Phone Calls From the Planes: Surprising New Evidence

For the Zacarias Moussoui trial, the government has released all its detailed evidence regarding the phone calls from the planes. The evidence is titled "Zacarias Moussaoui Prosecution Trial Exhibit number P200055," and can be partially viewed here:

The evidence is very revealing and detailed, and contradicts some of the assumptions previously held by 9/11 researchers. For example:

1. All of Tom Burnett's calls from UAL93 were made from airphones in the back of the plane. It had previously been reported that his calls were made from his cell phone, which caused controversy since his first two calls were made when the plane was still above 30,000 feet, at which altitude cell phone calls are difficult if not impossible.

2. All the phone calls from UAL93 were made by airphones, with the lone exception of Cee Cee Lyles' call on a cell phone at 10:57. At that time, the plane's transponder was turned on showing the plane at 7,000 feet, speed unknown.

3. The evidence exhibit shows exactly which airphone each call was made. All airphone calls from all flights were made from the rear area of the planes, where the passengers had apparently been herded.

4. Amy Sweeney's numerous calls from AAL11 were not made on an airphone as previously reported. Her calls were made on a cell phone starting at about 8:25. At this time, the plane's transponder was turned off and the altitude was unknown.

5. All the cell phone calls (UAL175 had none) were made at times when the planes' altitude was unknown, and thus could have been made when the planes were below 8,000 feet at which altitude cell phone calls are known to be possible from airplanes.

Conclusions: The argument that the phone calls are faked because cell phone calls are impossible from moving airplanes is discredited by this new evidence.

Note that the body of evidence taken from the phone calls at large DOES NOT support the government's story of 19 Arab hijackers. The phone calls indicate hijackers with knives; but they do not show the hijackers to be Arabs-- only persons who may have been impersonating Arabs. The phone calls also show evidence that the hijackers were armed with guns as well, pointing to a far more sophisticated conspiracy than the al-Qaeda operatives of the official story.

thank you

We really need to get our ducks in a row here, folks, and focus on the information which is the strongest instead of every flimsy theory thrown out there which casts doubt on the official conspiracy theory. Articles like this one are very valuable. I would encourage everyone past the "beginner" stage to spend some serious time looking at sites aimed at debunking us so that you can really consider which of our arguments are the strongest and focus on promoting those.

Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon.

You may also notice that all

You may also notice that all the "Evidence" they provided in the phone call testimony fits very well into their story being that the calls all happened during very convenient times where there is no way to know the altitudes of those planes.

Phone calls which were once believed to be made from cell phones are all now coming from the airphones....

What was the reasoning in this trial for even putting this evidence forward?.... anyone?... anyone?

to put something on record in trial that clearly throws a wrench into one of our very compelling arguments.

did they put forward the billing info or any recordings of those calls?.... how would this evidence aid in convicting Moussaui? What was it's purpose? If they did present recorded evidence from those calls I would hope the Defense would ask to have that thrown out as it's sole purpose would be to derive an emotional response from the jury.... that's a No No.... because those calls would have no basis upon the burdon of proof....

as I'm sure was the case for much of the "Evidence" provided

You're still fighting the

You're still fighting the phone calls, JJ, and I don't understand why. If you examine them in detail, you will find that they actually throw a wrench into the government's arguments, not ours, e.g. reports of guns from two different callers, Betty Ong's report of a hijacker coming from seat 9B, etc.

The wording of Mark Bingham's & Betty Ong's calls was absurd!


So you say. Absurd things

So you say. Absurd things happen, and are said, during times of great stress. Hardly something to hang charges on.

"Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham. You believe me, don't you mom"


2 calls Airphones

Barry Zwicker points out in Towers of Deception that only 2 of the calls were made on airphones.

This airphone stuff sounds like BS to me.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

I haven't read Zwicker's

I haven't read Zwicker's book. What is his evidence that only two of the calls were from airphones?

Why do you think "this airphone stuff" is BS? Why wouldn't passengers on a hijacked plane try to make calls on airphones? What is BS about that?

Not BS

that airphone calls were made. That all the calls were on airphones sounds like BS to me. Zwicker said that he confirmed this information. If I remember correctly through phone records.

If you think about it. You have to use a credit card to access an airphone. I find it hard to believe that everyone jumped on an airphone using their credit card while a hijacking is taking place.
To maintain composure while all the comotion is going on seems far fetched. 2 calls I can believe. All of them does not make sense to me.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

From Barrie Zwicker's,

From Barrie Zwicker's, Towers of Deception, Exhibit Q, page 89 (a one page piece, only)...."Just two of the calls from Flight 93 are reported to have been via AirFone, the back-of-the- seat handset which operates through the aircraft's antennae." (Footnote 120):

"The 9/11 Commission Report mentions the use of cellular phones at least once, on page 12: "Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE AirFones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts. They enabled the passengers to gain critical information, including the news that two aircraft had slammed into the World Trade Center."

From a few impromptu conversations, one with some stewardesses at a party, and another with a steward upon exiting a flight from Miami, each offered an opinion upon the use of cell phones, etc, during flights, with the first set being 'in the know,' 9/11-wise, and finding the notion laughable and ridiculous, while the second, not even being advised of my position on it, just an innocent question about cell phones and service altitudes, also immediately dismissed the idea that any even passably serviceable calls could be made any higher than about 5,000 ft. It would be interesting to talk to other stewards/-esses and pose the same question to them and see how it meshes with the MSM reported "facts." The set of stewardesses who were so dismissive of cell phone calls knew that the story was a fraud. I wonder how many others knew that also, but were unwilling to speak because of airline policy or 'nudging' from their captains, etc.

This commentary comes from Chuck in our 9/11 group. I sent your blog to the group.

“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Well, Gary, now we have the

Well, Gary, now we have the facts about the phone calls on the flight, so we don't have to rely on hearsay or news reports which may be inaccurate. It turns out that ALL the successful calls from UAL93 were made from GTE airphones.

The only exception is a call made by Cee Cee Lyles on her cell phone at 9:58, which is a few minutes before the crash at about 10:06. We know that the transponder of the plane was turned on at about this time, showing the plane at 7,000 feet. I think at this altitude it is generally agreed that cell calls are possible, if not likely.

Therefore, we can finally dispense with all the technical and ancedotal evidence of cell phones being unusable from the 9/11 flights. That isn't relevant anymore, now that we know that all of the calls made from higher altitudes were made by airphones, and what few cell phone calls were made were made at very low altitudes, when cell phones are useable.

This is good news. Now we can start dealing with the reality that these calls are real, and start learning what they have to teach us. They give us a pretty good idea of what happened on the planes-- AND THEY DO NOT UPHOLD THE OFFICIAL STORY!

You should write a paper

You should write a paper Andrew laying out everything you know and your analysis. I know another guy wrote a paper on Norman Mineta's testimony. You should write one too.

Point well made

I sent Chuck your reply. He seem to concede.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Airphones are gonzo anyhow.

I would say a logical refutation of this "evidence" is the simple fact that Airphones are just not found on most commercial jet liners anymore. A little research might prove or disprove whether they even were still fitted to the airframe of Flight 93.

I fly nearly every week on a commercial jet. I can't remember the last time I saw an airphone equipped plane. They were an expensive novetly that people quit using once cell phones saturated the traveler's market. They were common in the late 80's and early 90's, but I think even by 2001 they were largely phased out of the jets that were in servce when interiors were updated for periodic maintenance.

Anybody else concur or disagree?

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

Do you really expect this

Do you really expect this comment to be taken seriously?

There is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that airphones were on all these flights. If you don't think they were, do some research backing up your claim. The burden of proof is completely on you.

Show "I agree" by Ningen (not verified)
Show "There is no way your read my arguments" by Ningen (not verified)
Show "How about a logical response?" by Ningen (not verified)
Show "Here it comes" by Ningen (not verified)



I read your first article claiming Flight 175 didn't hit the South Tower.

You have some good rhetoric, quoting David Hume and I'm all for that.

But Air Traffic Control watched Flight 175 (and Flight 11) all the way down to New York.

Also, the 95th floor (where Flight 175) hit had very thin, only 1/4 thick perimeter columns. Any large plane would blow right through that.

As for damage to the core columns, I doubt there was as much as claimed in gov't reports. One of the stairwells was passable.

We already know bombs were planted in the building, those bombs must have helped fuel the fire in the South Tower (which wasn't very big even with the bombs).

As for the North Tower, there is a TV report I saw on WhatReallyHappened where someone from the 104th floor took an elevator right down throught he damaged portion of the building, proving that plane didn't penetrate the core much.

But Flight 11 was big and fast enough to plow into the 7th floor to some point inside the building.

70th not 7th

typo, should be

"But Flight 11 was big and fast enough to plow into the 70th floor to some point inside the building."

at the end.

What happened above the "impact zones"?

The "Flight 175" hole was around the 77th-85th floors of the South Tower. The "Flight 11" holes was around the 93rd to 95th floors of the North Tower.

We don't know how much damage was done to the core columns by whatever was happening in the buildings. I agree that the planes would not have done much damage, if any, to the core columns, because they likely would not have reached that far in. Another reason the videos have to be faked. I don't rule out that some sort of missile hit the buildings and could reach the cores. I just rule out a plane.

According the 9/11 Commission Report, only one person from above the impact zone of the North Tower got out alive. They also said that all but 1 of 99 elevators in each building was out. (See Chapter 9) I find all this very suspicious. I also find it suspicious that the South Tower was destroyed soon after two fireman climbed up to the 78th floor and reported the fire was easy to put out. If the elevators had been functioning firemen would have been up to impact zone much quicker.

This is all speculation, but I believe that if the building had not been destroyed, the lack of planes would have been discovered. If people had descended through the "impact ones" they might have discovered there were no planes. Were they hindered from coming down? Almost everyone above the "impact zones" died, and even with planes it is supr The doors to the roof were ket locked because of the failure of the security system, supposedly due to a precision fireball that shot down to the 22nd floor of the North Tower, where the security center for both buildings just happened to be. People were trapped there, also. Did they make it out. Read Chapter 9--- it is creepy.

Thank you for the response

The rhetoric is overblown, but thanks for the compliment. It started as a play on DailyKos' "reality based community" and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I need to rewrite without the rhetoric.

I have hijacked this blog, I know. It started as a reaction to operator kos' ideas about picking the strongest theories. Since Galileo gave me the substantive response I asked for, I will reply.

I'm not disputing that the planes could shear the external columns---Hoo Fatt showed they could. Her purpose was not to prove the official story true but to determine how think external columns would have to be to stop a similar plane from penetrating. For the purpose of modeling the 9/11 impacts, I question her assuming that the fuel tanks were full where they were only half fall, assuming the fuselage penetrating rather than being crushed, and assuming no floors, which increase the resistance of the columns and provide their own tremendous longitudinal resistance. Still, her study shows a 46% loss of kinetic energy to penetrate the external columns alone.

What I am saying is that the models of the experts show that there is no way the plane could slip into the building as shown in the video. It is not just the columns, it is the floors and then the core columns which the planes would hit before disappearing inside the building.

Even if the planes could have breached the external columns, it would have been very messy and the plane would have shown far higher deceleration and would not have ended up entirely inside the building. NIST's models appear to show the same thing, though I'm just starting on NIST and have not yet found their energy balance calculations. NIST show the impact of the starboard engine of "Flight 175" dropping from 525-57 mph to around 350 mph, just to clear the external columns and floor truss debris. The crushing of the front fuselage against the outer wall--it sure would not have pierced the columns---results in more loss of kinetic energy and velocity. If you are interested the graph is in NIST NCSTAR 1-2, page 286, or toward the end of my latest blog post.

I agree that Boeing 767s and any large plane would likely plow into the building to some point. The question is to what point, and with what loss of velocity, and leaving how much fire and debris outside the building. What was seen in the South Tower video is physically impossible, so it was faked. The Naudet video may show something, but it cannot be Flight 11 or any other normal plane.

Air Traffic Control may have watched something go to New York, but I don't think it was 11 and 175. That is a separate issue. I assume there was some kind of false input to the system, but don't know whether that is possible or how.

These studies are also important to disputing how many core columns would have been severed by a plane. I say none. The no planes argument is important on its own, and in refuting the controlled demolition argument. There are many other CD arguments that could stand alone, but getting rid of the impact and plane fires would destroy NIST 's entire premise.

what are you high?

Also, the 95th floor (where Flight 175) hit had very thin, only 1/4 thick perimeter columns. Any large plane would blow right through that.

what are you high? they were box columns constructed of hardened steel walls. even if the walls of these box columns were 1/4" thick both side walls of each box column were a good 2 ft deep and these hardened steel box columns were placed at 2 - 3 foot centers and along with the steel reinforced concrete floors that would have met a real 767 edge on would act like an anvil thru the beer can of a real 767's plastic nosecone and 1/8" aluminum skin not to mention the fragile delicate wingtips.

there is a TV report I saw on WhatReallyHappened where someone from the 104th floor took an elevator right down throught he damaged portion of the building, proving that plane didn't penetrate the core much.

wow a tv report on WRH that proves!
and you guys have the gall to refer to yourselves as the truth movement.
h is for ha.

does not matter at all

what the plane is made of, all that matters is shape/weight/speed PERIOD.

The shape is certainly conducive to helping the plane enter the building.
The weight & speed make up the Kinetic energy exerted onto the side of a steel column of which was designed BOTH to hold up the greatest weight structurally from Top to Bottom and also to "give way" from a side impact.
These columns were designed to absorb Kinetic energy from several planes crashing into them, this was in the design of the WTC.

300,000Lbs traveling 500MPH shaped like a bullet could have been a freaking spit ball and would have sliced right into those buildings.

all that matters is Kinetic energy not what they were made of need to get that FACT through your damn heads.

Of course it matters.

You are correct that kinetic energy is the primary consideration. I can cite models by engineering professors that show that "Flight 175" would not behave as shown on video.

Scroll down to papers by Wierzbicki and Hoo Fatt. Together they show a loss of kinetic energy of well over 50%, and closer to 100% to penetrate the columns and floors and core columns if the plane gets there.

Read the quote by Wierzbicki of MIT---it most certainly matters what the plane was made of, and he was surprised to see an image of a plane penetrating the building with no apparent resistance.

Rigid body mechanics and deformable body mechanics. The building was more rigid, though also deformable. The fuselage is very deformable-- look at these pictures of a low-speed collision and how easily the nose is crushed.

Are you saying that the nose in this photo would have been crushed less if the plane had been moving faster?

The wings may be more rigid, especially when full of fuel. That's the theory I've heard anyway. They are massive, and the engines are both massive and rigid.

Steven Jones has written about the relationship between observed decleration and kinetic energy loss. He just failed to address the current literature, Karim and Hoo Fatt , who show a much higher loss of kinetic energy just to penetrate the external columns and without considering the floors which strengthen the columns and have their own resistance..

Are you aware that NIST found 0% decleration in one of the videos?

According to Jones' own reasoning, that does not match and indicates the video is faked.

What if the South Tower flew into a stationary Boeing 767 at 500 mph? What would happen?

By the way, at the heights of the alleged impacts, the box beams were about 14" (35.6 cm) on each side, not close to 2 feet, and each wall of the box beam was about 9.5 mm thick, which is greater than 1/4". At least that's how Karim and Hoo Fatt modeled them.

CAPLOCK doesn't strengthen your argument, nor does cursing.

Show "Ningen explains the physics.. and succumbs faceless rate-down" by ratemedown_itfeelsgood (not verified)

What's really sad

is that I haven't had a physics class since high school, and spent a lot of my time in that class joking with my friends and busting on my physics teacher. (My teacher was a really cool guy, but classic physics grad student geek.)

This is all common sense---I'm just talking the physics talk the best I can. Why is this so hard to face? It's so obvious once you open your mind to the possibility. It might make it easier if you pretend this happened in Russia and the oligarchs' media was in on it.

Hey Ningen

I was checking out your blog for something else when I noticed your stuff about Portland indymedia. They are a bunch of censoring idiots. It's completely frustrating, because an open, community-moderated news site like that would be fantastic, but it's run by a cabal of pseudo-anarchista ... blah blah blah. I'll stop.

Anyway, what I was looking for at your blog was whether you've ever written something analytical about the video medium itself, relative to the kind of data you want for your NP hypotheses? For example, have you considered that simply in terms of the way visual information is "sampled" out of the real-time flow, video might or might not provide an accurate record of deceleration? If you have, could I have a link?

No, I don't know anything about video.

I kind of understand what you are saying, and have no idea.

Eric Salter holds himself out as a video expert, but I don't know enough to tell if that is true.

I have been relying on Eric Salter's analysis of the Evan Fairbanks video showing 18% deceleration, and since I found it yesterday, NIST's analysis of the the Scott Myers video showing 0% deceleration.

Rick Rajter analyzes the Scott Myers video and finds about 2.5% decleration, higher than NIST. I was also relying on that, I think without realizing they were using different videos.

I think Rajter addresses what you are asking about, but it sounds like you know better:

For my own analysis, I decided to use the widely known Scott Myers camera pictures, so I didn't have to worry about compression issues, frame rates, etc. I found the highest resolution version I could get my hands on in order to minimize loss or measurement precision. The 15-picture spread was (allegedly) taken using fixed 0.033 second intervals, features a nearly fixed camera angle, and has a fairly decent contrast on key plane features. Thus, it is perfectly suited for frame-by-frame analysis, one of the best videos in terms of high signal-to-noise ratio.

I think Rajter is saying that the Scott Myers video is generally accepted as accurate and authentic, and also good technically.

NIST describes how they chose videos for analysis of the aircraft speed, which is what they used the Myers video for. This may be what you are asking about, here:

Chapter 6, and especially 6.2 beginning at page 152 (266 of PDF file).

The Scott Myers video is V6 in Table 6-1.

My analysis is not really dependent on any difference between 0, 15, or even 30%, though the lower the observed the decleration the more ridiculous the video gets. Salter's finding of 18%, used by Jones, is fine for my purposes.

Salter and Jones say that Salter's analysis of Evan Fairbanks is valid, and am assuming that NIST knew what they were doing and were honest in choosing the Scott Myer video., so I'll go with 0% or 18%. I think both figures should be disclosed by anyone writing on this.

These videos could be faulty in the sense that they don't show what I think they do, or even fabricated in the sense they are designed to mislead. In the end, though, I understand the kinetic energy balance calculations, combined with my common sense idea of what should happen, to be so out of whack with these videos that I'm not worried if they are shown to be inaccurate. In other words, I think these videos should be showing drastic deceleration of at least 30-40%, and to be much messier, whether in terms of deformation, debris, or explosion. I think that a plane disappearing inside the building is highly improbable, and much too convenient.

Some people may think this is some kind of "honeypot" to discredit, but I don't see how that could be. The discrepancies are just so ridiculous, and producing a video years later when people already question the videos would not fly. I am starting to think there are whistles blowing in the NIST reports for the careful reader.

Discrepancies in the flight paths and appearances of "Flight 175" are somewhat persuasive to me, but I can't follow them very well. I think it takes better spatial thinking than I have. Some people think this is quite real, and there are some things that seem strange to me.

The planted aircraft debris seals the deal in my mind-- why else do that?

And even if the planted debris proves something else or is some kind of trap, it is easy to show that this debris is false, and that is very fishy in its own right.

I hope people will look at the planted debris evidence independently, even though I'm using it to support no planes, because it is really strange and shows that something was going on. Al Qaeda didn't put that stuff there.

The technology is not an issue, even for real-time insertion:

The building-penetration videos in question did not come out for a few hours, so any fabrication would not have been real time.

Eyewitnesses and control of contradictory footage is a compelling argument by Salter---I just don't think it trumps the physical evidence, and there are questions about the influence of the media on recollections, and whether the accounts have been intentionally influenced, filtered, or even fabricated. I don't know how contradictory footage would be controlled, though I have speculated about that.

I hope people will look at that evidence independently, even tough I'm using it to support no planes, because it is really strange and shows that something was going on. Al Qaeda didn't put that stuff there.

When I heard Morgan Reynolds talk "no planes," I immediately thought disinfo. I am not making this up. I heard him speak on October 28, and it has really messed up my life. Red pill, blue pill. I had to decide for myself whether it was true, and since I decided it was true I have not been able to shut up about it.

This weekend I'll post JPEGs of the journal articles I used so that people can see them without a trip to the library.

About Portland Indymedia, I may have just made them mad by complaining, but it seemed like they were censoring certain content. And I hate how they leave stuff on the 9/11 Investigation page that they hide on the front page. It stays there for months, and makes us look like a bunch of Holocaust deniers. I'm not talking about criticisms of Israel, I'm talking about incoherent neo-Nazi diatribes that linked to hate sites, and mentioned 9/11 a few times in dozens of pages of rant. What's up with that?

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

I don't know enough about video to fully "get this," but this is more information to add to what I'm contemplating.

See, that's what sucks about Portland indymedia. You may very well have pissed them off, and they're so unprofessional that they're going to bear a grudge. My impression from reading the one article of yours that they censored is that probably someone skimmed it, saw that it used "leftist" in regard to someone you were critical of, and just completely misread the whole thing. That's the charitable interpretation.

That could be it

But I said "lefty." I thought that showed I was a lefty. I've read Garcia's work at for a few years and liked a lot of it, though he talked too much like a a socialist even for me. It's easy to be a socialist when you get paid to build weapons for the federal government.

Please let me know if you figure something out. I would be happy to be disabused of this no planes nonsense.

journal JPEGs

This weekend I'll post JPEGs of the journal articles I used so that people can see them without a trip to the library.

yes Ningen, please do! :-)

wow you are the sharpest sword of mctruth ever!

does not matter at all
what the plane is made of, all that matters is shape/weight/speed PERIOD.

wow are you the same genius that has repeatedly insisted that even a papier mache travelling @ 500mph would penetrate a steel box column?

of course it matters what the plane is made out of!
ok any discussion of the physics of an aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone impacting a steel/concrete wtc has to begin at the moment of impact right? so did this alleged 767 pierce thru the steel/concrete wtc like an arrow or did it bludgeon its way thru the steel/concrete wtc like a hammer or did the aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) flow between and around the steel/concrete wtc like mercury?

here's another one for you to ignore:
an aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone travelling @ 500mph and impacting a stationary steel/concrete wtc is exactly the same as a steel/concrete wtc travelling @ 500mph and impacting a stationary aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone.
don't believe me? go ask your dad.

Plane with a 125' wingspan cannot make 16' hole in the Pentagon


What if

the planes was blown up just before impact? A notion I just heard about it.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

What I would like to know

is why the so called Flight data recorder information does not match what we know happened.

Such as the flight data recorder shows the plane never got lower than 479' 1 second prior to impact and that makes it 100% impossible that it knocked over 5 light post.
Also makes whatever is shown in those 5 frames from the Pentagon impossible.

Pretty hard to believe that a 757 allegedly taken over from a 6'5" military pilot by a 5'6" 130# pip squeak with a box-cutter that could not even fly a single engine Cessna preformed a maneuver that a seasoned combat pilot would have had a very hard time pulling off and managed to hit a 77' tall building dead square perfect just a couple feet off the ground at 500+MPH hitting 5 light post along the way, fighting severe ground effects and not touching the lawn.

I gotta call bullshit.

I don't know what happened, what hit the Pentagon but I can think of several scenarios that sound one hell of a lot more plausible than that.
and at very least the information being put out does not match each other which should tell you something right there.
If they have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding everything?

Please point to your source

Please point to your source about the flight data recorder.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Hey Gary... Check this out...

Google video by the - Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77

Covers it all in great detail...

Note... Because it was uploaded as an MPEG not DivX / XviD it runs a bit CPU intensive, but works fine...


Another oddity

FAA reported Flight 11 heading south after it supposedly hit the North Tower. That's what the Langley pilots were scrambled for. (9/11 Commission Report, pages 27, 32, 37) There's no telling if this is true, and whether it means Flight 11 was really flying south . There's also no telling if this is intended to lead us down some path. My theory is that any planes were flown out to sea and destroyed with the victims aboard.

Even more of the planes would be outside the buildings

than if actual planes had hit the buildings.

Why do this? It would not provide cover for the demolitions.

Corroborating evidence.

Sure, Airfone calls may have been made. Is the Moussaoui trial evidence anything more than a prosecutor timeline, however? Are their credit card statements, perhaps, to back it up?

I think you have an interesting perspective on an alternative hijacker scenario. However, I think you're placing entirely too much weight on phone calls made from the planes to substantiate it. It's too much of a reach, both in terms of your analysis of their content and your estimation of the probability that they really took place as alleged.

My "alternative hijacker

My "alternative hijacker scenario" does not only rely on the phone calls as evidence. It is also supported by the frequency transmissions made from the cockpits of the planes, and such convenient coincidences such as: the surveillance videos from all three airports disappearing/not being made; and the unlikely disappearance of most of the black boxes from the planes.

Here is my scenario in detail:

I didn't read him to be relying on the calls

but rather, he was arguing that the phone calls being authentic is not inconsistent with his scenario. I think it makes sense that phone calls would be permitted for the very purposes they have been used, to substantiate the official story and create a heroic myth (which could actually be true---maybe the passengers of Flight 93 did rise up before being murdered).

I agree though that the calls needed to be authenticated, and I don't know if that was properly done in the Moussaoui trial.

This is a disinformation thread. Those flunkies were NOT

piloting huge Boeings hundreds of miles around the Eastern U.S. Therefore, any phone calls stating such are obviously fraudulent.

Helll.... just watch

Helll.... just watch Pandoras Black Box II ..... the part of the film where the plane is approaching the Pentagon and it goes into it's 270 degree turn..... it takes forever.... a huge target

IF there were any defenses around Washington DC an hour after the Towers were hit...... that plane would have been a sitting duck.

I could have shot that bird down with a shoulder mounted heat seeker

Funny we don't hear eye

Funny we don't hear eye witnesses say, "Yeah, there was this plane that sort of circled around for a couple of minutes then--BAM--dived into the Pentagon!"

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


There should be hundreds of witnesses who saw that long, spectacular 270 degree loop in restricted airspace. Even photos. But, like, where are they?

For your information

There is an airport very close to the Pentagon, so they are used to airplanes there.

Who says they were flunkies?

Who says they were flunkies? Maybe they were professionals, employed by a state intelligence agency. And maybe the planes were actually being flown by a remote navigation system like Global Hawk.

Show "Too risky" by Ningen (not verified)

Tell me again why speculation is fine

But scientific arguments are not?

I think speculation is fine, by the way. Andrew has presented an interesting scenario for discussion. That's what I am trying to do.

Actually, Andrew did more than that

He gave a good analysis of what the phone calls show and do not show, and applied that to his scenario in a logical manner. I am simply trying to extend his analysis but am getting trashed.

Your posts are taking up too

Your posts are taking up too much space in this blog. It's overwhelming. Try to use fewer words and be more concise.

I see that you're making a good-faith effort to figure things out and that you have your own theory. I'm not quite sure what exactly your theory entails, but when you say "The strongest evidence that no planes hit the WTC towers on September 11 is the physical impossibility of the images shown, both of the planes hitting and of the plane debris that was planted around the towers," then please expect to be downrated. No one denies that planes hit the towers but fools. I'm willing to accept that those planes may not have been the Flights 11 and 175, but planes hit the buildings. And when you say things like '"no planes hit the WTC towers," then you should expect everything else you say to be regarded with serious skepticism.

Show "Thank you for responding" by Anonymous (not verified)

No problem if my long comments are hidden to save space

That makes sense. If that what was happening, I apologize.

The problem is that you

The problem is that you treat this site like it is a discussion forum instead of a blog site. You post about subjects to argue over and flood out the comments with these arguments. Take it to a discussion forum like Loose Change's, that is what discussion forums are for. People here are tired of arguing amongst ourselves, so in general those that focus on doing just that are going to get voted down. I don't have to agree with you to be part of the same movement, so why the need to focus on differences of opinions? It's not like this argument hasn't been had hundreds of times already.

Show "Fine" by Ningen (not verified)



So, how/ why exactly did you have to "pretend to believe things" at Daily Kos? Their registration process have a loyalty test?

Seriouslly, I only ask because I've never been put in a situation ON-LINE where I felt I HAD to BS, or else. It's that bad you just leave. No one over there can agree to disagree?

You do see how this sounds odd, don't you?

As for lengthy screeds--feel inspired? Register and blog it! Then have it mis-represented at JREF--but you take the good with the bad...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I thought it was obvious, but will explain

Much of the discussion at DailyKos is about the Iraq War and the "War on Terror." The Democratic Party line is that the Iraq war takes away from the "War on Terror," and that Kerry wouldn't have "let bin Ladin escape." Even discussion of civil liberties is premised on finding a balance between security and liberty, with Democrats wanting the balance more towards liberty. I think the security threat is a complete fraud, and that the Democratic Party reinforces this fraud, which is really terrorism against the American people. I cannot say that at DailyKos. I think that a main purpose of the Military Commissions Act is to allow a show trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and a blog today bears out what I have predicted since late October when they moved "KSM" to Gitmo---the regime is preparing to start a show trial.

None of this can be discussed at DailyKos without accepting the huge lie of 9/11. And here, most anything can be discussed, as long as it doesn't question the huge lie that Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC towers.

That's a good point on lengthy screeds being better for a blog. If I change my mind and register, I will apologize and eat crow in my first blog.

Show "Blogs get the same harassment" by Ningen (not verified)

How come my petulant hissy fit

gets less negative ratings than my fact-based, logical arguments?

Why does it really matter

Why does it really matter whether is was Flights 11 and 175 -- military fuel tankers painted to look like commercial jets -- or, as you claim, missiles fitted with airplane-like wings and airplane-like engines? This argument is stupid! The important thing is our government brought down the Twin Towers!

Tell me what "crucial implications" -- other than frustrating and distracting 9/11 activists -- have you drawn by assuming that they were missiles which hit the towers? Let's assume that they were missiles. What valuable information and insight have you deduced from the fact that they were missiles and not planes?

Show "I doubt your sincerity in asking this, Rollo" by Ningen (not verified)

It's as I thought. You

It's as I thought. You didn't even answer the question and skirted around it.

You say "It is obvious, but will take too long to explain." I've got plenty of time. I'll ask it again: What "crucial implications" -- what valuable information and insight have you deduced from the fact that they were missiles and not planes?

Nice game, Rollo

First you tell me I write too long, and then not long enough.

I'll say it again, Rollo. Figure it out for yourself.

If you are really interested, check my blog in a week or two. I will write an article about it. It's nothing profound--it's obvious that the official story centers on planes.

Listen, I'm not playing a

Listen, I'm not playing a game. I want to know why it is so important that we acknowledge that they were missiles that hit the towers and not planes. What does this mean? You stated before, and I quote: "That Flights 11 and 175 did not hit the towers is the basic point. Acknowledging that fact has crucial implications in terms of which suspects and which facts need and need not be considered." I want to know what these crucial implications are. Other than the fact that they are missiles and not planes, what does this imply, what are the crucial implications? You do not answer this question. All you respond with is an evasive reply: "Figure it out for yourself. It is obvious, but will take too long to explain."

1) What are the crucial implications?
2) "Acknowledging that fact has crucial implications in terms of which suspects ... need and need not be considered." Tell me which suspects the missile theory focuses on as opposed to the plane theory.


(1) One crucial implication is that you are not trying to prove that the planes were let through. which can easily be spun to incompetence. Able Danger, Mohammed Atta and the other "19 hijackers" coking and whoring in Florida, all becomes secondary -- the "hijackers" were just props in the show and never got on any plane on 9/11. Whether or not Pakistan wired money to Atta-patsie becomes secondary, and is likely a diversion. The FBI ignoring warnings become secondary as perhaps a way to keep honest agents from revealing the patsies. This is not a grounds for an accessory to murder prosecution like the one that has Motassadeq in a German in prison for 15 years. I think that is an important implication, and I will not assist in perpetuating an Arab hijackers lie that has people in prison or worse.

Standdown becomes irrelevant if there were no planes to stand down for, and patriotic pilots and officers need not be implicated in a scheme which they most likely knew nothing about.

The media become implicated if the videos are faked. Not cleaning up that mess leaves the American people vulnerable to future false events.

Another implication is that there is no chance that the MIHOP truth can be spun into a LIHOP lie, or worse, into the incompetence theory of Peter Lance.

(2) In terms of suspects, I pretty much discussed that above. Arab hijackers out, media in, honest military out, bad covert military in.

By the way, I'm not saying there were missiles. There could have been, but that is secondary.

The main point is that a lot of dead ends and side shows go away when you see that there were no planes.

I'm watching John Albanese's video as I write this. A lot of that video becomes irrelevant or secondary, as it should, because most of it is a diversion from the real operation and many of the real perps. I'm not saying that is the video's intent, just its effect.

This is just a quick stab at it, but I think these are the key implications and the others flow from these. I will try to write this sometime up later and publish at my blog.

No Planes: Debunked

"Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting, DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse. DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11, this interview clip was taken from video shot in January 2001."

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”

John Skilling, Building Designer

Question: If you claim that the laws of physics were broken when the planes hit the building--why did the building designers predict exactly what appeared to have happened on 9/11? Why did they predict that the jet fuel would enter the building and create a "horrendous fire" and "kill a lot of people" if they thought that the planes would not crash inside of it? Why would Frank DeMartini claim that the effect of a plane hitting the building would be like a pencil going through screen netting--exactly what appeared to have happened on 9/11.

Are you saying that they are wrong? This is why your no-plane argument has no credibility. Expert opinion from building designer/managers predicted that the planes would have the effect of "poking a pencil through fly netting,"--how can this be interpreted in any other way? 

How can you reconcile these facts with your argument?

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

Show "No Planes cannot be "Debunked"" by physics101 (not verified)


I'm not going to waste much time answering disingenuous straw-man arguments as 'physics101' has given. 

It is clear that the building designers anticipated that a plane would enter the building. If they did not think so, they would have said so.  They would not have expected it to be "like a pencil through screen netting".  How else to explain the photos and videos of the entrance areas?  And the victim waving her hands for help in the hole? 

However. I respect Ningen's seeming use of legitimate arguments (instead of straw-men) and I will ask him this question: How can you explain this comment on your blog

Quote: "Instead, [Steven Jones] has chosen to use his authority as a professor of physics to proclaim this theory to be unsupported. This is an abuse of his credentials, and at least with this author, has undermined his authority. It will be difficult for me to consider his other arguments objectively, but I will try." 

You yourself said that you will view ideas based on their credibility—not on the author.  If you believe this statement to be true, how can you support the credibility of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds when they have made flagrant straw-man arguments and distortions of Steven Jones’ research.

You are no doubt familiar with my essay on this subject, and recently a new article has come out reaching similar conclusions with even more evidence than I have shown

It seems hypocritical that you would give Wood/Reynolds a “free pass” when you have criticized Jones for issues that are not relevant/central to his main argument (i.e. controlled demolition). 

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

you got jack little boy

i guess you realized using DeMartini's comments to 'debunk' the plane thesis wasn't going to work. yea, i could see that too. fact remains, just because DeMartini commented on the overall strength of the towers design, by using the analogy that a plane impacting the towers would be like a pencil piercing through fly netting, does NOT discount the numerous violations of physical law and downright impossible circumstances (in same cases) observed in the video footage of the impacts and associated photographs.

for some actual insight into these numerous problems, instead of the 911blogger's pussy-footing of the issues, see these blogs: - StillDiggin's eyewitness report cards, with some serious research to back it up - Spooked's numerous posts on the problems with the planes, going back to 2004. - Ningen's insightful analysis on NIST reports regarding the planes.

oh, and they all allow comments on their blogs, so if you've got something constructive to say, how about you pony up and go post over there? from my experience, they all encourage intelligent debate so i am sure you'd fit right in ;-)

btw, if you think you've graduated physics 101, i see physics201 is waiting for you down below....


“I think there's a grave problem of "sexing up" the truth with spectacular yet specious arguments. For instance, some of the splashiest and attractive 9/11 material is devoted to supporting the "Pentagon Missile." Sure, it gets people's attention - in fact, it dominates the public perception of alternative theories of the attacks - but is it right? Well, no; as I've said, I don't think so. And truth will suffer again and again when those who fell for the missile "hook" come to the same conclusion and chuck the whole thing, and those who were turned off the "missile" refuse to look any further.”
-- Jeff Wells, Rigorous Intuition,

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

Come on, Arabesque

You can't just cite a bunch of papers. I've read Hoffman and Salter. If you bothered to read my work before saying I have no credibility, you would see that Salter used the same reasoning as Jones and I, but with the same faulty data as Jones. Salter should also agree that the the videos were faked.

Hoffman rebutted some things Reynolds was saying about the impact holes, and if I recall Reynolds conceded many of Hoffman's points in his next paper. People are allowed to be mistaken and develop their arguments, you know. Reynolds' initial intuition was spot on and I thank him for removing the fog from my eyes. I didn't see Hoffman refuting any of my arguments--tell me if he did.

Rabinowtiz/Reader of Oil Empire has nothing rational to say and is basically a liar and a bully. He's the one that says I'm a Holocaust denier for making arguments he doesn't approve of. No way I'm wasting my time on his swill.

Rigorous Intuition is a neat site, but Wells does not say show how the Pentagon Missile argument is specious, so his article means nothing. If I were arguing Pentagon Missile, I might bother to track down where he showed that argument to be specious. He doesn't bother to link to his argument, so he has no argument.

Come on, Arabesque. I am asking for standards of argument we learned in high school, and you keep on with this. Put up, or respectfully, shut up.


Don't confuse the previous post as being directed at you, I was targeting the ad-hominem troll-baiter.  It's not fair to argue with two people at once if they are maintaining different positions.  I have noticed this tactic used deliberately against me a few times.

Lets quote Salter: 

“The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image posted to the web would have exposed the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with national networks, local network affiliates and independent TV stations, international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists. In addition, one should consider the possibility of foreign intelligence assets acquiring their own images of the attack (which so many knew was coming) which could be used for blackmail.”

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

cry me a river...

I was targeting the ad-hominem troll-baiter. It's not fair to argue with two people at once if they are maintaining different positions. I have noticed this tactic used deliberately against me a few times.

right on, but Ningen and I have made extremely similar points through this thread, including a total breakdown of your DeMartini analysis. We both pointed out the DeMartini analogy was in reference to tower strength not anticipated observed effect and we both pointed out that there is much more to consider with impact physics than velocity. (Ningen's points are expressed clearer)

I have noticed this tactic used deliberately against me a few times.

so when two people respond to your comment, we are deliberately exercising improper debate ethics? please, thats just down right pathetic.. if it's two tough to keep up with two people crushing your arguments at once, do what the rest of your blogger crew does and ignore us.

do you care to replace the quotes of others with some arguments or thoughts of your own?

About Salter's arguments

I agree he's got a compelling argument on control of contradictory images. I have speculated about that might be done, but Salter's right that it's a serious question. Witnesses are not so compelling, for reasons I explained to Cassiea above. Neither of these trump the physical evidence.

Not at all

It is clear that the building designers anticipated that a plane would enter the building. If they did not think so, they would have said so.

They anticipated a collision, resulting structural damage, and fuel being introduced to the building. I'm not disputing that at all. The question is how fast, how deep, and with how much material left outside the building are stuck in the hole. The knife-into-hot-butter plane is absurd and NIST's video analysis showing 0% decleration shows just how absurd.

Is that "honeypot" I smell coming?

You are much too simplistic

Martini is simply saying that an impact would not hurt the integrity of the load bearing external columns as a whole, which is what NIST claimed they did. He is saying that it is comparable to a pencil through a screen door, and his argument is the same if the pencil is only half way in.

As for Skilling, (1) show me the original analysis and prove it's authentic; (2) I'm not saying fuel could not enter the building, so you are again much too simplistic and (3) Skilling is speaking after the fact., and his partner Les Robertson says just the opposite---we didn't consider the fires.

All of this information is also important to rebutting NIST's "collapse" fairy tale, because it relates to whether and how many core columns would be destroyed and how much fuel would reach the inside of the building if a real plane hit.

I suppose you also assume that the aircraft debris planted over 1,000 feet from the buildings is also authentic. it is obviously not, and I cannot understand why Steven Jones would join NIST in making this absurd assumption.

You need to read what I'm saying before you respond. I am not arguing the plane could not penetrate to some depth; I am saying that a plane could not disappear into the building with no resistance, as shown in NIST's video analysis that showed 0% decleration and was ignored by Steven Jones. I am saying that there would have been much more material and probably burning fuel left outside the building, and that the plane probably would not have reached the core columns. Though some of that would be due to crushing that shortened the length of the plane, that would increase resistance and the tail would never enter the building.

I obviously do not take expert opinions at face value when it comes to 9/11. If I did, I would not question the "collapses."

I have also made serious criticisms of Steven Jones' "planes" thesis in a series of 6 articles at my blog:

You should read it, Arabesque, because it is your truth hero Steven Jones that has no credibility. Even if I am wrong, which I am not, Jones failed to address all the data. That is unacceptable for an academic and forensic scientist and you and he know it..

I am using the same reasoning as Jones, just with different data. As far as I am concerned, Jones now agrees with me that there were no planes. If you want to address my arguments, fine, but your appeal to authority carries no weight with me, as it should not with any serious questioner of the 9/11 official story.

My credibility is in my arguments, not my credentials. I have made my sources, assumptions, and reasoning clear.

You are creating your own reality, Arabesque. It doesn't work that way.

Let’s examine the evidence.

Let’s examine the evidence.

You quote the fact that Les Robertson said that they did not consider jet fuel fires. There is strong evidence that this is a lie. Either he forgot this fact or he lying. Why?

Skilling stated on the record in 1993. See this link—it is worth the read.

[1] They considered the jet fuel.

Given the statement by Skilling in 1993, and the statement later by Robertson—which do you think is more accurate? Are building designers dumb enough to design buildings to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel?

Case Closed. I strongly suspect that Les Robertson has lied under pressure about the jet fuel issue.

Quote “I suppose you also assume that the aircraft debris planted over 1,000 feet from the buildings is also authentic.”

Why would they intentionally plant it that far away? Does that make any sense? I haven’t looked carefully at this enough to comment fully. I have not looked at the speed issue as well, but it would be expected that velocity would be a very important factor.

Steven Jones is not my “hero”. I would not stoop to accusing Reynolds of being yours. I am interested in the truth. Not irrelevant ad-hominems such as these.

There is a difference between expert opinion after the fact, and expert opinion before the fact. Designers built the towers to survive plane crashes. They predicted certain things happening. They happened on 9/11. Eyewitness saw what they predicted. Video evidence confirms what they predicted. The collapse is not what they predicted and has been adequately explained by controlled demolition.

They thought carefully about the issue of plane crashes. They discussed the jet fuel. They discussed the behavior of the tower (i.e. surviving it—and the “pencil” effect). This is very strong evidence against any no-plane theories as far as I am concerned.


Of particular note read this!

"Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down."

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

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

here's my expert opinion

Designers built the towers to survive plane crashes.
yep. DeMartini said he thought those babies could take multiple plane impacts. The towers were strong.

They predicted certain things happening.
such as, they predicted and designed for towers surviving the plane impact and a plane impact on the interconnected lattice structure of the perimeter columns of the WTC would be analogous to a pencil poking through misquito netting. WTCs were constructed of large prefabriated steel box columns, 3 per section, resembling wheat chex are a large tic-tac-toe board.

did they predict the plane would not decelerate upon enterting/impacting the towers, as confirmed by NISTs own analysis of the footage?

did they predict the wings would not break off?

They happened on 9/11.
the towers withstood the plane impacts... oh yea, and after looking at the footage, the plane didn't slow down and no wings broke off. in fact, the UA175 buried itself in the tower nice and neat, and left a plane shapped cutout behind of itself in the steel columns of WTC.

Eyewitness saw what they predicted.
StillDiggin' will tell you what the some of eye-witnesses saw. as for the rest (lemme guess, thousands, right?), i ask what kind of panoramic view can you get from the streets of NYC, nicely nesstled between the skyscrapers of lower manhattan?

Video evidence confirms what they predicted.
video evidence confirms the towers withstood the impacts, but we're still waiting to hear back on those other 'predictions' of the designers.

did they predict the plane would not decelerate upon enterting/impacting the towers, as confirmed by NISTs own analysis of the footage? did they predict the wings would not break off?

cause uh, shuckles by golly, that's what we see looking at the videos!

They thought carefully about the issue of plane crashes. They discussed the jet fuel. They discussed the behaviour of the tower (i.e. surviving it—and the “pencil” effect). This is very strong evidence against any no-plane theories as far as I am concerned.

it's not an effect. DeMartini was not saying what would happen if a plane hit the towers. He was stating, in analogous terms, what effect a plane impact into a tower would have on the strength of the tower, i.e. will it withstand an impact. (as they say, my emphasis)

the towers were designed to survive the impact of large commercial jets, but were they designed so that impacting planes wouldn't decelerate and their wings wouldn't break off? the towers were designed to survive and withstand the impact of large commercial jets, but were they designed so that their perimeter columns would be sliced by alluminum plane wings? (those same wings which can be damaged by birds while in flight)

Reply to "hypocrite" and Robertson, and Skilling redux

I'm going to reply to two of your comments here, because are thread is about to disappear.

(1) Hypocrite

I think you are suggesting I'm being a hypocrite, which is a fair point.

I will read your article. For the most part, I think Reynolds and Wood used an inappropriate tone, but that this did not make their arguments ad hominem. As I said, I am looking at the planes/no planes issue because that's what I know.

My argument is not ad hominem. I have pointed to flagrant violations of academic and forensic standards by Jones. As I explained in one of my articles, if Jones had said he doesn't believe the "no planes" theory, but has not looked at all the evidence, I would not have a problem. Instead, he marched on to the scene and immediately called the theory "junk science." Gerard Holmgren scorched him because it was clear Jones had not bothered to read the arguments.

You should be able to see that I recognize that I am being a hypocrite to some extent---that's why I say I will try to view his arguments individually. But here's what I said in endnote 3 of that article:

I try to view each individual argument on its merits, but Jones' failure to disclose in relation to research that I understand will make me question his work on any theory. The sine qua non of honest and valid research is a willingness to disclose and address adverse results. I find it very disturbing that a prominent figure in 9/11 research, who must know that this behavior is unacceptable, is publishing work which can so easily be discredited. This has far more potential to discredit alternative theories of 9/11 than Judy Wood's public research, which she clearly states is a work in progress.

Doubting someone's argument because they previously made a mistake or illogical argument is different from doubting someone's argument because they have not shown honesty and integrity. I don't like some of the arguments Reynolds makes in showing there were no planes on 9/11. I disregard the ones I don't agree with.

Steven Jones, after being warned by Holmgren that his behavior was unacceptable, which it was, has continued to engage in the same behavior. He just toned it down from "junk science" to "chaff." His argument in support is substantially the same---nothing.

And yes, he is purporting to be the deciderer of what theories are valid, and no, he has not proven himself trustworthy in that regard.

If you see Reynolds and Wood being dishonest, fine, have at them. I have not seen that. Other than their tone, which I am starting to think was justified, I don't see a problem because they seem to be disclosing their assumptions and weaknesses. If forced to choose the mechanism of the towers' annihilation, I would go with the beam weapons, because they seem more plausible as a matter of capabilities and logistics. Wood and Jones should both pursue their theories, and critique each other. Jones needs to quit crying "ad hominem."

Most importantly, I don't see Reynolds and Wood trying to tell people what to think and argue. You should read Reynolds' argument "Playing the 9/11 Unity Card." That's what Jones is doing, and it is illegitimate.

Why are we arguing over Reynolds and Jones, anyway? I don't need a truth hero. I read Reynolds' arguments the same way I read yours---critically. If we really need a prominent individual on TV, fine---I'll take Reynolds over Jones any day. I haven't seen him lying, and I like a man with fire in his belly. I hope it's real.

(2) Robertson

Yes, I agree with you--Robertson had to have been lying, and Skilling must be telling the truth as reported in Seattle Times. Of course they thought about the jet fuel. Robertson didn't look comfortable saying it. Liability issues were in the background, I'm sure, and the firm's insurance company may I have been directing what he said. But I can't see how that helps the firm, so it is strange.

I didn't make it clear, but my main point was what does Robertson's contradictory statement say about Skillings' credibility, meaning the credibility of the firm? Whether they are saying contradictory things intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't say much for the firm. But that might be unfair, and it's not a strong point.

(3) Skilling

I don't see how Skilling contradicts what I said. You are right-- his statements are not after the fact.

Let me try agains:

Skillings' statements do not contradict what I'm saying. My argument does not preclude some of the fuel from entering the building, or even all of the fuel. I think explosions outside the building are more likely, but that is not necessary to my physics argument, which is that the plane would not just melt in like it did.

The Empire State Building collision dumped fuel inside the building but not all of the plane went in. Yes, I know the kinetic energy of "Flight 175" and "Flight 11" is an order of magnitude greater than the B-25 that hit ESB, but so apparently is the resistance of the Twin Towers. I have cited kinetic energy balance models that take all that into account. Jones failed to address all these models.

Skilling says "the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building," but that can be read as the possibility it all would in a worst case scenario, or the fact that some would, or the fact that it all would. Regardless, it doesn't mean he was right, and even if it does, it does not make my argument invalid because I am not saying fuel would not enter the building, I'm saying the whole plane would not enter, and especially so quickly and with no deformation and debris left outside. These are separate issues.

I am not making any accusations against Skilling in particular, but yes, I think it entirely plausible, and even likely, that this thing was being planned in 1993 and that statements to the press could have been made in anticipation of 9/11 eight years later. I would not be at all surprised if the 1993 bombing, which had the FBI's fingerprints on it, was used as an opportunity to get the building ready for 9/11. Assuming such preparation was necessary for what we saw, that would have been a good time to do it. People do plan that far ahead when many billions of dollars are at stake.

His statements are interesting-- he is talking about (1) terrorists hitting the towers with an airplane, (2) fuel going into the building; and (3) demolition. 9/11, right? (This also calls BS on any statements of BushCo that an event of this sort was not anticipated, but I am not interested in "foreknowledge." This was planning.)

The demolition statement is particularly interesting. I know he is not talking about a legal controlled demolition, but it is still significant because a controlled demolition would not have been allowed because of safety and environmental concerns. (At least I have heard that.) The building would have to have been dismantled, and it would have been tremendously expensive. I think financial motives are a key compnent of 9/11, and perhaps the way complicity of the private sector was bought. That's also why, I think, WTC 7 and all the other WTC buildings had to be destroyed along with WTC 1 and 2. Conventional CD would have been possible but still very expensive, and the buildings would have low value if left standing. That's why WTC 1 and 2 could not be left partially standing. They would have been worthless husks that cost billions to dismantle. So this event was used for a cheap demolition with the costs externalized to the dead and ill of and after 9/11.

You ask whether they would intentionally plant this statement so long agoally

Planes--show me some compelling evidence

I'll have to look into this further before I can fully comment.

But I suspect if you were to ask Steven Jones in a polite manner (ad-hominem free), he would be happy to answer your questions.  Quite frankly, the tactics of Wood and Reynolds are despicable and I 100% understand why he ignores them.  They take his words and then create straw-man arguments--intentionally trying to discredit him.

Now that is not just an affront to Steven Jones.  It is an affront to the pursuit of truth.  It is an insult to everything this movement stands for.  It is the exact same thing the NIST report has done--distorted the truth with asinine conclusions. 

Regarding the no-plane theories.  I have yet to see any compelling evidence that you have offered. 

I think the plane issue is irrelevant quite frankly.  If the towers did not collapse we would not be having this conversation.  Do you agree? 

Therefore we should focus our energy on the collapse.  Until I see some compelling evidence, I will not change my stance on this issue.  I trust Steven Jones infinitely more than Morgan Reynolds and his flagrant straw-man attacks against the truth.

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

have you focused on impact physics?

Regarding the no-plane theories. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that you have offered.

how do you explain the impact physics? we've got aluminum wings of a 767 vs. steel framed perimeter columns of a WTC. 767 plane wings are routinely impacted by birds (meat,feathers, and bones) which create holes in the wings, yet on 9/11, steel columns didn't stand a chance. how do you explain a measly bird creating and damage a wing and a wing damaging and slicing through steel columns?

how come a bird can damage a 767 wing, but on 9/11, a 767 wing sliced through multiple perimeter columns without any piece breaking off and showing damage?

Did you know that a bullet has a different effect based on its

Speed? No? I thought so.

"The idea that the wings should have bounced off reflects a failure to appreciate the effects of inertia in such a high-speed collision. Yes, we might see large pieces of wing survive a collision at 100 mph but not at 400 mph, which involves 16 times as much kinetic energy." 

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

whats your 'bullet' point?

The idea that the wings should have bounced off...

dude, have you forgotten you've favorite words to use, straw man argument? that is the biggest straw man argument in response to no plane crash theories, and i am shocked (not really) that you pulled that one out.

from crack-a-pedia...

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

you are attemping to refute no plane crash physics by claiming it's proponents support the idea that a plane should have 'bounced off' the towers as opposed to what was shown by the mcmedia, which was 767s sliding without any decelleration and without any wings/tail breaking off. in fact, proponents of the no plane crash theories have NEVER claimed that a plane should have 'bounced off' the towers, rather, proponents have raised numerous issues and physical violations with the observed impacts.

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

it is easy to refute the argument that a plane should have bounced off the towers. we're not talking basketballs here, we're talking alluminum and steal. no bouncing required. you have created a position which is easy to refute (bouce baby bouce) and attibuted it to your oppoents (that'd be us NPT's and the like) and attempted to argue against this position.

now where else have i see this type of 'argument' againt no plane crash theories....

oh yea, from paul watson!

The evidence they present to validate this notion is the contention that Flight 175 should have "bounced off" the tower yet sliced through it like a knife through butter.

for a much more eloquent breakdown of the various issues regards the plane crashes, see these blogs:

and accompanying links to a significant amount of additional research..

got anything else? perhaps a response to the original questions asked?

Analogy vs. Straw-man

Analogy vs. Straw-man

Perhaps you should look up "analogy" along with straw man.

A bullet will bounce off a wall if you throw it. It will go through it if you shoot it with a gun. What's the difference? Velocity.

See my previous comment.

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

Projectiles different from planes- rigid, much higher velocity

Plus fracture and local inertia rather than global inertia play a major role.
So says MIT's Wierzbicki in explaining how projectiles into solid objects or sheets are different from planes into buildings.

page 35, especially last paragraph. Link to page 35 only is here:

Yes you have a point

but my major point is that:

velocity has an impact on penetration.

At 400 miles per hour--how fast did the plane enter the building? Around a second? Is that enough time for the plane to break up and fall on the ground? The impact also resulted in the infamous pod missle controversy. The bright spark on impact.

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

impact phyics which you ignore

velocity has an impact on penetration.

sure does!

but what about my bulletproof vest and my bulletproof glass? both are capable of stopping a bullet traveling fast than the speed of sound...

so what gives? velocity?

i am beginning to think that the material of the impacting objects plays a role too.

what do you think? you must be able to find some 'quotes' to 'refute' these points.

velocity plays a role, yes. but so does density of the impacting bodies and deformation mechanics of impacting bodies, both of which you ignorantly ignore.

physics of impacts

A bullet will go through a sheetrock wall when fired from a gun. A bullet will stop dead in its tracks when fired at a steel plated wall. What's the different? Density.

Holmgren gave Jones all the chances he deserves

He was a professor of physics at a major university and knows better, and is using that credential, not those skills and knowledge, to discredit arguments. He failed to cite contradictory data, even in the NIST reports that he claims to have read in full.

Your argument on why the planes don't matter makes no sense. They matter, and if you were sitting in a prison cell for assisting fake hijackers while the real murderers walk free, you might think differently. You are talking about a lie. Either it is true, or it is not. Another one of those "even if it's true" arguments, I see.

I've already stated the implications of no planes, but here's another way to look at it: you can take your 9/11 Commission report and tear out every chapter except 1 and 9, because it's mostly fraudulent and diversionary, and at best secondary.

I am focusing my energy on the "collapse." I see "no planes" to be an important part of that. I'm not standing in your way. Jones is standing in mine and I won't let that happen.

If you are focusing on the annihilations of the Twin Towers, you better quit using the word "collapse" because it is a lie.

Here's a great article on that, linked from

My arguments, for the 20th time, are not ad hominem. Do you even know what that means? "Steven Jones is a drunk." "Steven Jones is trailer trash." "Steven Jones is a Mormon." "Steven Jones does physics for the government." That's ad hominem. Find where I said anything like that.

Under your definition, parents couldn't discipline their children and PhDs would be available for the asking.

Why should I be polite to him? For wasting my time fixing the tremendous harm he has done with his fraudulent arguments? You can thank him for me being here going on about no planes. This is a reaction I decided was necessary when I learned of his fraudulent arguments.

I sent him an email to give an opportunity to respond to my first article. After that I kept finding more and more data he was not disclosing and wrote it all up yesterday. He knows where I am and can respond if he wishes.

He was free to pursue his own ideas, and free to criticize others' research, as long as he did it ethically and in accordance with basic standards. This is the second time I am aware of that he stepped out of line and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and let it happen.

I started suspecting 9/11 was a setup within a couple of months and have considered all the arguments and dead ends for years. I read Jared Israel's work in November 2001, which was ground-breaking and excellent work for that time. I almost lost a friend in 2001 for telling him I though the government was involved in the murder of his friend.

I read Forbidden Truth when it came out, Ruppert's stuff, all that Osama=CIA stuff which may be true but only perpetuates the lie of 19 Arab hijackers which has resulted in the deaths of a million or more people, including over 3,000 Americans. Not to mention the economic and opportunity costs and the immeasurable emotional distress caused us all by this Big Lie.

I'm finally starting to get an idea of what really happened and along comes Mr. Jonesy-come-lately, a physicist who took four years to see that the "collapse" theory was a fraud, to tell me what I should and should not be thinking about the evidence? Not going to happen.

Sure, if he makes a good argument I will listen, and his education and experience should be very valuable.
But his hypothesis/experiment method is largely unsuitable for this process, and a further drag on these inquiries. The fact is that most physical evidence is gone, and we are applying accepted physical laws to the photographic evidence. The experimental method is not necessarily required, and the alternatives don't take us back to Greek times. Jones' statement that experiments are preferred to computer simulations is disingenuous---even NIST hasn't set up a model of a building and flown a plane into it, so how can we?

I do not see how Steven Jones has added anything of real significance as a physicist. The fact that his theories are in the Popular Mechanics book, along with a bunch of long-discredited theories, tells me all I need to know. Straw man. That's just my opinion, and maybe I'm not thinking objectively now. Think for yourself.

Whatever he has added does not compensate for his actions in relation to the planes problem.

And don't tell me he is a nice guy. His actions are not nice at all. Since it's your word, his actions are despicable, and as childish as it sounds, he started it with Gerard Holmgren and Web Fairy.

And how come when Reynolds or Fetzer goes on TV and says what he thinks he is presuming to speak for the movement, but when Jones does it there is no problem? I'm not happy to see Jones in Hustler. I think his arguments are derivative or diversionary and he's not who I would choose. But they wanted him, so who am I and who are you to say differently? He doesn't speak for me so I could care less, as long as he respects the rules.

Don't you dare tell me I'm hurting this movement. Really, who are you and who is Jones or anyone else to tell me that? I've said it before and I will say it again---I will not be part of a More 9/11 Lies Movement. I will not contribute my time, energy, and skills to any movement that is pushing lies. That's what I think is happening, and it needs to be said. This is exactly what I meant when I said "a movement of one, in a movement of all." We don't need truth heros, and if we have one, they need to be scrupulous about the truth.

Steven Jones has affronted the process of getting to the truth. His behavior is outrageous, and I will not apologize for anything I said. Let him find my identity and sue me for slander. I will enjoy defending my actions.

Sorry, Ningen, you are not

Sorry, Ningen, you are not "extending" my analysis. My scenario is based on the obvious reality that not only were all the phone calls real, but all the flights did exist, were hijacked by human beings, and were piloted somehow to all four crash scenes as per the official story.

I'll say this to you, and everyone else: 9/11 WAS NOT THAT COMPLICATED! It was a lot more down to earth than many in this movement realize.

How about the phone calls were phony, and were needed to

make it LOOK LIKE 19 of bin Laden's boys had "hijacked" those planes?

Show "What about this?" by Ningen (not verified)

Research into the 19 patsies indicates they were misfits/dupes.


Not necessarily

The calls could have been made by real victims of a real hijacking. That is a separate matter from whether those planes were flown into the WTC towers and the Pentagon. Gerard Holmgren has raised separate questions about whether those particular flights existed.

btw, why would "hijackers" with dubious flying skills "hijack"

planes out of Boston to hit the WTC, and "hijack" a plane out of Newark, NJ (10 miles from WTC) to fly to Ohio and crash in Pennsylvania (Flight 93)? Real hijackers would want to be flying the least amount of time on the most direct routes to their targets, least they be intercepted or have other complications arise!

The Will

As you know we were lucky enough to find Atta's will.... good thing his luggage didn't make it on the plane..... I don't know what that crazy cat was thinking taking his will on a plane that he was going to crash into a building..... unless he folded it up and put it inside his indestructable passport.... anyways back to the point.

In his will he mentioned that he was most upset that he didn't get to see more of the country that he hated so deeply before he destroyed it.....

This is my guess as to why they decided to take the scenic route.

As we all know..... Cleveland is a must see American destination

You're right. But these

You're right. But these weren't "real hijackers," and they certainly were not Arabs. They were part of a state-sponsored conspiracy, so they knew they would be protected by a NORAD stand-down. They flew all over the place so they'd have time to do their phony "Arab" hijacking to fool the passengers into making the phone calls, which then fooled the rest of us that the planes were hijacked by Arabs.

Thus goes the false flag. And it worked to perfection.

Then what?

Did they put the planes on autopilot and bail out? Did they commit suicide?

I read your scenario

I see you addressed the possibility of the commandos parachuting.

I agree with what Cassiea said there that you do seem a bit eager to blame the Israelis. On the other hand, if such an operation were done, it would make sense to use Israeli commandos.

If this was done, I think it more likely that the commandos, Israeli or not, bailed out after putting the planes on autopilot out to see, where they were destroyed. No phone calls were allowed during this time, even if the passengers were still alive.

This is nothing more than speculation. What is certain is that the planes did not hit the WTC towers or the Pentagon.

I don't know what happened to Flight 93, except that it did not crash in Shanksville. Maybe they aborted whatever attack Flight 93 was to be a cover for, and did the same thing to Flight 93---out to sea and destroyed.

The radar would have to be faked in this scenario. That does not seem difficult.

Time to hijack, and low security

They would want the least amount of time necessary to take control and return to their targets. Maybe Boston and Newark had easier security. This is not to say I think the planes were hijacked by Arabs with dubious flying skills. I'm just giving what I think would be the official response. Boston Logan was said to have lax security, whether or not that is true.

Youare right that the flights seem long

Why go all the way to the Midwest before taking control of the aircraft? You're right that suicide hijackers would want to minimize the time in the air to increase the chances of success.

United 93

actually addresses this issue dramatically -- see, the thing is, the hijackers were really scared and like, it took a while for them to get courageous enough to pull it off. Read: even a Hollywood director realized there was something fishy about that long, long flight to the Midwest -- so fishy it had to be addressed. Badly.

Tom Burnett's wife said she identified husband by Caller ID

andrewkornkven, were you aware of the report below?

Widow tells of poignant last calls
By Greg Gordon -- Bee Washington Bureau

Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, September 11, 2002


Their conversation was so brief that Deena was unable to tell Tom about the other planes. Her heart racing, she phoned an emergency number and was patched through to the FBI.

The FBI agent was understandably confused, thinking she was phoning about one of the planes that had already hit the World Trade Center towers. "No, no, this is a third plane," she insisted.

They were interrupted by another call. Deena's caller ID told her it was Tom. This time, he told her the terrorists were in the cockpit. "The guy they knifed is dead," he said.



I think registration is required to read that article. Or you can try using this service:

The explanation is simple.

The explanation is simple. This was the third or fourth call Deena received from her husband. When she looked at her caller I.D., it had the same number as the previous call, because it was coming from the same airphone. So she knew it was him.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that excuse just yet...

because I would think a call from an airphone would come up as "unknown" on a caller ID. She specifically was reported saying her Caller ID told her it was "Tom". If this ever goes to trial, Denna Burnett should be called as a witness and questioned about what exactly was on the caller ID and how she identified the call as being her husband?

Also, that call would have been the second call by Tom to his wife according to the report. The plane would have been well above 30,000 feet.



I thought there was another

I thought there was another person who referenced the caller ID..... a woman calling her husband... he said he was asleep then changed his story and talked about picking up the phone and saying "Hi Honey" or something like that because he saw her # on the caller ID and knew it was her

Generic Letter to Congressman/woman or Senator:

Generic Letter to Congressman/woman or Senator:

My Lovely Family of Truthbearers and fellow Info-Warriors,

Here for YOUR convenience is a letter that I am sending to ALL the Congress Critters and Senate Toads in Colorado. I will then start sending them to every other one in all the other states. We must all unite and do the same. Please!!!

Use this letter to send if you agree with it. If you choose to, add to it or change it to your comfort. Regardless, send it, mail it, fax it, and call it in to your critters/toads right now! This is still The Way to try to stop ALL THE INSANITY and the potential of more war in Iran or Syria. WE MUST ALL STAND UP TO THE HORRIBLE CORRUPTIONS AND LIES OF THE EVIL BEAST THAT WANTS TO BEFALL US ALL!!

(Full Page Ad placed in the New York Times 1-12-07)

((Print it and paste this ad above everywhere))

Please take just a few minutes to send this after YOU sign it. Taper it for a Congressman/woman or your Senator, but just send it. Do it while we are still free enough to speak our mind.

Please do this for YOUR future, the future of your families and children, and of course, YOUR COUNTRY!!

Thank you and bless you.

Dr Jay


Dear Congressman and or Senator,

Today I write to you in total disgust of your inability to properly represent the people that elected you. This country is in terrible trouble and the drums of distress, earth changes, False Flag Threats, and fear mongering about more wars beat in the back ground. The propagandistic media system fans the fires of fear and deception all so well orchestrated and paid for by our taxes and run by a zionist agenda. Your inability to do your job is now under scrutiny and America’s demise is in the distance. Pay attention please.

It is with a troubled heart that I write this letter. I want to point out my complaints and ask that you immediately do something RIGHT NOW to change these terrible situations:

1. The possible coming war in Iran or any other country is absolutely wrong. We already are embroiled in several war fronts that are all for the profits of the Oil corporations, the Bush Crime Family, and other banking institutions. These wars founded on lies and deceits are certainly not in the best interest of the People of these United States. The People here do not want a war with Iran and we see the set-ups for an attack and or another False Flag Event like 9/11 was to possibly trigger this outcome. Everyone knows about the 9/11 Cover Up. Anyone in denial of this horrible planed Event still is either part of the plan, or just plain stupid. Are you plain stupid or part of the evil plan?

2. We must end the war in Iraq right now! Support our Troops!! Bring them all home RIGHT NOW!!! Actions to bring all troops home must start immediately!!!! We the real American People support our Troops and we want them HOME NOW!!!!! This is REAL SUPPORT!!!!!!

3. Get rid of the privately owned corrupted evil Federal Reserve System and the illegal Income Tax and replace it with our own monetary and tax system based on Gold and Silver and fair trade wages for labor. Print our own fiat money to pay off the corrupt fiat money debt then go on the Gold and Silver backed U.S. Green-Back.



If you do not begin to actively and full heartedly pursue these requests of the People in your Voting District, I will begin the paperwork for RECALL ELECTIONS in 90 days. We the people elected you all and we can un-elect you all just as fast. The People of this country AND YOUR VOTING DISTRICT are sick and tired of the corruption and lackey like behavior from you who are supposed to represent we the People. We want you to do what you were elected to do and that is to represent the people. The people want the wars stopped and the Bush cabal impeached and brought to justice for high treason's before they start any more wars that will be the demise of us all.

We Demand that you end all the wars immediately!

If you truly support the troops, bring them all home now!!

If you love this country, then defend her and live up to the oath of allegiance to America and the Constitution upon which all Laws here are based. All our children’s futures are at stake here.

"Shat of get off the pot" is what Grandpa used to say. Well Sir or Madam, the message here is clear. END THE WARS AND IMPEACH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NOW! The truths have been long written on the walls of history. The ball is in your court and we the People are watching to see what your next actions are going to be. Will we have to recall you?

Sincerely, an American with all the rights of our Constitution,



PLEASE sign this and send it.

Thank you again for your help to try and save America.

Dr Jay

Where to find them:

(Old, but some addys may be good still)

Latest Advancements:

Best places for Daily News:

Excellent letter! Thanks for posting it


Keep doing good research

Keep doing good research Andrew.

The phone calls, like many of the passengers, were phony

Read "Operation Northwoods" planned 45 years ago. Fake passengers, fake funerals, etc.

(andrewkornkven is a shill/disinfo artist.)

Except that Operation

Except that Operation Northwoods never happened; it was never even planned. It was nothing more than an idea in the head of a general named Lyman Leimnowitz. He presented it to the President and the Sec. of Defense who both firmly rejected it, and demoted Leimnowitz for his efforts.

This is something no-plane people don't seem to comprehend.

Operation Northwoods came within JFK's pen of being activated!!!

You are a lying shill, andrewkornkven!



AndrewKornkven is not a shill/disinfo agent.

But you, Anonymous are suspected of being a double agent.

It is well known in

It is well known in intelligence circles that Anonymous is a disinfo agent. Take it from me, Anonymous.

Sincerely, Anonymous

Show "Surprising new evidence?" by Mark Roberts

Hi, Mark! Thank you for

Hi, Mark! Thank you for your interview on CrossBall!

Hugs and kisses! Cool

Show "Maybe you folks can wake up." by Anonymous (not verified)

As far as the phone calls

As far as the phone calls go, you make some pretty good points. All evidence shows the phone calls were indeed real, and the "Denialists" are wrong on this issue.

But then, in the last sentence of your comment, you try to pull a fast one. You mention "a terrible attack by 19 Muslim fanatics..." The phone calls are real, but NOTHING in them points to Arabs or Muslims. The phone calls show there were hijackers on the planes-- but not that they were Arabs. Clearly the hijackers were pretending to be Arabs, but that doesn't make them Arabs.

The smoking gun: Betty Ong's identification of one of the hijackers coming from seat 9B, which was occupied by an Israeli-trained commando and Zionist fanatic named Danny Lewin.

Another smoking gun: The recording of the hijacker in the cockpit of FL11, supposedly Muhammad Atta. You can listen to this recording; it shows a distinct Israeli accent.

I have to say Andrew, this

I have to say Andrew, this doesn't look like the face of a fanatic willing to kill thousands.

I'll agree with you about

I'll agree with you about the face, Rollo. I don't want to necessarily accuse Lewin, only point out the evidence-- namely, Ong's call.

But do a google search on Lewin, and read about his life. It is safe to say he was a Zionist fanatic, raised in a family of Zionist fanatics. He was a member of the elite Sayeret Metkal unit of the IDF. I don't think you make it to that level if you are a sweetheart.

Besides, he may not have thought of himself as a mass murderer. He may have thought of himself as a soldier doing his job, following orders.

I was thinking about why the

I was thinking about why the President remained at the elementary school after they received the information about the two planes hitting the towers. We all heard of the secret service guy who said 'We're out of here.' It occurred to me that they would immediately assume that Air Force One could also be a target. Initially they wanted him out of the school, but then realized they would just be sending the President off to a sitting target. So they thought they would remain there for a little while until they could assess the realistic threats to Air Force One. They had already secured the premises against bombs and they always secure the perimeter of the location where the President is at. And there wasn't a realistic threat from a hijacked plane. Anyone who thinks a hijacker could fly a Boeing jet into an indistinguishable target like an elementary school among trees and countless other buildings is mistaken. So he remained there for a period until the Secret Service could decide what the best course of action was. And that was remain there temporarily until all threats to Air Force One could be assessed. After that was done, they could safely transport the President to the plane.

I don't pretend to know why

I don't pretend to know why Bush was hung out to dry at Booker, but I can tell you that I know the area around the school very well. "Trees" are not an issue for locating the school -- it is flat terrain with a very low tree line.

There is no reason to think the Secret Service would assume that the only danger to the President would come from the air -- the local paper in Sarasota reported on a minor scuffle involving some "brown" men at the gates of the place he was staying before leaving for the school. At the time he was alerted that the country was under attack, no one knew the full nature of the threat. Plus, the Secret Service always sets up a predetermined security location for this type of risk.

I surmise the truth falls into one of two camps: either the head of the Secret Service detail knew he was in no danger, or he was deliberately security stripped so that he would capitulate to the demands made on him later in the day.

The importance of the Booker incident is that, once again, finely-honed, immutable security protocols were abandoned on 9/11/01, and no credible explanation has been presented.

A well thought-out and

A well thought-out and written analysis, Andrew. But all the possible options you listed are actually impossible. Number two, like all plane-swapping ideas, is impossible because three of the four planes were tracked continuously by air traffic control. No time for a plane swap. And any plane swap would require a massive human conspiracy unprecedented in American history. And we have many films and still of UAL175 crashing into the South Tower, and these show conclusively that it was not a military plane, but was a B767. And...... I could go on and on, and on.......

You made an assumption in your opening paragraph that I don't agree with. You assumed that the hijackers would have committed suicide when the planes crashed. There is no reason to assume that. If these were professional commandos, they could have bailed out of the planes with parachutes in between the time they commandeered the plane and the time it crashed. The planes could have been rigged for remote navigation before they jumped out. I have no proof or even evidence that this happened, but I have found no reason to rule it out either.

Not one of the crash scenes has yielded a number of bodies equal to the number on board. The hijackers may be living amongst us today.

parachutes? come on

you need to do your research man..... all commercial aircraft are equipped with remote control

you simply have to program them with the desired flight path...... the planes do everything from taking off to landing themselves.... the only reason a pilot is needed at all it to make the people on th plane feel safe and take over controls if there is an emergency which requires them to act

every one of the 4 planes could have left the airport with not one passenger on board!!!!

if the door was opened for someone to jump out.... you would have heard it on all those phone calls which you claim are real

"Do you believe me Mom?"

The hijackers could have all

The hijackers could have all piled into the cockpit and closed the doors behind them, after the passengers had been herded into the back of the plane. They then could have bailed out the cockpit windows, which can be opened-- I and others have researched that.

My scenario involving parachutes is far more believeable than four planes departing with no passengers. Thousands of people would have either have had to be in on the conspiracy, or been completely fooled. Impossible.


Yes.... because the tower is checking to make sure planes are full before they leave???.... did they show film of these people boarding the plane? Did we ever get testimony from those who were actually boarding the plane?... do we have their ticket stubs?

lets open up the evidence vault

Do you understand that many of the people who were involved had no idea that they were involved untill after the fact..... they believed that they were taking part in a drill.

they were Neo-Conned

and if you look at pictures of a cockpit.... you'd be lucky to fit 3 people in there let alone 5

why were all these planes 20% full on a day when they would normally be 80% full?

that much less to cover-up

Programmed Flight

Even the guy who programmed the flight path could have thought he was doing it to set up a simulation for a drill.... because the flight simulators use the same programs that the planes use to set their flight paths.

these simulators are very detailed and function in very much the same way an actual plane would work.

They could take the data from a simulated flight and plug that right into a planes systems..... then stand back and watch

Sure rollo, leave the Chimp in the schoolhouse for a

photo-op announced to the public media the day before??? Keeping Chimp and ALL THE SCHOOL CHILDREN in danger???


Did Airforce One even get a military escort?

as they flew to the Military base where Warren Buffet was having his little golf tourney for all the elites

Yes it did, as it made its

Yes it did, as it made its way to Offutt.

These Videos of REAL Plane Crashes Explain 911 TV-Fakery Clearly

Airplanes are extremely delicate


Watch These Videos of Real Crashes:

Now Watch These 9/11 Videos:

Note the Following in the 9/11 Videos:

  • There's no crushing, no bending, no twisting
  • Tail does not snap off
  • Fuel filled wings and engines do not explode on impact
  • Wing tips (which are swept back 35 degrees) sawing through structural steel
  • The building self-heals itself before the explosion


If a bird can rip an airplane, why can't structural steel?


As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"

If you guys want to be taken

If you guys want to be taken seriously, show some respect. START YOUR OWN GODDAMNED THREAD!

This is MY thread, about the phone calls, so quit hijacking it.

Start your own thread, and disseminate your no-plane nonsense there. I promise if you do that, I will not vote down your comments.

It's me, and I'm sorry

I did hijack it, and ruined it. My first reaction to operator kos was kind of opportunistic, but I heard the voice of Steven Jones and "9/11 Unity" in what he said. Please accept my sincere apologies. I think you should post it again--I will stay away.

No Planes Re-Examined

The burden is on you to prove your highly controversial theory Ningen. I would not call it a "honey pot". My personal opinion is that it is a "bee hive without honey".

It is also my opinion that you using the selective interpretation of evidence to support your theory. You are ignoring strong (indeed overwhelming) evidence that contradicts your position.

Let me give you just one example:

You say that “there is strong evidence of planted plane parts—this supports the no-plane hypothesis”. Am I misinterpreting your position? If so I apologize.

I say that this is not a logical argument. It does not prove that there was no plane. It only proves that there might have been planted evidence. In other words; is it not possible that a plane hit the building AND they planted other parts? Planted evidence does not disprove something happened. Why would they do that? There is a very compelling reason: They blew up the towers and they knew that the plane evidence would likely be mostly destroyed. Look at the photos of ground zero for yourself. They could have wanted a photo-op of the plane material for its ‘sentimental value’ or for ‘propaganda’ purposes. A picture tells a thousand words. Perhaps they also wanted to create “no plane conspiracies” with the planted evidence. Does it make any sense at all why they would intentionally plant evidence far away from the crime scene? Wouldn’t that be too obvious?

I find it somewhat hypocritical that you feel it is acceptable to criticize Jones and yet you refrain from criticizing Reynolds for deliberating harming the 9/11 truth movement.

How has he done this? Example:

Let’s say you have a theory. Your theory (Z) has 11 components











K (x, y, etc)

K is comprised of its own elements x and possibly others yet to be identified (y, etc). This is admitted in the theory. You have also acquired physical and visual evidence that x is indeed present.

Now let’s say someone comes along and says your entire theory is x, ignoring all of the other 11 pieces of your theory. Imagine someone just called your evidence your entirehypothesis”. That’s pretty crazy huh? Imagine that they ignore the fact that x is only one component of K and can be explained by other elements as well. Imagine that they also call you names, and distort what you say when you try to respond to them. Imagine that they criticize you for saying that it impossible to get “orange” molten aluminum when it is indeed impossiblewith the jet fuel fire temperatures as seen in the WTC.

Would you consider this behavior to be acceptable? Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have published a paper (Scientific Method applied to the "Thermite Hypothesis") that has done exactly this. A crass and blatant Straw-man distortion that blows their credibility hell high out of the water. Either you are naive or you are not paying serious attention to what these people are doing. Now is the time to start paying serious attention.

Now it is one thing to distort the position of Steven Jones. It is another when his theory is part of the search for truth in 9/11. It would be equally indefensible if someone distorted the theories of Wood or Reynolds. Do you see my point? The behavior of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds damages the entire 9/11 truth movement.

Now it is fine to talk about credibility of individuals. It is also fine to fairly criticize Steven Jones. I do not think he has fully answered what has happened in the collapse


in his theory—yet. Total destruction is an issue that needs to be more carefully explained for example. However, if you want to consider the credibility of an individual—you should examine the credibility of all individuals who are presenting theories. You have admitted that Reynolds was wrong in his first paper on the subject. Somehow this has not hurt his credibility?

Perhaps you have an irrational bias that leads you to support the no-plane hypothesis... I would accept that possibility. Everyone can be biased in their arguments and everyone can do so unintentionally. Others may be more suspicious of your behavior.



Controlled demolition encompasses collapse as part of its definition. Therefore it is entirely logical to call a controlled demolition a collapse. Calling it a “controlled demolition" gives the impression of a bias—i.e. that is WAS a controlled demolition when many people do not share this assumption. This is why I occasionally use the word “collapse” instead of “controlled demolition”.

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

I didn't realize you posted this

Your ideas about planted evidence are very troubling.

You paraphrased my position just fine -- “there is strong evidence of planted plane parts—this supports the no-plane hypothesis”.

You say that it does not disprove something happened. I did not say it did. Read what you wrote again. I said that strong evidence of planted evidence supports, not proves no planes.

And remember, it was Jones that offered this fake evidence to prove that planes hit the Twin Towers. Just because you or he think the alternative is absurd doesn't make it appropriate to use fabricated evidence to "prove" your point.

Let's say the parts were planted for the reason you suggest - for propaganda purposes.

Would you not want to be able to show that as part of your case for 9/11 being an inside job? Why would Al Qaeda plant parts there?

Why would you want to concede that this evidence of an inside job is authentic plane debris?

I don't know why the parts were planted where they were. Maybe the perps were stupid. Maybe those were the closest places they would find. What difference does it make? They are fake, that is suspicious, and your truth hero is ignoring this truth because he wants to use the parts as "evidence" in support of his theory.

That is not scientific. Do I need to put that in bold? Underline it maybe?

"Perhaps they also wanted to create 'no plane' conspiracies” with the planted evidence"

There it is. Jim Hoffman's "honeypot" theory.

On another issue, I was troubled and surprised to read your statements about the word "collapse," given that you focus on the destruction of the towers.

"Controlled demolition encompasses collapse as part of its definition. Therefore it is entirely logical to call a controlled demolition a collapse."

No. The standard way to do controlled demolition is by taking out the base and moving up so that gravity is the main force bringing the building down. That is a collapse, sure. That is how WTC 7 was done.

WTC 1 and 2 were not done that way. Gravity was not used, and it is NOT logical to call what happened to those buildings a "collapse."

Are you seriously making this argument?

I also think that controlled demolition is not the right word for WTC 1 and 2, because it was not done the standard way, and thus the term plays into the argument that controlled demolitions are bottom up not top down, totally begging the question of what then happened since the buildings did not collapse. This is what Brett Blanchard did, with the help of your logic.

"Calling it a 'controlled demolition' gives the impression of a bias—i.e. that is WAS a controlled demolition when many people do not share this assumption. This is why I occasionally use the word 'collapse' instead of 'controlled demolition.'"

I see. In order to refute the government's fairy tale with people who have been propagandized for years, you use the very term with which they have been propagandized, in order not to appear biased against the government's story?

Are you seriously saying that this is appropriate and effective? Language matters.

I occasionally use the word too, and am trying to get away from the propaganda word.

Controlled demolition is also a bad word because debris was thrown far to the sides, and the government shills say that this is proof it was not a "controlled demolition," because in CD the buildings fall into their footprints.

This propulsion of dust and debris is strong evidence that the buildings did not "collapse," yet becomes evidence they did, because of the term "controlled demolition.

How about using words like annihilation, obliteration, explosion, destruction, disintegration, blown to kingdom come?

Remind me not to hire you for my next PR campaign.

Also remind me not to hire you for my next investigation, because you assume facts not in evidence.

"Others may be more suspicious of your behavior."

First of all, so what?

Second, I could much more easily say the same of your bizarre arguments that concede so much to the official story.

Third, what exactly is my "behavior"?

Saying something you disagree with? You saying I am irrational or biased doesn't make it that way.

Criticizing Jones but not Morgan/Reynolds? Seems like you have them covered, so I should focus on Jones who has screwed up on an issue I understand. Why am I obligated to criticize them? That is a ridiculous idea. Reynolds and Wood are not my truth heroes to your hero Jones.

I already told you I don't know enough about what they are saying about Jones' thermate research to critique their criticism, other than to say their tones and words were unprofessional. To say anything more would be irresponsible, and it's my choice how to spend my time, not yours. I could easily say the same about you being a hypocrite for criticizing them but ignoring my criticisms of Jones.

Good points

I welcome your good points.

But I think you are misinterpreting my position somewhat:

#1 Calling Steven Jones my “truth hero” is the same as calling me a “truthling” or “Steven Jones’ lap dog” or anything else (as I have also been called). If I called you a “no-planer” it is called an ‘ad-hominem’—a comment (usually intended to cast emotional aspersions) about the individual. It is evading an argument in favor of irrelevant comments/appeals about the individual. Even if it were true, what relevance does that have to my position (it’s not true)? I think you’ll have to be a little more polite if you want others to take you seriously. Name calling will give others the impression that you are not interested in having an honest debate. There are people who have far less patience than I on this website (as you have no doubt noticed).

#2 I have shown that the that planted plane evidence neither proves OR supports the no plane theory. You are speculating that because there was planted debris there was no plane. Speculation is not enough. You have to prove that independently of the debris as my hypothetical example showed. At best I would call it circumstantial evidence and it probably wouldn’t even qualify for that.

“Would you not want to be able to show that as part of your case for 9/11 being an inside job?”

Sure. Why not? I never said it didn’t help the cause for 9/11 truth. I said it didn’t help the no-plane theory.

#3 The base of the WTC towers were taken out. We know that there were huge explosions (recorded on seismographs) before the planes hit.

Collapse: “Large buildings, tall chimneys, and increasingly some smaller structures may be destroyed by building implosion using explosives. Imploding a building is very fast — the collapse itself only takes seconds”.

The buildings collapsed (i.e. fell) to the ground—eventually. To “collapse” a building is the purpose/intent of controlled demolition. Your point about bias is noted and I agree it is a relevant point. I had not considered that.

“How about using words like annihilation, obliteration, explosion, destruction, disintegration, blown to kingdom come?”

You answered your own question. You want to create new propaganda? Call something what it is. Call a lie a lie. Call a controlled demolition, controlled demolition. Of course it was one of a kind. That doesn’t mean it’s no longer a controlled demolition. It’s just a variation. A unique snowflake is still a snowflake. The destruction had 11 observable features of controlled demolition!

#4 “Why am I obligated to criticize them? That is a ridiculous idea.”

I’m not saying you obligated to criticizing them. I’m saying you are obligated to holding them to equal standards. That’s all I was calling into question. See my comments on a lie versus a mistake.

#4 You are assuming that I believe that the plane parts were planted. I haven’t formally decided that yet. I agree that is worth looking into more carefully. That also means I also haven’t decided if Jones was careless. Anyone can make mistakes. Are you saying simply because he made a mistake about the plane parts (irrelevant to his controlled demo hypothesis) that he has lost credibility? Why is this bad—but when Reynolds makes mistakes in his main theory in the past that you have admitted it is considered acceptable? You said it was ok for him to revise his theory so why isn’t it ok for Jones to revise his position if he is shown to be incorrect. That is part of the scientific method after all. It is normal. What would destroy someone’s credibility is deliberate dishonesty as Reynolds has engaged in. I have been watching him and what I have analyzed is not the whole story. He has written other papers and other documents with Wood that are just as bad. What motive would he have to do this? To me it shows that he is not interested in the truth about 9/11. Therefore I take anything he says with a grain of salt. Sure his theory can be examined on its own merit, but when he says the laws of physics are broken (according to his interpretation) I am not going to believe him! He has lied in the past! He has distorted other 9/11 research! Therefore he doesn’t have any credibility. I simply don’t trust a liar. If others can prove to me that the laws of physics were broken I will consider it, but not from his mouth (or interpretation). I am not expert enough on such matters to come to a conclusion on my own. I'll admit that.

He has also accused Jones of being a liar without backing it up. His behavior is 1000 times worse than any possible mistakes that Jones has made. A mistake is much more acceptable than a lie or a deliberate distortion.

#5 As I have said repeatedly, I welcome legitimate criticism of anyone. I just haven’t made up my mind that your criticism is correct yet. Similarly, I have not researched the no-plane hypothesis as much as I have researched the thermite issue.

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

"# You have missed the


You have missed the point. To say I have to also criticize Reynolds/Wood or be a hypocrite is to suggest that I have to choose one side or the other - to get behind a "hero." That's what I meant, and it was mild sarcasm. I'm not calling you a "truthling." I think that is funny and has some truthiness to it but I didn't come here to start calling people names. I guess I did here with the "truth hero" comment, but it was directed at a phenomenon, not you.

My actions make it clear that I am interested in serious debate, so if I digress a bit into mild sarcasm I think it should be OK. Given what I have seen on all sides of this issue -- e.g. people that question the planes being called "scum" by Jon Gold" or "accessories to murder" by John Albanese, this is incredibly mild.

I can deal with those with less "patience" than you. Why are you suggesting I should be attacked?


I said:

“Would you not want to be able to show that as part of your case for 9/11 being an inside job?”

You respond:

Sure. Why not? I never said it didn’t help the cause for 9/11 truth. I said it didn’t help the no-plane theory.

Again, you missed my point, and just repeated your prior points. Please address my actual arguments.

Jones assumed this debris to be authentic and used it to prove there were planes.

If the debris being faked could help make prove something ("help the cause of 9/11 truth" is too vague), is it not a problem that Steven Jones has publicly taken the position that the debris is authentic?

You can't have it both ways.

"Speculation" is not a dirty word. Except here when it comes to the planes, it seems. Again, it adds to an already strong case for no planes. It does not prove that case.


My words are not propaganda. All are more accurate than "collapse," because they describe what happened. WTC 1 and 2 peeled down from the top.

"Collapse" is propaganda and you should stop using it. It's a hard habit to break, I know, and I wasn't criticizing you personally. But I am concerned that you are so adamant in defense of this word. Why don't you read the article at the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice" website?

The goal of CD is not to "collapse" a building. That's just the best way to meet the goal of safely bringing the building down.

WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse. Even if there explosions at the bottom to weaken the thickest structures at the bottom, or perhaps to prepare the basement to receive debris, the structure was still intact and not destroyed from the bottom up.

Why are we arguing about this? I'm not making this as an argument against thermate or for beam weapons. It just is.


I’m not saying you obligated to criticizing them. I’m saying you are obligated to holding them to equal standards.

I cannot hold them to equal standards without carefully reading and understanding their work. I have already agreed they used unprofessional language. How can I say more with analyzing the work more carefully? Like I said, my time is limited and it looks like you have them covered.

You are subject to the same criticism for not addressing my critique of Jones work. So far , you seem to think it is just fine for him to legitimate faked evidence.


OK, I'll grant for the sake of argument that I have not proved the parts are faked. I have undeniably raised serious questions about their authenticity that Jones should have addressed before using the plane parts as data in support of his argument.

Why is it not OK for Jones to revise his theory? Because he violated academic standards, not because he made a mistake. And because he did this after being called on it by Holmgren. Once again, you twist my words and ignore the issue.


My circumstances are the same - I do not know enough about Jones' thermate work and their criticisms of it, so all I could say is that their language was unprofessional.

That includes calling someone a liar, even if it was backed up, which I don't know.

But that is not a 1,000 times worse than what Jones did. You keep downplaying the seriousness of a professional academic not researching the literature and not questioning data which he uses to support his conclusion.

Points taken

#1 sarcasm is sometimes hard to judge on a text message. Ok, point taken. I'll admit I engage in it as well, but only to the most disagreeable of posters who deserve it.

#2 I meant to say that I agree with you: faked plane parts can prove an inside job. I looked more carefully at this on your blog and you may have a strong case here. It's quite suspicious. But for you to say that this supports the no-plane theory is what I would characterize as circumstantial evidence.

I never said speculation was a dirty word. It's just wrong to use speculation to "support" a theory. Unless you can "test" your speculation as done with the scientific method (i.e. observe, speculate, test: proved/disproved). We are all trying to prove our 9/11 case with absolute rock-solid certainty. As I have showed, there is a hypothetical case where the plane could have been real and the plane parts were planted. It is a possibility, therefore you can't say with certainty that the parts support the no-plane hypothesis.

#3 I agree with your criticism about collapse. It's time to call it precisely what it is.

#4 "I cannot hold them to equal standards without carefully reading and understanding their work."

I know you say this and it is a valid point, but... it's pretty obvious to me. Maybe I am biased in thinking it should be obvious to everyone else. The thermite issue is very simple and easy to understand.

In my mind molten steel and free fall speed of.... controlled demolition (almost said collapse), are the most devastating facts that prove an inside job.

  • Jet fuel can't melt steel (max temp 1000 C).
  • Only certain types of fires are capable of melting steel and are only obtainable through special circumstances. Read Jones paper for discussion of this.
  • Explosives are capable of melting/evaporating steel.
  • The steel melted/evaporated at ground zero and was present for more than a month. (And reported in FEMA report, but NOT the NIST).

Only a CHEMICAL reaction can explain this.

Steven Jones speculated that thermite was responsible because it would explain the chemical reaction.

He observed visual evidence of molten steel before one of the towers blew up (remember—It can't melt with jet fuel fires) pouring out of the tower. This is devastating proof that no one has been able to debunk. NIST has tried repeatedly to imply that it was aluminum, but aluminum (from the plane) will not turn orange unless it reaches temperatures higher than jet fuel can reach.

He found physical traces of thermite in molten metal samples. He found unusual trace elements in the dust samples. All of this data confirms the use of thermite.

But to be more precise it wasn't thermite. It was military grade thermite—known as thermate. Thermate is not explosive. It is an incendiary that cuts through steel like "iron through butter" (and was observed falling from the towers).

However, it doesn't explain the massive debris and explosions. This is still being researched, but it is known that superthermite exists (patented) and could explain the "structural behavior" of the towers. This is not discussed in his paper.

Now this doesn't mean that only thermite/thermate/superthermite was used. It is a known fact that controlled demolitions never use just one type of explosive. They are often used in COMBINATION.

Therefore any explosives could have been used in combination with thermite.

So when Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds call his theory a "thermite" hypothesis. They outrageously ignore the fact that explosives can and are often used in combination. They pretend that he is only arguing that thermite was used. The ignore the 11 features of controlled demolition (including molten steel). Thermite is his evidence, not his entire theory! His theory is controlled demolition. I don't think there is a single valid objection in their paper. In fact they ask the same question twice, showing their lack of proof-reading.

When they object to his visual evidence they don't actually reference it. Instead they argue that he should have admitted that aluminum turns orange (the color seen pouring out of the towers) when it reaches a very high temperature (1600 C or so). The only problem is a jet fuel fire can only reach 1000 C, so their point is deliberately misleading—a stunning distortion. They have hammered him on this illegitimate point repeatedly. I had no idea until I researched it myself.

Disproving the use of thermite does not disprove the controlled demolition theory because there are 11 features. You have to disprove them all, not just what type of explosives/incendiary were used!

That’s what they have tried to do (“thermite hypothesis”).

I'll admit you have a point about academic standards but it could have been a careless mistake. After all, it is clear that he absolutely rejects the no-plane hypothesis and this may have created a hasty bias in looking at the data. I'm going to reserve judgement, but it is clear that he should explain his actions.

This however, is still much less worse than the distortion of other 9/11 research. Surely you would admit that.

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


"Mild" may have been to mild. It was sarcasm. But it was not directed at you personally, but was a general point I'm trying to make. I am troubled that everyone seems to be arguing as much about personalities as about theories.

"It's just wrong to use speculation to "support" a theory. Unless you can "test" your speculation as done with the scientific method (i.e. observe, speculate, test: proved/disproved)."

I disagree as to the debris. The fact that aircraft debris was planted supports a reasonable inference that the debris was planted to cover up the lack of planes, and I think this is the simplest inference that accounts for the facts. The debris alone would not support such an inference, but in combination with the lack of debris below the impact points, and the complete disappearance of the planes into the towers and very low deceleration, which are not consistent with energy balance models, this planted debris does support that inference.

A more general inference of planted debris is that it is evidence of something other than the official story of Arabs hijacking planes and flying them into the Twin Towers.

I cannot see how such an inference could be tested in a scientific sense, and I think Steven Jones overemphasizes the experimental method in a forensic situation. Accepted laws physical laws can be applied to data without need for an experiment.

Again, I am responding to a phenomenon, not you. I often read "that's nothing but speculation" and for that reason wrote about it not being a dirty word. You are using it correctly, and I agree that in some situations speculations need to be tested. But rational inferences from fact--circumstantial evidence--is admissible in building a criminal case.

You raise some good questions about the Reynolds/Wood attack on Jones' research. Again, I have to reserve judgment on whether they did that, but if they did, it's bad.

I do not think that this is any worse than what Jones did--refute 9/11 research through distortion. Slaters' paper cited by Jones also distorts the research by lumping a number of theories questioning the planes into one general theory, then attacking them all with a mish mash of arguments that do not apply to all the specific theories, the positers of which might agree with some of his points.

What Morgan/Reynolds were saying was not obvious to me, which concerns me. It made sense to me that if you are trying to show that aluminum would not glow at a lower temperature to rule it out as the flowing metal, a test of glow at that temperature should suffice. On the other hand, it makes sense that such an experiment should be conducted in daylight conditions. Like I said, I really don't get these arguments yet.

Disproving the use of thermite does not disprove the controlled demolition theory because there are 11 features. You have to disprove them all, not just what type of explosives/incendiary were used!

I agree, and think the type of energy added is secondary. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that Reynolds/Wood are trying to disprove CD theory - I think they are just saying that thermate does not account for the observed destruction of the buildings, and are trying to show that only beam weapons do. I'm not sure if they are mis-characterizing the argument as thermate-only, or just think that thermate and explosives could not do it. I will look.

I agree that Jones should not have to name the people that planted the thermate. That argument would apply to their own beam weapon argument - who was directly the beam,etc.

The main reason the beam weapon makes sense to me is because it seems so hard to wire the building with so much incendiaries and explosives. I have not reached any conclusions, nor probably can I, but I don't see this argument as implausible. Who knows what kind of block budget weapons have been produced?

I think Reynolds/Wood raise good questions about whether the photograph of the flowing metal is authentic, given the color enhancement and the questions about the channels through which the metal is flowing, but use of NIST photographs is a dilemma faced by us all - that's all we really have and there is no way to tell if they are authentic.

Still people in the world

Still people in the world who don't see 9/11 was an inside job? Poor basterds.