyone interested in learning a great deal about autopilot systems on Boeing commercial aircraft in general and the refutation of dishonest claims about the possibility of remote-controlled flight in particular, here is the link:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72172

Real Liar didn't do too well.

I will explain why you won't "bother" to debunk Apathoid: He is an experienced, highly-qualified avionics tech, while you are an ignorant impostor. There are two reasons for your inability to find any errors in his paper: 1) there aren't any; 2) you are incompetent to debate the issue with him.

Ronnie, you make no sense

Where on that thread is this alleged paper? I'm beginning to think there IS no paper. The fact that you are resorting to accusing me of posting on your forum as "rebel" shows just how lame this particular little campaign of yours is.

One thing I did see in that thread is that "Apathoid the Avionics Expert" refers to Bazant and Zhou's paper along with NIST's as supporting the official conspiracy theory. The funny thing is that NIST corrected the misinformation put out by Bazant and Zhou, who wrote their paper like two days after the collapses, and included claims that the steel in the collapse zones had reached red-hot temperatures. The NIST report puts the likely temperatures several hundred degrees lower than red-hot level. Now here's how crazy Bazant and Zhou are, and how foolish the OCT lovers are: even if you believe that the columns could have somehow gotten to red hot with less than an hour of small fires and smoke, then why can't you see any distortion in the air around where this incredibly intense heat would have been exiting the towers (like when you see heat rising from the asphalt on a hot day?

Anyway, since they don't know well enough to know that Bazant and Zhou are contradicted by NIST and with good reason it hardly seems worth hunting down some paper they say they wrote. Now if only Ronnie would stop being such a child and actually post a link here to Apathoid's paper, we can point out why it's wrong. Otherwise I'm not sure what point he's trying to make, other than to amuse us with the flailings of his motley little crew of Popular Mechanics worshippers.

So Ronnie, if the paper by Apathoid exists, then link to it here. If not, then just make more snide remarks and evade. I await your answer to this challenge. Otherwise stop wasting my time and yours.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Real Liar's Pathetic Game Exposed

Real Liar has been reduced to pretending that he can't find the paper I have cited over and over. At least five times I have referred him to 911myths.com, the section "Investigations, more." He is unable, or so he wants us to believe, to process the information. Let's see how he will ignore the direct link:

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

Yes, Real Liar, there is a serious debate over whether or not the paper exists. Sure there is.

Pretending you have read papers that have been superseded by the NIST Report won't save your hide. You are an ignoramus and a fraud.

Yeah, because paper

Yeah, because paper shredders are so difficult to obtain.

Show "Give It Up Already" by Ronald Wieck

pulling your wire?

That's a new one to me. My neighbor who's a professional demolition expert will be interested in hearing how buildings are pulled down by wires. He insists "pulling" is definitely a demolition term.
New low even for you Ronny

Show "Another Fraud Exposed" by Ronald Wieck

Who's the fraud?

Apparently you have spoken to every demolitions expert on the planet. I have no interest in producing anything for your benefit. I am not interested in convincing you of anything. I know what I believe and I know you will NEVER change my opinion, especially with your vile bitter insults.

Show "You are the Proven Fraud" by Ronald Wieck

why are you so scared of or

why are you so scared of or obsessed with us "fantasists"? your starting to come here as much as people who believe in this blogs cause. what does that say about you? you come rant and argue with "insane" people like us. you are a 50 something year old man screaming "fantasist!" and "twoofer!" on a website you believe is infested by crazy people and asking people you deem to be insane for "EVIDENCE" that has been thrown at you endlessly but which you refuse to accept because daddy government and mommy media havent vetted it. what does that say about you ronny? you have blind trust in all the wrong places old man. but its comforting right? everything so black and white? so simple? grow up, trolling websites and getting in arguments with "psychos" should be a wake up call for you. does your wife know you do this ronny? so mature.......

Show "Rationalist Purpose" by Ronald Wieck

what does your wife think of

what does your wife think of your "goal" of defeating the all powerful 9/11 truth movement?(we must be all powerful if you waste so much of your life here fighting us right?) seriously, i would be interested to know how your wife looks upon your hobby of trolling websites and screaming "fantasists!" at people you deem to be insane. does she think thats a mature hobby? and do you really give us that much credit? where you feel the need to come here and "expose" us? wow. im flattered.

Show "Goal" by Ronald Wieck

care to answer the

care to answer the questions? nope? not surprised coward.

Coward? Ronnie, you can't

Coward? Ronnie, you can't let him get away with that! The, the-poltroon!

Sorry, I just get so mad when people attack you, Ronnie. You know, they might not think you're less than couragous if you trolled--ha, ha!--by my blog. That could be reason your manliness is diminished in their eyes. And think, I could help with your research!

Show "Sweet Offer" by Ronald Wieck

help him

get inside his head — tell what it means — Angel is next — does not copy — cannot confirm — knows his handlers are behind it — must not go there — may show he knows too much

Show "Bzzzt!" by Ronald Wieck

Chris. It's no coincidence

Chris. It's no coincidence that the more salient anyone's point is the more bitter and vile rons attack.

Show "Why Hide the Good Stuff?" by Ronald Wieck

salient good stuff

"Angle is next." — phoned in just as Air Force One was taking off from Sarasota with zero fighter support. Tell what it means.

Show "A Tough One" by Ronald Wieck

Ronald Wieck said: "Our goal

Ronald Wieck said:
"Our goal is to expose your pernicious fantasies. We are well on our way."

That's your goal? To expose people who want to expose the truth? We are trying to find the truth and expose evil and you and others like you want to expose us? That makes no sense in any way.

We spend our time on this board talking and debating very important issues that we feel will destroy this country and our future if we don't somehow get to the bottom of these things that have been uncovered and you come here to tell us that we're wrong, we're fantasists and we wear tin-foil hats. You tell us that there is nothing to any of this...nothing...that we're making everything up. Do you see how disgusting your actions are, Wieck?

There's no conspiracy when it comes to the big picture for we know the big picture. You know it, even if you try to ignore it. The truth is the only thing that will make us free and that includes you, Mr. Wieck. If you don't want to be free, then that's your decision, but how dare you try your hardest to help those who seek to enslave us all. Shame on you.

We are in a fight for truth, justice and liberty and you want that stopped. What kind of American wants to stop the persuit of truth, liberty and justice for all? Think about that Wieck...think about that.

Ignoble Goals

You are not fighting for any noble goals. You are promoting pernicious, insane, and completely unfounded slanders in order to exonerate the real culprits, dedicated Islamic terrorists, of their crimes.
Your indifference to evidence and real science stamps you as frauds.

GW I hope your not going

GW I hope your not going because of all those c*ocksomking nutjobs like Nico et al who went on some frankly creepy campaign against you. Fuck those clowns, they're a bunch of freaks, if its because of that just brush it off, their opinions literally mean nothing to everyone else.

AWESOME PICTURE

Thanks George! Yes,a picture is worth a thousand words.
I wish you the very best.Make sure you stop in from time to time to say hi

Show "Invitation to Jon Gold" by Ronald Wieck

if I go

will you tell what it means? "Angel is next."

Easy One

Yes. "Angel is next" means that someone phoned in one of the hundreds of threats that eventually proved unfounded.

You might want to tell me why NOBODY in the media (I heard the bogus warning in a CBS piece about Bush) thinks there is any sort of story here. What is it that all real journalists continue to overlook , but that the intrepid, low-IQ tinfoil-hatters have managed to discover? Perhaps the virulently anti-Bush media secretly love him and are also part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy?

Do you think that Jon Gold will be accompanying us to any firehouses? Why do you suppose not?

Creepy, but brilliant!

Ghosts of impeachment future?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

The Fervent Hate Of The "Debunkers"

The only people more mean spirited than people who insist there was no planes, and the neocons wanting to nuke Iran and kill all Arabs are these so called "conspiracy debunkers".

they have done NOTHING but insult the 9/11 families/FBI/CIA whove spoken out, even just to criticize the government in any way.

They have called even the air quality coverup a "conspiracy theory".

I'm sure this Ronald Weick thinks there was WMDS in Iraq and Saddam was in bed with Osama.

I think Ronald and his ilk should check out Dust To Dust, a powerful new documentary that premiered on the sundance channel. Ronald is in lalaland if he thinks the rescue workers/fire/police now suffering support the Bush regime:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9137295628446919478&q=dust+to+d...

If it was up to the "debunkers", both the truthers, anti war people and all Arabs in America would be put in concentration camps. They are the true "deniers" and have nothing but venom and hate.

Show "Wondering" by Ronald Wieck

Ronald weick is afraid to answer real questions, he runs from me

thanks for dodging everything Mr. Weick.
hey thanks for attempting to answer the questions, even though you evaded practically everything.

1. Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.) hahaha Dr. Barnett is a fire expert who anaylzed the steel, i guess he mistook it for milk!

2. They were 20 witnesses at least that you ignore, including Willie Rodriguiez and Felipe David who skin was ripped off by a huge explosion in the basement before the impact. Seismic records didnt pick up the 93 bombing either. But youre such a comprehensive investigator, im sure youll just ignore these witnesses.

3. "Fire melts steel" yeah thats why Thomas eagar clearly states that fires dont melt steel, hence molten pools of steel by firefighters are very indicitave of super high temps only available via explosives.

4. What your doing is giving a pre collapse theory, i know you couldnt answer how the part above the impact zone turned into dust because the Nist report ignores all the data from that point on. Instead of making ad hominem attacks at DR. Jones, why dont you reply to this paragraph from his paper..................................

We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team admits they did. But why did they follow such a non-scientific procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)

I CANT WAIT TO HEAR YOURE ANSWER, REMEMBER NO PERSONAL ATTACKS MR. WEICK, ITS A TEXTBOOK FALLACY I LEARNED AS AN UNDERGRAD.

5 .After 5 years Dr. Sunder from NIST says about building 7, "I dont Know" thats hilarious. NO BUILDING THATS DISPLAYED ALL THE TRAITS OF A CONTROLLED DEMOLTION HAS NOT BEEN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. EXPLOSIVES CAN EASILY EXPLAIN BUILDING 7, 2 SWISS ENGINEERS AND JOWENKO AGREE WITH IT.

Youll know say " no demolition experts agree" well first its not an honest academic environment. Any expert that comes forward will beattacked like DR. jones by people like you. STEPHEN JONES RECIEVED EMAILS BEFORE HIS PAPER FROM THE DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY THREATNING HIM NOT TO RELEASE IT. There is every incentive to support the official lie and huge consquences of losing your job, losing govt contracts and recieving death threats by speaking the truth. The disparity of "experts" is because of this, not because of facts. What kind of demoltion company or expert would have the courage to speak under these circumstances and risk their buisness and careers? Luckily DR. jones is our modern day Galileo, which must be true because you cant answer his claim in the paragraph above, and continually make ad hominem attacks.

Experts said the world was flat, smoking was good for you and that Saddam was throwing babies out of incubators( where were the experts in international relations to debunk this in 1990?) to get us involved in a 15 year war. Experts are notoriuosly pro establishment, i suggest you read 1984 and learn about thought control and groupthink. You dont need to be a part of a conspiracy to lie, its called THOUGHT CONTROL

Show "SIlly Me" by Ronald Wieck

DEAR LOSER

THe concrete on the top 30 floors turned to dust. Greening is a phd in physical chemistry,. Greening "accounts" for the bottom 70 floors turning to dust, not the part above the impact zone, loser. Thats what DR. JOnes pointed out but you were to stupid to answer, because you dont have an answer. You conveiently ignore witnesses of molten metal. I clearly stated above why most experts support the official story but your to dumb and drunk to mount a response. youre a washed up wannabe Robert Novak thats never made it big. Gordon Ross debunked greening bogus calculations, Dr. greening wants us to beileve that 80 floors of cold undamaged steel offered no more resistance than air.

IS THERE ANY OBJECT IN THE WORLD THAT WOULD OFFER NO RESISTENCE THAN AIR EVEN THOUGH IT OUTWEIGHED THE OBJECT THAT WAS DOING THE CRUSHING BY TEN TIMES? YOU IDIOT.

YOU MUST BOW TO STEPHEN JONES HE IS OUR GALILEO, GET EDUCATED GO TO COLLEGE LOSER.

Ronald Wieck said: "Perhaps

Ronald Wieck said:
"Perhaps Jon and the "artist" who created that vile smear will accept my invitation to visit a few firehouses. What do you think?"

If you believe it's going to provoke a negative response then why would you want to bring someone with you who supports the painting? Do you want to see a fight or do you hope to see someone intimidated?

I would go with you just so I could flip your hope for a confrontation around on you...meaning I would flip your attempt to deliberately anger someone using something from a 9/11 truther back onto yourself. While your techniques of subtle "convincing" are decent, I see past them and I can point them out to people who do not see them.

So, if you're implying you're interested in a public debate with city workers in the hopes of provoking a potentially confrontational setting (in your apparent words), I promise you that you don't want to try something like that with me in the middle. So, before you go inviting people for things like this, you might want to clarify, using the truth, why you would like to see this because it sounds like you're asking to see a confrontation of some kind.

(edit) I don't know why this reply showed up so far from the post I clicked "reply" to.

Show "No Confrontations" by Ronald Wieck

I didn't miss the point,

I didn't miss the point, slaps. I know what you're saying.

Well, I would defend it, so by your own words, you imply that there is a possibility for a confrontation.

"When we finish our taped interviews, you will be able to gauge the firefighters' reactions to the painting from a safe distance."

haha Yeah, the big bad firefighters might try beat me up. I don't think someone would risk getting fired or arrested for someone trying to defend their fallen brothers in exposing the truth behind 9/11.

You're idea behind this is twisted and pathetic.

You Want to "Defend" Your Fantasies?

No, I don't think that firefighters would demean themselves by assaulting you physically. That sort of behavior is illegal, incidentally. They would, however, demand to know what motivates a person completely ignorant of the physics of burning buildings to fabricate absurd theories to slander officials of the American government. Your purpose is to smear America and exonerate the jihadists who attacked this country. Your absurd falsehoods can't expose an imaginary conspiracy. Conspiracy liars have zero interest in what actually happened on 9/11/01, their only purpose being to sow confusion. Do you seriously imagine that you will try to tell men who risk their lives extinguishing fires that nothing explodes when a building burns? Please, stick to conning the mindless America-hating rubes who will swallow uncritically all sorts of preposterous nonsense. Don't ever dream that you can peddle your snake oil to people who understand their work.

Ron Wieck has been assigned

Ron Wieck has been assigned a task.  It seems that task is to position himself as the Champion of the OCT.

Congratulations on your new assignment Ron.

If you please your masters, their may be a spot on MSM for you.

(Or is that the carrot dangling in your face right now?) 

A very charitable characterization.

My opinion, and I believe it is borne out by the fetishistic, repetitive quality of his posts, is that Ronnie is simply here to wieck off.

Show "More Facts" by Ronald Wieck

Perfect example!

Really, Ronnie, you're getting the blogs all sticky -- how inconsiderate. Didn't your mom tell you this is something you should do privately, in your room?

listen...

..the sound of one hand typing...

Bwahahahaha

Let's just say the image is not making me bite a fingernail.

Show "Sounds of Silence" by Ronald Wieck

A: silence

Q: Tell what it means? "Angel is next."

Show "Easy One" by Ronald Wieck

worst visual ever casseia,

worst visual ever casseia, thanks for that, haha. i think your right though, it would have to get him off based on how repetitive he is and how often hes here at this point.

Alright, lasses and lads,

Alright, lasses and lads, they're at it with the "negatives" again, the registered trolls, that is. I just go rid of a -1 on your post, Chris--and I saw a whole series of Truther friendly posts loose points in the last couple of minutes.

Looking at recent history, this may get as bad as greenback's blog which, thanks to "Ronnies" efforts, has exceeded the 400 post mark, but with mostly drivil. So here's what I propose:

Ronnie annoy you? You must respond? Copy/ paste it into my comments forum at :

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5427

...and respond to him there. He wants to respond back? He'll have to go there to do it.

This is usually against the rules, in an attempt to discourage disruption; but in this case it will take the disruption someplace "safe" and possibly contain it. I had conceived of CrossBall as a release valve for all the crazyness Ron, Mark and others bring, so, unlike sane bloggers, I'm welcoming the drama!

Any better ideas, I'm open.

Cheers everybody.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Well, we could just ignore

Well, we could just ignore them but for some reason we all seem to be suckers for baiting the madman. I'm willing to help out with keeping this blog positive but our friends seem to need to get in our faces. I reckon you're like me and find the criticism just makes me more sure the truth movement is on the right path.
"Just give me the truth" JL

I have no interest in talking to these clowns

I hope that those that do are getting something positive out of it.

The bunkers' concerted effort does indeed seem to indicate that we are right on target. They seem desperate and absurd.

Show "Bullseye" by Ronald Wieck
Show "Unanswered Question" by Ronald Wieck

My still unanswered questions

Ronald,

Mineta clearly testified that he saw and heard Cheney talking about what to do with the plane when it was *approaching* the Pentagon ("The plane is 30 miles out... the plane is 20 miles out... The plane is 10 miles out... Do the orders still stand?").

How could Cheney have talked about how to handle the plane approaching the Pentagon *after* the Pentagon had already been hit a good while ago?

The Commission also ignored the FAA memo stating that Flight 77 was being tracked while it was approaching its target -- as you also very well know.

The relevant parts of Mineta's testimony, by the way, are the only excerpts that have been cut from the Commission's video archive, as I have verified myself. Why do you think they would do that?

I'm still waiting for your comments on the evidence presented in my WTC 7 blog -- including conclusions by structural design professors:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Show "Confusion" by Ronald Wieck

Not so fast...

"None of Mineta's testimony has been 'cut.' It is available in full on the net."

That is incorrect, Ronald. I just re-checked this. The part that we have been writing about is *not* available in the Commission's archive.

Mineta's video testimony in the Commission's archive can be found here:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/index.htm

On that page select:
Day Two: Friday 23, 2003
Panel 1

Mineta's interview begins where he says: "Well, I do get a daily briefing, intelligence briefing." That, in turn, is *after* the part where Mineta describes Cheney's interaction with his aide, as you can check by following this link:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_20...

As I said, the relevant part (a few minutes) of Mineta's testimony has been cut from the Commission's video archive.

You then wrote: "Mineta's account of Cheney's conversation with the military aide squares with several other accounts, except in one respect: Mineta has it taking place a half-hour earlier than everyone else. The plane under discussion is not Flight 77--that is purely a fantasist myth--but Flight 93."

Let us examine this on the basis of Mineta's written testimony, which can be found here:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing2/witness_mineta.pdf

Mineta describes the crash of American 77 into the Pentagon:
"Within a few minutes, American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon."

After this, he continues his chronology of events by writing "at approximately 9:45 AM, less than one hour after I had fist been notified of an airplane crash in New York, I gave the FAA the final order for all civil aircradt to land at the nearest airport as soon as possible". So, this is clearly after the Pentagon crash.

He then goes on to describe the shutdown of civil aviation and goes on to write: "Unfortunately, during this time we also learned that United flight 93 crashed in Stoney Creek Township, Pennsylvania."

Furthermore, in the Commission's hearing Mineta clearly states that he (and Cheney) was talking about Flight 77, not Flight 93:

"MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah. "

Mineta *then* refers to Flight 93: "And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, 'Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?' "

So, in several statements Mineta makes a clear chronological distinction between Flight 77 and Flight 93.

You won't convince anyone by saying that a discussant is "uninterested in the [sic] learning the answers" and then showing a lack of interest in checking things and making even basic connections yourself.

By the way, even a Washington Post bureau chief wrote to me as follows:

"All this said? You're absolutely right, someone should have found Minetta and tried to figure out how he sees and hears Cheney and why the 9/11 Commission ignored him."

I don't think anyone who seriously wishes to find out what happened on 9/11 would object to that.

Mineta Revisited

The Post bureau chief needs to do his homework. Mineta MISTAKENLY thought that Cheney and the aide were talking about Flight 77. That, it turns out, was impossible. Testimony by other witnesses established that the plane they imagined was heading toward Washington, D.C. was, in fact, Flight 93, which HAD ALREADY CRASHED. In other words, ALL of their information was confused and wrong.

The Commission did not ignore Mineta. It ESTABLISHED that his timeline was off by almost a half-hour.

For Mineta's full testimony, why not listen to it on C-SPAN? I haven't done so for a few months, but I assume it's still available.

More confusion

"the plane they imagined was heading toward Washington, D.C. was, in fact, Flight 93, which HAD ALREADY CRASHED"

So, when the young aide tells Cheney that "the plane is 30 miles out... the plane is 20 miles out... the plane is 10 miles out" and then asks if "the orders still stand", he is talking about a plane that he and Cheney think - obviously based on radar information - is in the air and closing in, but has actually already crashed? What distance information is the aide reporting then?!

Who is the young aide? Why hasn't he been questioned?

I don't have to listen to Mineta's full testimony. I'm just wondering why precisely the few minutes relating to his description of the Cheney--aide interaction are missing from the Commission's archive.

Welcome to 9/11 truth Mr Wieck!!

Ronnie is living in fantasy land when he thinks that Mineta was talking about flight 93.

Exactly how was it known that:

“the plane is 30 miles out... the plane is 20 miles out... The plane is 10 miles out... Do the orders still stand?”

How the heck did they know how far away it was?

You mean they knew the exact crash location in Pennsylvania?

Question: How did they know that? Are you saying 9/11 was an inside job Ronnie? I can't believe my ears! Welcome to the 9/11 truth movement!!

I never expected such “canard” coming from you.

Regarding the availability of the testimony

Quoting:

“Mineta's PEOC testimony was also edited out of the 9/11 Commission video archive.

When questioned about this, representatives at the National Archive stated that the video may have been lost because of a 'snafu'. Following is a brief summary of the scrubbed video along with links to recently obtained C-SPAN video.”

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Creating Confusion

The 9/11 Commission is convinced that Mineta was actually talking about Flight 93. The conversation between Cheney and the military aide that he recounts matches accounts given by several other people who were present. It is obvious that the information being relayed was completely wrong: NO plane was headed for Washington, D.C. at the time of the conversation.

The orders Cheney alludes to are the shoot-down orders he had just received from Bush. Everybody present agrees on that one. What you're babbling about in the rest of your post is anybody's guess.

I watched Mineta's testimony on C-SPAN. I assume it is still available. It is interesting that Mineta, a Democrat and a Clinton-appointee, has never contended that his mistaken timeline is really a huge hole in the massive cover-up. He, like almost everyone in the country, must be yet another shill for an administration he opposes.

A lesson for would-be “truth tellers”

Ad hominem attacks

“An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form”:

  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
  3. Therefore A's claim is false.

Ronny said that Molten Steel does not exist because it’s not in the NIST report (even though it is in the FEMA report).

There’s just one problem that I could hope you can help me out with Ronnie. If it doesn’t exist then why did NIST say this?

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators... found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation.

In particular I would be interested to see how you can account for the fact that steel is used for structural support in modern buildings and yet a 10,000 page report can't find the space to mention that there was molten steel at ground zero.

If molten steel didn’t exist why would they say it is irrelevant to the investigation? I eagerly await your (ad-hominem filled) response taking into account the molten steel mentioned in the FEMA report.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Logic for Dummies" by Ronald Wieck

Robert Wieck's logical fallacy count

Mindless ad-hominem attacks! *bing!*

False Appeals to Authority! *bing!*

Straw-man fallacies! *bing!*

Refusal to answer my questions! *bing!*

Guilt by association rants! *bing!*

9/11 wasn’t a conspiracy? Look up the word in the dictionary! *bing!*

Congratulations! You win the “disingenuous charlatan prize” for the massive use of false logic!

Why don't you try answering my questions instead of evading them? I know. I know. You would rather engage in child-like rantings, name calling and fake logic.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Fraud Exposed" by Ronald Wieck

Dozens of reports of molten steel

"the nonexistent molten steel"

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-...

Here are just a few quotes:

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

Show "No Progress" by Ronald Wieck

Due to lack of "progressiveness"?

As I'm willing to familiarize myself with all material (after all, I would very much *like* to be convinced that people like Webster Griffin Tarpley, Robert D. Steele and Robert Bowman are wrong), I went to read
http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten

Not a bad article, at least if one forgets the negative insinuations etc. that permeate it. A few comments.

Stephen D. Chastain is quoted as saying (referring to the flow of something out of South Tower just before its sudden descent into the ground):

"If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F."

In other words, he is saying that the flow is not steel because the building is still in such a condition that structural members, bolts etc. are not deforming and failing! They are not hot enough to have deformed and failed -- just a moment before the total collapse.

Which sounds natural, considering that WTC 2 was totally destroyed within a time (56 minutes) that it takes for a large Finnish midsummer bonfire to be ready for sausage-cooking.

The page also doesn't deny that there was molten metal, as you did. It doesn't try to deny "onlookers' (such as engineers)" reports. On the contrary, it attempts to explain it by recourse to other arguments than controlled demolition, e.g.:

"I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat."

I suggest you watch 9/11 Mysteries (the documentary that was recently plugged by some famous Hollywood actor). It has just been translated into Finnish, by the way. It discusses these issues at great length and shows e.g. what was called "the meteorite", which suggests truly extraordinary temperatures.

The film can be viewed here

http://www.911weknow.com/

In suggesting that you view it I am naturally assuming that you wish to familiarize yourself with all relevant documentation and analysis.

Show "Hidden Meanings" by Ronald Wieck

Please respond to entire posts

"cognitive problems of fantasists"

Is Habermasian domination-free communication totally beyond your cognitive reach? (Yes, I graduated from sociology. :-)) And, by the way, my native language is Finnish, not English.

So what metal was it? This is what the article you linked says:

"I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat."

You didn't comment on the expert's statement that actually supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. He is saying that the flow is not steel because the building is still in such a condition that structural members, bolts etc. are not deforming and failing - just before the collapse.

What about "9/11 Mysteries"? Have you seen it? Is it enlightening material for our television-viewing audience?

Thanks Ronnie

You scream you have evidence when you never show any.

Or you bring out the old straw-man war horses as if they haven't been debunked a thousand times.

You have repeatedly shown that you think your opinion is fact. That's all you have shown. Evidence, not Opinion is fact.

When you call me a fraud I take it as a compliment based on your previous illogical and puerile posts.

Thank you.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Slight Difference" by Ronald Wieck

Nice going, Arabesque

You meant to direct this to your good buddy and psychic, Jon Gold.

"The Republic" has one possible answer to this

"In a book called Hitler's Scientists, we find personal diaries where German scientists caught up in Third Reich politics express serious misgivings about their work, misgivings that were nowhere evident in their published work, some of it very crucial to horrifying medical experimentation, mass murder systems, and nuclear science the Nazis were carrying out. Scientists who were sure there was nothing but dangerous hubris to Nazi theories about racial intelligence and other pillars of Third Reich philosophy nonetheless signed off on published documents extolling the virtues of those "scientific" claims. This was not some backward savage place, but the leading educated and scientific nation on the planet. Those who ask, How is it all those engineers, metallurgists, physicists and material scientists who produced both the Popular Mechanics 9-11 issue, as well as the official US government 9-11 report, could get it all so fundamentally wrong, need only remind themselves of the broad popular, as well as corporate and scholarly support, the Nazi regime engineered in Germany. 9-11 is an event that registers nowhere on the scale of something like Nazi Germany and its Holocaust. But that is a fact that makes the 9-11 conspiracy an easier thing to imagine than Germany in the 1930s."

http://911blogger.com/node/5439

The Nature of the Debate

What reason do we have to believe that all the physicists, metallurgists, structural engineers, demolition experts, and avionics techs got ANYTHING wrong? Who says they did? Hundreds of real scientists say one thing and a bunch of low-IQ guys with no lives tell us about their "common sense," their "gut feelings," and prattle mindlessly about violations of scientific principles that they are clueless about.

All of this empty rhetoric--cut to the chase: Where do the experts go wrong? Point out a few errors in Brent Blanchard's Protec paper. Show us what Apathoid is missing in his paper on the piloting skills of the hijackers (911myths.com, "Investigations, more"). Produce a real scientist who finds flaws in Dr. Frank Greening's technical papers (also available on 911myths.com, the section "Investigations, more").

There is a huge, core fallacy promoted by the 9/11 Fantasy movement. It is the idea that people like me would willingly align ourselves with mass-murderers if any evidence existed to suggest that a heinous crime had been committed. I'm deeply offended by the insinuation. I promote the mainstream account because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it. My views are falsifiable. If you can show me something that contradicts the mainstream account, I can't simply ignore it while maintaining intellectual integrity. If your evidence turns out to be valid, it MUST affect my thinking.

My greatest complain with conspiracists is the unfalsifiability of their beliefs. Avery and Bermas admitted, in so many words, on Hardfire that NOTHING could sway them. That is the mark of an irrational mind. If you are completely impervious to all evidence, your belief is faith-based. Why should I take it seriously?

Just one link for now

Please read this carefully so that we have some common ground to begin discussing:

"Top 10 Reasons Why the NIST Report Is Absurd"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4343

Are you saying that well over one third of Americans who doubt or disbelieve the official story are just stupid, or what?

"low-IQ guys with no lives tell us"

Please stop that. It just makes you look bad.

Sill List

What is the point of citing a list compiled by an ignoramus? Every one of the ten "objections" is utter nonsense, produced by a scientific illiterate who hasn't read the NIST Report. There isn't anything there that you could show to someone who works at NIST without being told that all of this is very silly.
If you want to know what NIST claims, read the FAQ, then download NIST NCSTAR 1.

The Ignorance of Ronald Wieck

Ignorant:

Lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:

Showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

You are either ignorant or ignoring these facts Mr Wieck:

1. Steel is used as structural support in modern buildings

2. Normal fires can’t melt steel (including jet fuel fires)

3. NIST claimed that it found no evidence that jet fuel fires melted the steel.

4. NIST’s theory is a fire theory.

5. Buildings have never completely collapsed due to fire in history. Three buildings “collapsed due to fire” on 9/11 according to NIST.

6. The steel at ground zero melted and was reported in the New York Times, eye-witnesses including Giuliani—the mayor of New York, and was reported in the FEMA report. The New York Times referred to the molten steel as “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation”.

7. NIST called this molten steel irrelevant to their investigation. They failed to provide an adequate explanation for how this molten steel got there—they admit that jet fuel fires could not have created the molten steel.

8. Steel samples taken from WTC memorials analyzed by Steven Jones showed thermate, a known incendiary that is capable of melting steel. Dust samples showed unusual trace elements and further support that explosives were used to bring down the towers.

9. There is visual as well as physical evidence of thermite/thermate pouring from the towers in videos as well as samples taken from ground zero. Future tests by Steven Jones proved that NIST was wrong in their FAQ about the thermite/thermate evidence seen in video recordings. It is not aluminum. Aluminum does not turn yellow/orange without temperatures that are far higher than can be reached with jet fuel.

10. Thermite/thermate and explosives can reach the necessary temperatures to melt steel.

11. Explosives can account for the pulverized dust and concrete that left firefighters uttering these words:

"You have two hundred and ten story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad. The building collapsed to dust."

[1]

You have 10-story buildings that leave more debris than these two 100-story towers, Where the f___ is everything? A serious week-long search and we've found 200 [bodies] in a pile of 5,000? What's going on? Where is everyone? Why aren't we finding more bodies? Cause it's all vaporized -- turned to dust. We're breathing people in that dust.”

[2]

12. Explosives can account for approximate free fall collapse. Fire and damage from a plane can not. Free fall speed is impossible unless done with controlled demolition according to the law of physics known as conservation of momentum.

13. Explosives can account for the explosions heard before the planes hit the buildings as reported by William Rodriguez

[3]

as well as the massive eye-witness testimony of explosions. This is backed up by seismographs and a tape recording distinctly showing “two events”.

14. NIST did not test for thermate even though they are required to do so by fire testing standards. They admitted that they did not test for thermite in their FAQ.

15. Explosives can account for the fact that debris shot out in all directions as far as 500 feet. A fire based collapse can not explain this structural behavior. NIST neglected to explain the “structural behavior of the towers” after “collapse initiation” began.

15. The WTC towers displayed 11 features of controlled demolition.

[4]

16. NIST is a government agency. They get their paychecks from the government and the government has an extensive history of manipulating scientific results in order to satisfy an agenda. The government lied about the air quality at ground zero in “scientific reports” resulting in the deaths and severe illnesses of rescue workers.

[5]

In 2004, “a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates”

[6]

declared:

“The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had ‘engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method.’”

[7]

It also found:

  • There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
  • There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.
  • There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.
  • There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.

    [8]

That answers your often repeated straw-man about the NIST “experts”. Experts can be paid to lie for a political agenda.

An expert can only be trusted when he is not being paid to lie. An argument is proved or disproved on evidence—not based on who is promoting the argument. Perhaps you are also ignorant of this fact. An argument is also not proved with name calling and childish rants.

You think this is all of my evidence? This is just for starters.

Show "Bogus Points" by Ronald Wieck

Making up your own facts! Creating your own reality!

What is JREF? Never heard of it. Since you are promoting it, it must be bad.

I could go point by point, showing how your conclusions are based on your opinion and not on evidence, but that would be a waste of time.

You remind me of Bill O'Reilly.

When he says his opinion he treats it as if it is a fact: "You're putting words in my mouth, just the way you put artificial facts in your head!"

David Letterman responding to Bill O'Reilly

To expose just one of your detestable lies. You say: "Willie Rodriguez, who refused to be interviewed by NIST."

Actually it was the exact opposite situation:

“[Willie Rodriguez] contacted NIST… four times without a response. Finally, [at a public hearing] I asked them before they came up with their conclusion . . . if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces.

So much for that falsehood.

When you are this wrong, I think it's unnecessary to go through and disprove everything you say. What's the point if you can't even get this right?

I don't like arguing with pretenders who make up their own facts.

“I told the [9/11] Commission, there was an explosion that came from under our feet, we were pushed upwards lightly by the effect, I was on basement level 1 and it sounded that it came from B2 and B3 level. Rapidly after that we heard the impact far away at the top.” William Rodriguez, WTC janitor for 20 years

“Sanchez recalls, being in a small sub-level 4 workshop with another man who he only knew by the name of Chino when, out of nowhere, the blast sounded as the two men were cutting a piece of metal: ‘It sounded like a bomb and the lights went on and off. We started to walk to the exit and a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator. The hot air from the ball of fire dropped Chino to the floor and my hair got burned. The room then got full of smoke and I remember saying out loud ‘I believe it was a bomb that blew up inside the building.’”

Jose Sanchez, WTC maintenance worker

“There was nothing there but rubble,” said Pecoraro. “We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!” They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off.” Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac.

“There were definitely bombs in those buildings… many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ’higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.”

Full credit to David Ray Griffin who complied much of this testimony. You can read his excellent article on this subject here which quotes the Oral Histories released after the New York Times freedom of information lawsuit. You know, because they didn’t want us to read this stuff for some reason.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "JREF and Real Firemen" by Ronald Wieck

A lie is still a lie--no matter how many times you repeat it

Are you a Sado-Masochist?

Why else would you invite me to JREF to spank you some more? I’ve already revealed that you are an official theory “fantasist”. A “fraud” who makes stuff up. Someone who doesn’t know what is actually written in the FEMA or NIST reports. A “canard” spewing ad-hominem artist who can barely utter a single true sentence. It’s been demonstrated dozens of times and you want more??

Repeating a lie, doesn’t alter the fact that it is still a lie.

Repeating your opinion doesn’t make your opinion a fact.

Fact: In an amazing coincidence, four of the NIST structural engineers co-wrote a report that was used to explain what happened in another terrorist event; they claimed a single truck bomb did this in 1995.

[1]

Quite the fantasists—aren’t they? Just like you! No wonder you believe them.

You want me to give you a thorough spanking on JREF too? Wow.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

[1]

The engineers involved in both the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing: Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlakar, Mete Sozen. “The Murrah Building bombing has a number of parallels to the 9/11/01 attack. One is that the same engineers created reports supporting the official government explanation of the attack as the work of outsiders attacking the buildings from without. 9/11 whistleblower and researcher Kevin Ryan documents commonalities of the investigations in A New Standard For Deception”. See here for more information: http://911research.wtc7.net/non911/oklahoma/index.html

A Spanking We Missed

Yes, your fans here completely overlooked the terrible spanking you gave me. I confess that until you informed me, I had assumed that you were just another empty-headed liar I had demolished and tossed aside for scrap.

Let's see, now. Having been thoroughly routed on your disingenuous falsehoods, you will now try to divert attention by switching to an irrelevant canard about the Murrah Building bombing. Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in whatever idiocy you clowns are inventing today about that event. We'll assume that a crazed conspiracy nut had nothing to do with it: the gubmint, as usual, did the deed because they are wild and crazy guys. Clinton, you may recall, was President at the time. He and the Bush crime family are close friends, as demonstrated by his and Hillary's frequent endorsements of Dubya's policies.

Getting back to your revelations. All of us missed what you "revealed" about the stuff I make up. What stuff was that? Refresh our memories.

Frequently, after I've disposed of some ignorant jackass, he slithers out after a week or so to announce his victory. You're trying that transparent trick when the posts are still right in front of our eyes. Yes, the people here are pretty dumb, but aren't you asking too much?

I have a hunch you won't be doing too much "spanking" on JREF.

How is this, for example, nonsense?

As stated in the "list", NIST does not explain the actual collapse of the Twin Towers *at all*.

This is clearly stated by NIST itself: “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 [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12

Yes, Ronald, that admission *can* be found in the NIST report (although only in a footnote). The 10,000-page report is a PRE-collapse theory.

Show "Oldie But Goodie" by Ronald Wieck

This one is quite good too

"New business opportunity: Fire Demolitions, Inc.

If our government and university professors are correct that a fire can cause a building to collapse in the exact same manner as a demolition company destroys buildings with explosives, then I would like to start a new business: the Fire Demolition Company, Inc. This company will demolish buildings by setting a few small fires inside, rather than by installing hundreds of packages of explosives."

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/11%20September%202001/scam_review.htm

Set a few fires on a few floors (or all of them if you like), optionally cause some structural damage (it can be as asymmetric as you like), and then just wait for a few hours for a skyscraper to come down as precisely within its footprint as possible in controlled demolitions.

The case of WTC 7 exemplifies this nicely.

Show "DIdn't Work" by Ronald Wieck

But WTC 7 did...

... collapse precisely as in a CD, as pointed out by the Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a demolition company and has been in the business for 27 years:

"This is controlled demolition. [...] A team of experts did this. This is professional work, without any doubt."

He didn't change his mind after being told (to his utter surprise) that the building was also destroyed on 9/11 and taking his time to go through the details with the interviewer.

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Apparently you still haven't familiarized yourself with that page of mine? It contains conclusions by other experts as well. And it explains why many find the way the destruction of WTC 7 has been examined unbelievable.

I will read the paper you suggested if you give me the link.

Listen, Ronald - in my workplace there are a lot of relatively young, open-minded people, and quite a number of them, perhaps most, doubt or do not believe the official story of 9/11. (Yes, they follow what happens in the world and question things.) One of my colleagues said this (obviously in Finnish) when we watched a collapse video of WTC 7:

"Building comes down like that. Of course it is a controlled demolition. How stupid can people be?"

That was what *he* said, but I also tend to think that any adult person who thinks WTC 7 came down as a result of fires and some asymmetric edifice damage has not passed the reality test. Actually, even my 12-year-old nephew concluded that WTC 7 was a CD. :-)

The way the Twin Towers came down corresponds to CD -- with the twist that it was (for obvious reasons) made to start from above. I don't think 13 seconds or so (the observed collapse time) leave any time for all floors to crush each other, which would, of course, be required by a purely "gravitational" (or "pancake") collapse - ie collapse without the use of explosives.

The Twin Towers came down at the average speed of 8 floors per second. Those who say that the buildings did not come down at the speed of free fall may be technically correct, but are distorting facts. Eight floors per second does not leave any time for the crushing work needed (even if one doesn't consider acceleration from a slower start). The only explanation that I can see for the lack of resistance is that the steel structures were destroyed ahead of the "collapse", which also accords with eyewitnesses' descriptions of explosions, shockwaves and flashes -- and several other phenomena common to controlled demolition.

The powerful explosions, by the way, can be listened to in the 9/11 Eyewitness documentary.

Show "Familiar Ground" by Ronald Wieck

Miscellaneous

"imagine that the collapse of WTC 7 looks like controlled demolition"

Imagine? Everyone who has seen a CD can see it *is* precisely like a CD. Even the TV reporter Dan Rather said in CBS News (09/11/01):

"For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

I'd like to see a single good picture of the south side of WTC 7. There was almost seven hours between the collapse of the North Tower and that of building 7. The lack of pictures of WTC 7 is strange.

Not that asymmetrical damage could easily explain a symmetrical total collapse at free fall speed (cf. Murrah building, which remained standing after about half of it had been carved out and the rest had burned in the bombing).

You didn't comment on the collapse time argument that 8 floors per second doesn't really leave any time for structural crushing to take place.

If you read my blog, you might understand why I just cannot believe the official story. And I don't enjoy that state of affairs, not at all. This is not an intellectual game for me (and I don't think it is for many of the people here). But are you really even interested in understanding why people disbelieve the official story and if the actions of authorities might also have something to do with that?

Show "Clear the Air" by Ronald Wieck

Collecting the debate so far

I copypasted our discussion to a more relevant blog:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5453#comment-106533

Let's continue there when you have the new information.

I'll be posting a physics teacher's comments on Greening here:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4867

Show "Greening on Ross" by Ronald Wieck

Some common sense might also be in order

I think the Greening quotations Ross gives in the blog I linked speak for themselves. WTC came down so quickly because half the bolts may have been missing?

Please THINK about this for a moment, Ronald. Three huge steel buildings descend to the ground as if only *air* separated the roof and the ground. 7-8 FLOORS per SECOND throughout the width, height and breadth of the building - in all three cases. No structural resistance.

That is impossible except in controlled demolition, and no government-paid "scientist" can change this.

Any Interest in Real Knowledge?

Please stop telling us that snippets "speak for themselves." Greening and Ross engaged in a public exchange on a PHYSICS blog and Greening exposed Ross as a know-nothing.

What you are saying here is demonstrable nonsense. You have heard some internet loon fabricate this sort of pseudo-science and you parrot it because you refuse to study the real science. You know absolutely nothing about controlled demolition, yet you pretend that all of the experts in that field who reject your baseless fantasies are either liars or incompetents. What do you know that they don't? You still haven't shown us any errors in the Protec paper. Trying telling the physicists and engineers at JREF that there was "no structural resistance." Instead of advertising your ignorance about subjects you profess to care about, why not visit JREF and open a discussion? Your fantasies will not emerge intact, but if you are a person of good faith, you will learn a great deal.

Calm down

First of all, I don't think the Swiss structural design professors or the Finnish Doctor of Engineering quoted on my blog are "internet loons" (any more than the Dutch demolition expert is).

And during my studies, I *have* learned *something* about controlled demolition: before starting to study the events of 9/11, I knew very little. I will look at the Protec paper if you give me the link. I will definitely be interested in reading someone arguing that a building descending on average 8 floors per second actually encountered structural resistance to speak of.

Have *you* looked at the precise measurement and calculations on my blog? I was helped by a physics teacher in making them. Here's a snipped for you (as you obviously are unwilling to try to realize why more and more ordinary people can no longer believe the official story):

"I examined the fall of a corner of the building in one collapse video using Blaze Media Pro video editing software. The corner fell 56 meters (=the distance between the Start and End lines in the picture below) in 3.47 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.3 m/s2, which corresponds to a very low resistance factor of the structural supports: only 5 percent of the force of gravity of the building's falling upper section."

Ronald McDonald is an effing LIAR!!!

Ronald wrote:
"Jowenko was shown photos of the undamaged North side of building 7. He was not informed that the South side of the building had a twenty-story gash from which dense smoke was billowing. Why Jowenko has not repudiated the deceptive information he was given remains a mystery."

LIES^^^

Danny Jowenko absolutely was informed about (and shown diagrams of) the alleged damage to the south side of WTC-7. This can be seen in the extended interview with Mr. Jowenko.

Forward to 5:30 of this video clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU&eurl=

Mr. Jowenko makes the following remarks after examining the government's claims of damage to WTC-7's south face:

DANNY JOWENKO: "On this the building will stand. Guaranteed. Guaranteed."

After Jowenko makes those remarks, the camera pans down and clearly shows a NIST diagram detailing their best guesstimate of damage to the south face of the building:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8522/wtc7damageguess1jt.jpg

He is also told throughout the interview that the building was on fire and that the south side had suffered damage from falling debris.

The entire interview w/ Danny Jowenko concerning Building 7 can be found here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231

Shame on you Ronald. You're a despicable liar who is helping cover-up the murders of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. How do you look at yourself in the mirror? Do you see what the rest of us see when we look at you?

Show "Angry Fraud" by Ronald Wieck

Louder?

Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR! Ronald Wieck IS A FUCKING LIAR!

Was that loud enough for you, asshole?

Show "Another Empty-headed Loudmouth Exposed" by Ronald Wieck

Show you one of your lies? I already did, here it is again...

Ronald wrote:
"Jowenko was shown photos of the undamaged North side of building 7. He was not informed that the South side of the building had a twenty-story gash from which dense smoke was billowing. Why Jowenko has not repudiated the deceptive information he was given remains a mystery."

You're a fucking LIAR Ronald McDonald...

And Ron, do you receive any compensation to post at 911Blogger.com? Are you employed by someone to post here? Be honest, Ron, if you're capable of that.

Show "Liar Identified" by Ronald Wieck

And btw

Danny Jowenko HAS clarified his position through a phone call placed to him long after the video was produced -- and he maintains that he still believes Building 7 was brought down via controlled demolition:

http://911blogger.com/node/2925#comment-69918

Structural design professors

In my blog I link to the statements of two Swiss professors of structural desing who have analyzed WTC 7 and conclude it was professionally demolished. I also link to the paper by a Finnish Doctor of Engineering and accident researcher who concurs. There are many experts out there who have the courage to say the obvious.

Show "Phony Call" by Ronald Wieck

More LIES from Ronald the Wretched

The person who made the call was an official 9/11 conspiracy theorist who uses the handle "Jay Ref" at the www.nineeleven.co.uk message forums and has 500 + posts to his name defending the government's BS. Why would he lie about contacting Jowneko? He's on your team, Ron. But go ahead and contact "Jay Ref" to get further corroboration that the call was placed if you don't believe him:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=705&sid...

This is what Jay Ref stated immediately after contacting controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko:

__________________________
Jay Ref
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:59 pm

I just had a nice chat with Mr. Jowenko. He speaks very good english and amazingly enough was in his office this late.

If you don't believe that, then you'll never believe this:

He is still of the firm conviction that WTC7 was a CD...even after he had time to put the event in context. He cited "intelligence operations" that needed to be covered up and does firmly believe in the CT.

You guys win one. You have an actual explosive expert on record. Congrats. You've made a fool out of what sounds like a very nice and accomplished gentleman.

It changes nothing though....you have one gullible expert...

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=23331&sid=4f93ab55d068...

Jay Ref
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:41 pm

NOTE: I expect we will be discussing Jowenko at length over @ JREF. You guys want to come over there and lurk feel free.

I'll give you this much...you've bamboozled someone who should have laughed in your faces.

Poor Mr. Jowenko...he's gonna have some explaining to do when his peers start picking his opinion apart.

-z

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=23346&sid=4f93ab55d068...
__________________________
.
.
.
.
.

Or you can save yourself some time and instead contact Jay Ref at the JREF message board. He's known as "rikzilla" to the OCTers over there. I'm sure you know who he is, Ron. I know for a fact Mark Roberts does:

__________________________

rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,088
Posted 14th September 2006, 01:19 PM

[...]

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

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

That my friends is a direct quote from his mouth to my ear about 5 mins ago!

I'm rather stunned! They picked one off!

-z

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

rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,088
Posted 14th September 2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy
"We must let him know that the demolitions experts who were on the scene disagree!'

Gravy...I misrepresented myself to him since I really thought he'd just tell me
he had a first impression that was wrong and has since changed his mind. Now I can't possibly argue too much with him as remember I'm a reporter looking for an on the record comment. He gave it to me. What am I to say now?

I did a bad thing...at least I feel kinda dirty for lying to the guy...please feel free to contact him Gravy. I told him all I could to insure he had context. the fires..the hole...the fuel...the debris strikes...the Con-Ed substation....everything!

I honestly don't know what more I can stay...and I started with a lie for which I'm pretty sorry on retrospect.

-z

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1922478&postcount=10

rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,088
Posted 16th September 2006, 07:35 PM

[...]

I found myself feeling sorry for Jowenko towards the end of my short interview of him. He is actually quite adamant that WTC7 was a CD. He had no reservations whatsoever about being put "on the record" by a newspaper reporter.

This was precisely why I did the reporter bit: #1 it gave me access to Danny Jowenko himself. #2 If he told me anything he would know that his words could be made very public.

I expected him to mull this idea of a controversial statement to the press. He didn't. He was very charming,..and quite convincing...

[...]

I expected Jowenko would express dismay that people were passing his reaction on film off as something it wasn't. Instead I found him to be completely taken in by the CTists....so yeah...I'm sorry for him as he seems a nice bloke who now will have to defend an indefensible opinion to his peers. He'll be a laughingstock....or at the least his reputation will suffer mightily.

-z

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1928736&postcount=126
__________________________

Is your buddy "rikzilla" lying, Ronald?

Ron, be a sport and post Jay Ref a.k.a. "rikzilla's" response here about whether or not he made the call to Mr. Jowenko after you contact him.

By the way, Ronald, you didn't answer my "yes" or "no" question about whether or not you've ever been compensated to post at 911Blogger.com. So I'll ask again, have you ever received payment to post here? Yes or no?

Show "Maybe Jowenko is Really a Nut" by Ronald Wieck

Your LIES and sophistry are useless in this debate, Wretch

Ronald Wretch wrote:
"I have never heard of Jay Ref"

BS. He has over 4,000 posts as "rikzilla" on a forum that you routinely promote here, and you expect us to believe that you've never heard of him? LIAR!

Ronald Wretch wrote:
"I'm forced to conclude that Jowenko is simply an idiot."

You couldn't conclude yourself out of a wet paper bag.

Ronald Wretch wrote:
"Jowenko, like EVERYONE else in the demolition industry, has stated that the collapses of the Twin Towers look nothing like controlled demolitions."

More LIES from the wretched one, pretending to tell the "twoof". Most people who work in the demolition industry have never gone on public record about what they believe happened to the twin towers and Building 7. That goes for structural engineers too.

Ronald Wretch wrote:
"Your question about my imaginary compensation remains extremely stupid."

Your absence of denial remains extremely telling.

Show "For the Record" by Ronald Wieck

Ron, you're delusional

I think you've told so many lies that you can't comprehend what the truth is anymore. Perhaps you need to switch your meds and drink less of that government kool-aid you've been trying to sell us here. You see, Ronnie, most of us here are wide fucking awake to what's going on in the world -- and we don't need some greasy-haired, shifty-eyed, second-rate public access talk show host to tell us what he does or doesn't think happened on 9/11. You're a fecking clown to us, Ronnie. Nothing more, nothing less. One would expect a clown to be paid for his services, now wouldn't they?

Summation

Empty words by an empty-headed fraud. Your pernicious and deranged movement is built on lies and hatred of this great country. You have not a shred of evidence to support your absurd fantasies.

and yet you still come here

and yet you still come here almost every day to indulge your obsession with us "nutbags". what does that say about you old man? pathetic. you hate the constitution and you hate this country. 9/11 activists love this country more than a gullible, flag waving, blindly trusting douchebag like you could ever imagine. does your wife know you do this shit ronny? get in arguments with "fantasists"?

Show "The Mystery of Danny Jowenko" by Ronald Wieck

"gobsmacked"? Ronald, it's more like...

...SMACKED!!

Creeping Suspicion

Uh, stallion, I'm beginning to get the idea that you're about fourteen years old. Am I right?

I told you to go fetch us yer feckin' shine box, Wonnie

You're a proven LIAR who is, in my opinion, trying to cover-up the murders of every man, woman and child who lost their lives in the 9/11 attack. Am I right?

Run Along Now

Whatever you say, kid.

Whatever YOU say, huckster

It was this "kid" who called out your BS and shotty research practices concerning Danny Jowenko.

By the way, I noticed the smack you talked about me to your little groupies over at JREF. What's wong wonnie? Not feelin' the love over here...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72347

LOL.

It was this "fantasist fourteen-year-old" who deflated your grossly overinflated ego that sent you runnin' back to your little rat's nest with your little rat tail tucked between your little rat legs, where you were too afraid and too embarrassed to explain to your cheerleaders the enormous amount of ownage I got on you after I showed you the call that was made to Jowenko that confirmed his belief WTC-7 was indeed a controlled demolition, which you tried to dishonestly dismiss as being a "Phony Call". You should be thanking me instead of talking smack, Ron. Because I know how much you care about the "twoof" and all... NOT!

Well, I hope you're

Well, I hope you're satisfied! You're one of the meanies that chased my Ronnie off!:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72453

Though I suspect, as they suggest, he'll come back as an annoy-mice...

Stay away from my Wonnie you floosie

Wonnie's MY man! Now stay away from him, ya hear!

How very fair-minded of you,

How very fair-minded of you, Ronnie. I knew you had layers. You've worked so hard here; come take a break and have a laugh:

http://911blogger.com/node/5532#comment-107380

And thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for next week's CROSSBALL! Tell your people to email my people--mind my people are mostly Tahitians these days and their English is a little dodgy, but cocktails are a universal language, don't you think?

Ciao!

Maybe Wieck is Really a Nut

"like EVERYONE else in the demolition industry, has stated that the collapses of the Twin Towers look nothing like controlled demolitions."

1. Show us proof of that statement.  Quote your sources.  Show us.  Please.

2.  Just because someone hasn't spoken out on an issue doesn't mean that they share your position.  That’s absurd logic.

3.  9/11 is a controversial subject.  So is homosexuality.  Just because someone doesn't admit they are gay doesn't mean that they aren't gay.  Similarly, if someone doesn't admit to the public at large that they think 9/11 is an inside job, it doesn't mean that they don't think that 9/11 was an inside job.  In some respects admitting that is even more dangerous because you could be threatened with job loss.

Fact: NIST contributor Ronald Hamburger’s first impression was that “[explosive] charges had been placed in the building."

[1]

If you are going to make blanket statements, back them up with evidence—not your opinion has you have done repeatedly.  As I have just shown you, even NIST contributors thought that it looked like controlled demolition. 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."



[1]

NIST contributor Ronald Hamburger said he had the first impression that it looked like explosive “charges” had been placed in the WTC buildings.

[1]

See here: http://www.absconsulting.com/news/wsjsept11.pdf The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 19, 2001.

Transparent Con Game

The 9/11 Fantasy movement is so intellectually bankrupt that you are reduced to peddling FIRST IMPRESSIONS and attempting to palm them off as considered judgments. In the real world, it works differently. People get impressions that often turn out wrong. If you are capable of discovering what actually happened and adjusting your views accordingly, you are rational. If you are eternally wedded to the impulse of the moment, you are a fool. When buildings were collapsing around them, people were understandably panicked, unable to think clearly. Inability to think clearly is the defining characteristic of your entire movement.

Minor Omission

By the way, we missed your explanation of Jowenko's statement that the collapse of the Twin Towers does not resemble a controlled demolition.

Oh, I get it--he's right when it suits your politics. The rest of the time, he can be ignored.

Fraud.

@ the known LIAR Ronald Wieck

Jowenko, as well as nearly all other demolition experts, are not familiar with "Top Down" controlled demolition -- so his statements regarding the towers aren't conclusive. He also wasn't informed about the testimony from numerous first responders who heard several explosions which occurred in rapid succession, along with seeing several red/orange flashes near the base of the towers seconds BEFORE they came down, which are both classic earmarkings of controlled demolition using explosives. He also wasn't informed about the reports that FDNY and NYPD found bombs in the buildings.

Building 7, on the other hand, was a conventional controlled demolition using explosives, which Mr. Jowenko has nearly 20 years experience performing and is more than qualified to give his expert opinion on.

Off topic question, Ron; Do you receive any compensation to post at 911Blogger.com? Are you employed by someone to post here? Be honest, Ron, if you're capable of that.

True, Experts Doubt Its Existence

Yes, it is true that no demolition experts are familiar with the imaginary concept "Top-down demolition." As I pointed out in an earlier post, shark fishermen are similarly unfamilar with the use of tennis rackets to kill Great Whites. The zany notion is comical, but it reveals the desperation of the fantasy movement, as one after another of its fantasies and fabrications bite the dust. There is an excellent reason why no demolition company has ever attempted a top-down demolition and none ever will: it is insane and defies all the principles of the demolition industry. Naturally, you don't care about stuff like that.

The "reports" that the police and fire departments "found" bombs in the buildings were false. No bombs were found and nobody thinks any were.

The alleged demolition of building 7 cannot be made to fit into any conspiracy scheme. What conceivable purpose could there have been for bringing down an obscure building seven hours after the attacks? Shouldn't your comic book super villains have remotely plausible motives?

On the off chance that your last question is serious, who could possibly have any interest in paying someone to post on a tiny blog with two dozen or so regular readers? I mean, sometimes it IS necessary to step outside our private worlds and enter the real one.

Did everyone catch that?

I asked Ronald a simple yes or no question about whether or not he receives compensation to post here, and... HE DID NOT DENY THAT HE RECEIVES COMPENSATION TO POST AT 911BLOGGER.COM.

So in light of Ronald's absence of denial, I will ask him a follow up question; Ronald Wieck, who compensates you to post at 911Blogger.com?

Show "Dumb and Dumber" by Ronald Wieck

Once again, did everyone catch that?

The known LIAR Ronald Wretch wrote:
"I am not "compensated" to waste time here"

Do you see the little word games that this little wretched man plays? He can't even answer a simple yes or no question.

Ron, obviously you wouldn't be wasting your time if you were being compensated to post here now would you?

So once again I'll ask you, Ron, does someone pay you to post at 911Blogger.com? Yes or no.

If yes, who?

Can't Get Any Dumber

There was a time when I would have wondered just stupid you could possibly be. I have learned--boy, have I learned!

I am a "known" liar as a result of being caught in WHAT lie, exactly? Take your time.

Possibly you are not severely brain-damaged, but are merely feigning. If you were as dumb as you make yourself appear, you could not possibly feed yourself or cross a street without getting killed. I suspect your audience is not pleased that you are a punching bag for me.

To answer your moronic question, no, nobody sees any word games. The reason they don't is that no word games are being played. Nobody sane thinks that anyone in the world would pay someone to post on a tiny blog populated by extremists.

I am curious to discover how you will manage to befuddle yourself with this response:

No, dimwit, I am not paid to post here. It is inconceivable that anyone would pay me or anyone else to post on this blog. If there is a living soul who would consider paying for such an inconsequential service, that person's identity is unknown to me. I would bet everything I own that no one has ever been paid to post here.

Answering the question is terribly easy for me. Comprehending the answer--or anything else, for that matter--is, for you, difficult.

A proven LIAR (Wonnie the wretch) expects us to believe him now?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Go fetch us yer feckin' shine box, Wonnie...lol

Advice from Adult to Child

Uh, we kinda noticed that I haven't lied about anything. I think that game is over.

Until you're ready to explain why Jowenko thinks your fantasies about the Twin Towers are rubbish, you should concentrate on finishing your homework and saving your allowance.

The proven LIAR has no place left to run, but in circles...

I've already explained to you that what Jowenko said about the towers isn't conclusive, since he's not experienced in top-down demolition.

What part of that don't you understand, Ronald?

He also wasn't informed before making his statements (about the towers) of the numerous witnesses who heard and saw explosions occurring in rapid succession, accompanied by brisant orange and red flashes near the base of the towers seconds BEFORE the towers fell down, which are all classic earmarkings of controlled demolition. He also was not informed about the bombs that the FDNY and NYPD reported finding in the buildings. He also hadn't been informed about the obvious conventional controlled demolition of Building 7 (bottom-up), which he has since gone on public record more than once to say he believes was brought down on purpose, based on his nearly 20 years experience working in the demolition industry.

And there are other experts who have gone on public record to say that the towers were indeed brought down via controlled demolition. Explosives expert Van Romero is one. He explained that after watching the video tapes of the towers falling down, that he believed they were destroyed by explosives. He also explained that a top-down demolition could have easily been achieved if explosives were planted in the proper places inside the buildings. His exact quote was, "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points".

However, Romero recanted -- only a few days later -- his belief the towers were destroyed with explosives, and changed his story to fire being the cause.

His retraction is highly suspicious for a couple of reasons. One being the short amount of time he waited to change his highly public "explosives" story to the official "fire" story. He went from saying explosives were the culprit to "fire" being the cause within days of each other without having sufficient enough time to study whether fire could have actually caused the towers to fall. Also, Romero was a "structural explosives expert", not an expert on structural fire. His first opinion was based on his expertise. His second opinion was not.

Either way, he is still on record saying explosives could have brought down those buildings if planted correctly.

There's also at least one other demo expert that has gone on record to say a top-down demolition of the towers was possible. His name is Mark Johnson, a former military explosives/demolition expert from Philadelphia. He's on record saying, ""I was trained to implode buildings, blow out bridges as well as being trained extensively in explosive booby traps of all kinds... From day one on Sept. 11th, after seeing the footage of the airliner striking the WTC on CNN and seeing explosions happening on lower floors of both towers, I knew right then and there that the towers were purposely being imploded".

The truth is, the majority of people who work in demolition or structural engineering have never gone on public record to say whether or not the WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. To say otherwise, Ronald, is extremely dishonest. But we already know that about you, don't we.

Tired Routine

I have been Googling Mark Johnson for twenty-five pages without success. I'm getting bored. Post a link to this guy or we can assume he's another fraud.

The concept of top-down demolition is the product of your imagination. Real demolition experts laugh at the idea. As you are totally ignorant of the principles of controlled demolition, you don't begin to comprehend how absurd your fabrication is. By the way, how did the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy know EXACTLY what floors the planes would impact? The collapses DO proceed from the impact floors, as can be easily verified.

Van Romero regards you conspiracy liars as utter frauds. What do you know that he doesn't?

You are lying about the NYPD or FDNY finding bombs in ANY buildings.

There is not a SINGLE structural engineer or demolition expert in the country who takes your nonsense seriously.

There are absolutely NO demolition experts anywhere who accept your fabricated nonsense about explosives in the Twin Towers. The collapses of buildings 1 and 2 look NOTHING like controlled demolition. Seismic data gathered by the Lamont-Doherty labs show that no explosions preceded the collapses.

Tell us about all the errors you found in the Protec paper by Brent Blanchard.

We're still curious about how you "proved" I'm a liar. You don't want us to think that you're a phony, do you, kid?

Mark Johnson

"I have been Googling Mark Johnson for twenty-five pages without success. I'm getting bored. Post a link to this guy or we can assume he's another fraud."

That's funny, I could find him and his statement right away using Google:

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/28367.htm

These were my search terms:

"Mark Johnson" + "I was trained to implode buildings"

"Former Military Demolition Pro Now 'Blows Out' Neo Con Protest Songs; Inspired And Angry, He's Now Writing Song About WTC Hero-Janitor For Efforts To Get At 9/11 Truth"

The article is well worth reading.

Actually, I don't know if anyone has ever demolished a building as tall as the twin towers were. I've seen a video of a botched demo job in which the bottom floors of a tallish narrow building were blown out. The building descended for a few seconds and then halted (due to the structural resistance of the intact building). It tilted considerably, though. Now, suppose the same happens when a building as tall as the twin towers is being demolished, and it topples to a side. However, when demolished from top down only the relatively small part above the demolition wave could topple, instead of the entire tall building above the bottom floors. Just something that came to mind.

Another Non-Expert

Yes, I learned on JREF that Mark Johnson is a lefty folk-singer who claims to have been in the army. Whether he is telling the truth or, like so many of his ideological comrades, is another fraud, we don't know. What we know is that he is by no stretch of the imagination an EXPERT on demolitions.

Of course, no one has ever attempted to demolish a building even HALF as tall as the Twin Towers, the world's record being a structure roughly 450 feet high.

Expertise

" What we know is that he is by no stretch of the imagination an EXPERT on demolitions."

Well, he says he was "trained to implode buildings" (among other things), which would certainly mean he *has more expertise* than you and me both.

What about the structural design professors referenced in my blog, have they any relevant expertise?

Ronald...

(Thanks for the image DBLS. It's perfect for these clowns :)
http://911blogger.com/node/5504

Wouldn't be good

Wouldn't be good business.... this only workd on buildings with functional fire sprinkler protection systems.... many buildings which require demolitions are old and do not have this protection

Show "This further confirms the sickness of the 9/11 Truth Movement" by Anonymous (not verified)

You've got it wrong. It's

You've got it wrong. It's not like that. This painting symbolizes, at the very least, that as long as this world exists, our leaders will be reminded that, firefighters (along with rescue workers from other fields) lost their lives because the government lied about the dangers in the air at ground zero. That much is fact. It's on the record. It's recorded history.

This painting and our efforts are out of love and respect. If this offends someone because they are a Bush supporter, that shows that they do not know what's going on in the world around them. It's not because of disrespect on our part.

Show "You Won't Get the Humor" by Ronald Wieck

Holy Gobshite! Are you still

Holy Gobshite!

Are you still ejaculating here? Did the cat pop your inflatable woman? You know, Ron-boy, they make patches for those things...

Show "Mineta's Testimony" by Ronald Wieck

Hmm

So how far from Washington was Flight 93 when it was destroyed?

On the other hand, in the same timeline it says

"(9:20 a.m.): Mineta Reaches Bunker, Meets Cheney

Transportation Secretary Mineta arrives at the White House bunker containing Vice President Cheney and others. In later testimony, he recalls that Cheney is already there when he arrives. [St. Petersburg Times, 7/4/2004] This supports accounts of Cheney reaching the bunker not long after the second WTC crash, but the 9/11 Commission concludes Cheney doesn’t arrive until a few minutes before 10:00 a.m.. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]"

So one question is when Cheney arrives at the bunker.

I have earlier referred to the FAA memo, which was disregarded by the commission in its report.

"However, the 9/11 Commission will later claim the plane heading toward Washington is only discovered by the Dulles Airport air traffic control tower at 9:32 a.m. (see 9:32 a.m. September 11, 2001). But earlier accounts, including statements made by the FAA and NORAD, will claim that the FAA notified the military about the suspected hijacking of Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., if not before (see (9:24 a.m.) September 11, 2001). The FBI’s Washington Field Office was also reportedly notified that Flight 77 had been hijacked at about 9:20 a.m. (see (9:20 a.m.) September 11, 2001)."

Real Liar Battered on JREF

This was unreadable when I posted it as a reply. It deserves to read by all of you who are planning to invade JREF with your "truths."

Well, Real Liar, you have been soundly trounced on JREF. Oh, wait--the guy who was exposed there posted as "Rebel" or something clever like that, so it couldn't possibly have been Real Liar himself. Tricky, huh?

The link to Apathoid's paper is well-known to you, as I have posted it here many times:

911myths.com, the section "Investigations, more."

Just another example of your dishonesty.

The pretensions of ignorant frauds like you cannot survive long on JREF.

For anyone interested in learning a great deal about autopilot systems on Boeing commercial aircraft in general and the refutation of dishonest claims about the possibility of remote-controlled flight in particular, here is the link:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72172

Real Liar didn't do too well.

I will explain why you won't "bother" to debunk Apathoid: He is an experienced, highly-qualified avionics tech, while you are an ignorant impostor. There are two reasons for your inability to find any errors in his paper: 1) there aren't any; 2) you are incompetent to debate the issue with him.

Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Wed, 01/10/2007 - 7:28pm.

Show "Rebel Without A Clue" by resipsa

Response to Apathoid's Paper

OK let's put this nagging little baby to rest. Apathoid's paper SEEMS to be a genuine explanation of the way a normal commercial Boeing 757 and 767 are configured in terms of navigation and flight control systems. I can't vouch for its accuracy but I have no reason to doubt that everything he says that can be verified in any technical manual is true.

Apathoid's thesis, if I understand it correctly, is that the modifications required to enable a remote takeover that could not be resisted by the flight crew could not have been made. But he makes this claim only given certain assumptions, wherein lies the weakness of his argument. He lists those assumptions, and I will mention some of them and point out a few that he does not admit to but that are implicit in his analysis.

He assumes, for example, that any modifications made to the planes would have had to have been quick and surreptitious. In other words, he envisions a scenario where (and here is where I will use my own words to describe his implicit assumptions) the four flights were perfectly ordinary events in commercial air travel that someone would have had to, amidst the routine work and checks on the planes, inserted themselves in secretly as a rogue operative, making the modifications while taking care not to be seen doing so, with his work not thereafter being susceptible to discovery. He more or less admits that given ample time the modifications could have been made, but that this ample time was not available to the saboteurs.

The interesting thing here is that Apathoid could well be speaking 100% truth but it doesn't in any way rule out a number of plausible scenarios. The key to understanding the method of deception here (or misunderstanding, though I doubt it) is to examine Apathoid's assumptions to see if we necessarily must accept them as indeed applying to the events of 9/11.

Apathoid assumes that the four flights were genuine, meaning that they were actually scheduled that day, that tickets were in fact sold, that passengers and crew boarded the actual planes that crashed, that the planes were hijacked and flown to their various ends.

Knowing that many people these days are ready and willing to tell very big lies, we must insist on hard evidence for absolutely everything, i.e. we cannot simply assume that because the OCT says that these were all real flights, that they actually were. So what makes more sense than Apathoid's restricted analysis (restricted to a scenario that assumes we have been told the truth about the nature of the flights) the real debate should begin with the questions:

1) what do we know about each of the four plane-related events? AND

2) how do we know what we know?

To take the second question first--where do we get our info about what did or did not happen on 9/11 with regard to flights and airplanes?

a) We have communication with air traffic controllers.

b) We have video of two of the planes.

c) We have a list of passengers and crew.

d) We have alleged communication with passengers on board the planes.

e) official claims of content discovered on flight recorders (in some but not all cases)

Here is my take:

a) I presume these could have been faked. I don't find it beyond the realm of possibility, especially given that exercises and simulations were taking place that morning that the air traffic controllers could have been talking to "exercise" and not "real world" plane crews.

b) the videos of the planes hitting the towers are nearly indisputably real, but do not constitute proof that the planes were the alleged flights, that they carried a crew or passengers, or much of anything else other than the fact that two planes crashed into the WTC. No such evidence exists for there having been planes over Shanksville or the Pentagon.

c) the passenger lists are problematic for several reasons. they do not include the alleged hijackers who are supposed to have been, for all intents and purposes, passengers on the flights who had purchased tickets. a passenger list or passenger manifest is not particularly difficult to forge. The alleged flights, all four, were very oddly underbooked. Despite this, the official account would have us believe that Atta paid $4500 for his ticket. The fact that no one has seen the people named on the list since 9/11 does not prove they were killed, or on a flight that morning. They may be hiding or dead by other means. Claims of DNA having been identified must be taken with a grain of salt since these claims may be fabricated, or the DNA used may have been planted or provided under false pretenses to those who did the analysis. None of this proves that the story of the four flights is true.

d) whether or not phone calls CAN be made from planes is not the question. The question is WERE those phone calls made from planes. And the answer is? There is no proof that they WERE made, so no need to debate whether or not they COULD be made.

e) easily falsified, and the flight 93 narrative says it all.

What I'm trying to show here is that contrary to Apathoid's assumptions there is no good reason to suppose that the flights occured as we have been told. There is instead abundant reason to be skeptical. Therefore Apathoid's analysis may well be correct insofar as his assumptions are, and hence it is inadequate to explain what happened on 9/11. The numerous anomalies remain, and we are free and unfettered by contradictory evidence to suppose that the planes that hit the towers were not the flights they are purported to have been, that they did not originate out of the airports alleged, that they were not necessarily manned by people, that they were, rather, planes flown by remote out of military bases, and that most importantly, they had nothing to do with the controlled demolition of the twin towers and building 7, except to serve as a distraction from the true cause of the collapses--controlled demolition.

Thanks Ronald for the heads up, I hope you can see why your efforts do not faze us in the slightest.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

The Sound of Silence (by Ronald Wiek) and the Burlington Poll

As predicted on these pages, the Burlington Free Press poll went to about 80/20 in our favor, just like with the CNN online poll a while back. We can only assume that this means that we have 4 times the support among web activists than the 9/11 Deniers.

Speaking of whom, after accusing me of being "owned" on their site by pretending that *I* am some poster named rebel over there, Ronnie and the others seem to have no interest in actually responding to my rebuttal to Apathoid's lovely yet irrelevant paper. Go figure.

We are winning in the streets, we are winning online, we are winning over hearts, we are winning over minds. We are winning, we are winning, we are winning.

Mad props to all the winners on this board, you know who you are!

RT

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Show "Real Liar Admits Defeat" by Ronald Wieck

hee hee Ronnie

Have you read Apathoid's paper? He doesn't say Raytheon's remote control technology doesn't exist, he just says that it's unlikely that it could have been installed on four commercial jets without being noticed.

And we're trying to help you understand that real truthers don't believe commercial jets were involved. Do you fail to see this? You may as well spend your time debunking space beems and holograms if you're going to pretend that actual commercial jets were used. Until you prove those flights were all in the air and full of people (like actually prove it, not just pretend that it's true because no one can DISprove it) and that the planes were NOT remote controlled, and that the three obvious cases of controlled demolition were anything but, I don't see how you think you're convincing anyone of your wild claims about Arab Muslim Hijackers with Box Cutters Hating Our Freedoms. That's the bottom line here.

In the face of mountains of evidence of the true nature of these crimes, a defense of "I know you are but what am I?" does not justify your assured tone. It just doesn't. Have fun on JREF. Oh wait, I forgot--no one reads it so you have to troll this site. OK, see you around! Keep helping us set the record straight about what real truthers believe, and don't believe.

You know the funny thing is I think you actually represent an independent breed of shill, not tied in with the conspirators but still wanting to preserve the racist myth. We'll have to come up with a Latin classification system before this is all over. Sheesh!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Show "Reality Check" by Ronald Wieck

you're divorced from reality, which is exactly where we want you

I LOVE this comment above by Ronnie. Because finally we're getting somewhere. Read through his post and notice how he mixes all his (their) arguments--the weak with the ultra-weak. See, they don't have to prove anything because OBVIOUSLY everything happened as they say. Because air-traffic controllers can tell by a blip on the screen the difference between a plane full of Binghams and Beamers from a drone broadcasting a a forged transponder signal, or a war game false inject doing the same.

Note the smug assertion that we "are put into the vile position...etc." The vile position in all o ft his is the one that claims Arab Muslims did it so that they can go murder hundreds of thousands of men women and children.

Ronnie is what we can call a paleo-shill. He helps us because he, unlike the shills who infiltrate our movement by pretending to be one of us, has to support every last idiotic claim of the official conspiracy theory. Ronnie is a gem, and if he didn't exist I would have had to create him myself, because it is so refreshing to not have to argue with the 57 varieties of domestic shill in order to clear up what real truthers believe and what poser truthers claim to believe (NPT, space beams, etc.)

I'm not sure what Ronnie represents, either a new tactic on the part of the same folks, or as I intimated earlier, a fully evolved "perfect dupe" someone who is so far gone that they actually believe and can argue with conviction that the official conspiracy theory is 100% accurate. A true 16 percenter in other words! Quick kids, get the camera!

Finally, let me comment on this "truthiness" thing. A word invented by Comedy Central shill Steven Colbert, that in order to give it a significance it does not have on its own merit was picked as word of the year by someone unimportant, so that the New York Times et al could pretend that Colbert is an American phenom (kind of like when they had him pull the stunt at the White House PRess (sic) Corps dinner and everyone pretended to be amazed at how brave he was. I noticed around that time that shills were starting to call it the 9/11 truthiness movement on sites like Daily Kos. Remember--ostensible diversity masking an actual uniformity. Plant that silly little word in a bunch of different shill outlets, create a buzz--pure marketing tactics 101 for the New American Century. These days PR hacks spend as much time tagging buildings and hanging out in chat rooms as they do o crafting copy for lazy pseudo-journalists.

The beauty of all of this is that these shills have come to believe their brain, Karl Rove, that they really do create reality for everyone else, when really they only create their own, and then try to sell it to people. Falling readership and viewership of the print and radio outlets they use show conclusively how Americans and the world are rejcting their crap, yet they continue to harbor feelings of grandeur based on the mistaken belief that everyone still thinks the New York Times is a real newspaper.

As we reach out to more and more people, the average person when confronted with Ronnie's little rant above gets the message loud and clear--these people are and have been real freaks in the employ of liars. Whether they are paleo like Ronnie or designed to appeal to slightly more discerning thinkers, like Jon Stewart fans, they have been fooled or otherwise convinced to go to bat for the 9/11 perps, without knowing what they're facing on the mound.

Again, Ron, thanks for being here and helping us set the record straight. I look forward to more of your posts. You might consider, for example, telling us how the Pentagon matched the DNA allegedly found there to that of the alleged hijackers. That question comes from Davin Coburn, who totally struck out while batting for the OCT and wishes to do better next time. Help out your comrade, Ronnie. Help Mr. Coburn figure out why he can't explain a simple alleged fact of the theory he so strongly advocates!

Or just make something up yourself--I'll be waiting!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Show "Real Liar Exposed" by Ronald Wieck

Warning: This contradicts your version of reality

Fireman 1: ”We made it outside, we made it about a block…”

Fireman 2: “We made it at least two blocks and we started running.” He makes explosive sounds and then uses a chopping hand motion to emphasize his next point: “Floor by floor it started popping out…

Fireman 1: “It was as if they had detonated--as if they were planning to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom

Fireman 2: “All the way down. I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down.”

[1]

“It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what--because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.”

[2]

Daniel Rivera, Paramedic

“‘Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?’ He said, ‘No.’ . . . I said, ‘Why not’ They blew up the other one.’ I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one.’ He said, ‘No, they're not.’ I said, ‘Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out.’ . . . He said, ‘I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that.’ . . . I said, ‘You got a f___ing radio and you got a f___ing mouth. Use the f___ing things. Empty this f___ing building.' Again he said, ‘I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that.’ . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, ‘They are evacuating this tower.’ . . . And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall.”

[3]

William Reynolds, Firefighter in conversation with a Firefighter Battalion Chief

“At that point, a debate began to rage because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down.”

[4]

Christopher Fenyo, Firefighter describing a conversation after the first tower fell

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


[1]

For the video of this conversation, see ?Evidence of Demolition Charges in WTC 2,? What Really Happened (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html).

No Sale

No, it indicates your desperation and intellectual bankruptcy. You can con ignorant and uncritical rubes by palming off first impressions as considered judgments, but your deception fails with rationalists.

Firefighters despise conspiracy liars for twisting their words. They don't buy your fabrications and falsehoods about controlled demolition, a subject you know nothing about.

Check out the section on "firemen's quotes" on debunking911.com. When your audience consists entirely of boobs who have switched off their brains, you can sell 'em anything.

Debunking of Debunking911

Evidence to support my argument (in contrast only your opinion as supported by a ludicrous website):

Massive Explosions were heard just before the towers began to fall. Sound travels slower than what is observed visually.

“Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like aplanned implosion.’ [i.e. controlled demolition]”

[1]

“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."

[2]

Frank Cruthers, Firefighter

“…all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet… The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing

[3]

Lonnie Penn, E.M.S

“First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device. . . . I just heard like an explosion and then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down”

[4]

Timothy Julian, Firefighter

“I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two [North Tower] started to come down.”

[5]

Kevin Darnowski, Paramedic

And on and on and on. Question: How does debunking 9/11 address this issue? Answer it doesn’t! Only a controlled demolition can explain massive explosions BEFORE the building started to collapse!

Quote

Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too”, said Isaac.

“there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” –Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac

Paul Isaac never said anything of the kind. Another Conspiracy Theorist deception.

Yes he did. Read it here:

He explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.”

Debunking911 has lied? You don’t say.

Quote:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det…
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building, 
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom…

D9/11 says: Before or after every description is “As if”. “As if they had planned to take down a building”. “It was as if as if they had detonated”.

Their analysis is hilarious. It is as if they were attempting to use logic. Perhaps it looked “as if” it was a controlled demolition because “it was” a controlled demolition. Perhaps “it was” a controlled demolition because of the overwhelming evidence AND massive eye-witness testimony that just happens to confirm this evidence as if it were the best explanation for what happened!


[1]

"Special Report: Terrorism in the US," Guardian, Sept. 12, 2001.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Hi Arabesque

I've been in contact with Paul Isaac and he told me personally that he stands by everything he's quoted saying in the Randy Lavello article concerning the FDNY knowing that bombs were planted in the buildings. However, he also explained to me that the statements about the firefighters not being able to talk about it was taken out of context and that he was only making a guess when he said that. He also told me that some of the stuff WING TV wrote about him was untrue.

Anyway, excellent post. Here's another FDNY quote to add to your list:

Fireman: "There's a bomb in the building!"
Fireman: "Here we go again"
Fireman: "There's a bomb in the building, start clearing out."
Bystander: "Sorry? Did you say there was a bomb? What did you say?"
Fireman: "Bomb in the building! Start clearing out!"
Fireman: "We gotta get the **** outta here!"
Fireman "There's a secondary device in the building!"
Fireman: "We got a secondary device!"
Fireman: "Got a secondary device in the building!"
Fireman: "Secondary device!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53w...0the%20building

There's more quotes here if you want them:
http://digg.com/videos/educational/WTC_witnesses_to_explosions

Thank you for questioning the "official story": 9/11 Hero

Thanks. I have a list of over 50 quotes. I’ve even pulled \out the entire thing against the trolls a few times! There is so much evidence. It's overwhelming proof.

Here are a few more for good measure:

"Thank you so much for coming out with a report questioning the "official Story" of 9/11. I read with a lot of dedication your paper [“Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Towers Completely Collapse” by physicist Steven Jones

[1]

] and I distributed it widely to all the Victims and survivors of that day (I am the leader of the families and the last person pulled from the rubble from the North Tower)… I told the 9/11 Commission about the explosions and the events on the sub-basement on that day. They did not put it in the final report. Please check the internet under "William Rodriguez 9/11". I am trying to raise the same questions. Since I am a respected figure internationally, I noticed how my testimony has been presented unedited all over the world. But in the USA, I am edited… I am asked constantly about other subjects and issues but nothing about the explosions of that day… I told the Commission, there was an explosion that came from under our feet, we were pushed upwards lightly by the effect, I was on basement level 1 and it sounded that it came from B2 and B3 level. Rapidly after that we heard the impact far away at the top. My assertions are [that] my 20 years experience there and witnessing prior to that many other noises [enable me] to conclude without any doubt where the sounds were coming from. 2ND- Some of the same people that I saved gave testimonies in interviews of the same experience prior to my actually being reunited with them after the event!!! Like I explained, some of these survivors stories were told in countless [interviews] of coverage, but in SPANISH!! I have the actual recordings available of some of the Television Specials that featured our stories.”

William Rodriguez Hispanic Victims Group, 9/11 United Services Group, Lower Manhattan Family Advisory Counsel and 9/11 hero in a letter to Physics Professor Steven E. Jones.

[2]

“Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, ‘how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?’ After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman ‘heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.’ After they pried themselves out of the elevator, ‘another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!?’”

[3]

Louie Cacchioli, Firefighter

“There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."

[4]

Teresa Veliz, WTC employee for a software company

“I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building.”

[5]

James Drury, Firefighter Assistant Commissioner

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” Richard Banaciski, Firefighter

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” Stephen Gregory, Assistant Fire Commissioner

“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'." Daniel Rivera, Paramedic

Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?" -- and a lieutenant firefighter the Commissioner spoke with independently verified the flashes

[6]

“My God, they’re going to bring the building down. And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES… I saw the explosions.”

[7]



[2]

Highly recommended: Rodriguez explains his experiences on 9/11:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294

[3]

Greg Szymanski, "NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Upset that 9/11 Commission 'Tried to Twist My Words,?" Arctic Beacon.com, July 19, 2005. Although the oral histories that were released on August 12 did not include one from Cacchioli, the fact that he was on duty is confirmed in the oral history of Thomas Turilli, page 4.

[4]

Dean E. Murphy, September 11: An Oral History (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 9-15.

[7]

Alicia Shepard, Cathy Trost, and Newseum, Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11, Foreword by Tom Brokaw (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), 87.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Debunked Canards" by Ronald Wieck
Show "Well, that was rather lame" by resipsa

So, who are you and why have

So, who are you and why have you joined us again, sunbeam?

And is it "Reslpsa" or "resipsa"? Or do you have a preference?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Real Hero Art Here

http://911truthiness.org/

And Chuck Full O Truthiness

It's so moving!

It's so moving! *sniff*

Ronnie has touched so many people's lives--in this comments forum alone!

Want to express exactly how you feel about his work and the efforts of the Hardfire crew? Visit my blog at:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5532#comment-107380

You'll be glad you did--and Ronnie will, too!

Hugs and kisses!

Show "My Cup Runneth Over" by Ronald Wieck

"The welcome mat is out at

"The welcome mat is out at JREF."

IF they don't think your UK email address is in Nigeria, that is!

Hugs and kisses!

Show "Bad Effort" by Ronald Wieck

Ronnie, I thought your work

Ronnie, I thought your work here was done! I'm so glad you'll be around to give me more material--I mean, hope! Hope that this Truther fantasy will be crushed!

Hugs and kisses!

Before you go...

... please note that I've helped you with Google usage at http://911blogger.com/node/5425?page=8

Also, what about my last question related to the Mineta thing above? You should have seen that I'm open to your evidence.

Show "Inaccurate Timeline" by Ronald Wieck

Monitoring

"Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, as you surely know. It was NOT being monitiored by Cheney or anyone else: It was LOST."

But *something* was being monitored ("the plane is 30 miles out... the plane is 20 miles out... the plane is 10 miles out"), unless we conclude Mineta not only got his timeline but also what Cheney was saying wrong.

Thanks for the invitation. I'm skeptical, however: from my experience merely asking questions tends to invoke the usual tired "tinfoil hat / conspiracy nut" stuff in lieu of real discussion.

Show "Invitation Stands" by UBloons

U-B-Loons?

Ha, ha, ha! That's my Ronnie--so witty.

But you didn't have to bother getting a new account--you still have your pomeroo account at 911blogger:

http://www.911blogger.com/user/567

Poor Ronnie--all that hard work is starting to take a toll!

Hugs and kisses!

Hugs and kisses!?!?! Why you dirty TRAMP!!

I told you he's MINE, Jenny!

NOW KEEP YOUR COCK - A - DOODIE HANDS OFF MY WONNIE OR WE GONNA HAVE PROBLEMS!!

Well, um, since you put it

Well, um, since you put it that way...

Nice portrait of yourself, by the way. I can see that you and Ronnie are clearly soulmates. Please put the shot gun down.

Trust me, my infatuation is PURELY satirical---I mean, INTELLECTUAL--besides I have this torrid Truther romance on the side!

Um, so, Mrs. Wieck--now we've got that out of the way, how do you feel about Ronnie spending so much time away from the conjugial bed debating Twoofers?

Top 10 Reasons Why it is Pointless to Respond to Ronald Wieck

Top 10 Reasons Why it is Pointless to Respond to Ronald Wieck

  1. He uses Straw-men fallacies instead of answering actual arguments. This is his favorite tactic.

    [1]

  2. He refuses to acknowledge any errors in his argument—even if he contradicts himself

    [2]

  3. He invents his own facts to support his opinion

    [3]

  4. He promotes his opinion as if it is a fact

    [4]

  5. He uses the logical fallacy appeal to authority instead of answering the argument.
  6. He often prefers ad-hominem fallacies instead of debate
  7. He prefers to refer to a dubious website instead of official reports to support his argument
  8. He has no intellectual honesty. He has no interest to debate or acknowledge facts as being true when they are being presented to him.
  9. He responds without answering legitimate questions, often ignoring them.
  10. He is a troll. His purpose is to be annoying. He is the supreme master at this. But he is also a coward. He is not worth our time.

I award Ronald Wieck with the “Disingenuous Charlatan Prize” for the massive use of false logic and cheap debating tactics.


[1]

i.e. Your position is that everyone in the NIST report is lying. This would never happen. Therefore you are wrong.

This is a straw-man because evidence shows that NIST is indeed lying.

Your position is that ALL controlled demolition experts believe that it was not a controlled demolition on 9/11. Therefore you are wrong.

This is a straw-man because 1) it is untrue and 2) He assumes that everyone who does not speak out on the subject shares his opinion. That is absurd.

[2]

i.e. There is no Molten Steel. But what about the FEMA report? Doesn’t count because the NIST report was made later. No Reports are wrong. (Contradiction: if No Reports are wrong—and the FEMA report says there was molten steel, then he has contradicted his own argument).

[3]

i.e. There is no molten steel. No controlled demolition experts believe it was a controlled demolition on 9/11.

[4]

i.e. there was no molten steel

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."