Infowars: NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably

NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably
More mainstream coverage, more ignorance of the facts | May 17, 2007

Steve Watson

In a report detailing Rosie O'Donnell's confirmed plans to have 9/11 truthers debate the attacks on The View before she leaves in June, The New York Times has responded by penning an extremely poor attack piece ( ) which cites previous shoddy debunking efforts while completely ignoring key evidence often referred to by the many scientific experts, ex government officials, whistleblowers and truthers in general that have declared the event an inside job.

Skipping over the fact that some guys in a cave in Afghanistan were able to coordinate a total stand down of US air defenses, and completely ignoring the mountains of evidence of prior knowledge, the Times makes four main points in an effort to debunk solely the controlled demolition aspect of the 9/11 truth movement's assertions.

Here are those points with our counter points...



351 comments and counting. I've read them all. It started out heavily anti-truthers and now is mostly truthers. Let's compile our favorites!

Also, "ME" must be cointelpro and paid handsomely.

"We are going to keep up

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

Show "." by Big_D

For Dan and

for every other decent American, we will conquer the lies and bring Justice.

my letter - let's see if they post it

The NY Times should be ashamed of itself for this poorly researched blog.

Do your homework. Read Dr. Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Go to
and read peer reviewed papers by experts in many fields.

Go to and see who else in the government, military, and media question the government's "official conspiracy theory".

The NY Times has not done an adequate job investigating the real events of 9/11 and I would go so far to say that they have not done so intentionally. Someone has something to hide...

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." Thomas Paine

They did not include my comment. What does that tell you?

They did not include my comment. What does that tell you?

Either the NY Times does have something to hide (and I believe they do) or they are still pissed at me for cancelling my subscription.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." Thomas Paine

don't feel bad

they didn't include about 5 of mine!

Thanks for the article.

Thanks for the article. Dugg, Reddit, commented.

1. The buildings collapsed

1. The buildings collapsed from the top down and because controlled demolitions are carried out from the bottom of buildings they were not controlled demolitions.

A few points we might like to make here:

If the buildings were just blown up (like BLDG #7) CD would have been obvious, and we would have IMMEDIATELY treated the event like a normal bomb/arson investigation. Therefore the planes were flown in to misdirect and traumatize us. OBVIOUSLY the destruction would HAVE to start at the impact site, not the bottom, or the misdirection would not be effective.

Given the dimensions of the Towers and their mammoth cores, a bottom up implosion would likely be impossible. If the bottoms were taken out first, there would be a high likelyhood that the Towers would topple over and the demolition would be anything BUT controlled. Buildings that tall and narrow, with huge central cores COULD NOT be imploded into themselves. I would bet that the ONLY way to do a CD on these buildings would be exactly the way we saw. To shred them from the top down.

And of course, the near free-fall speed and perfect symmetry (THREE TIMES) exclude the possibility of this having been a natural event.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

exactly, angular momentum

exactly, angular momentum would be too much of a problem to deal with to do it from the bottom with any sort of confidence given the dimensions of the towers and the strength of their cores.

Another thing that should be pointed out....

After carefully examining multiple clips of the tower's collapses, it appears that part of the demolition was accomplished by "unzipping" the building with vertical explosives, rather than horizontal. I believe this is why the building appeared to unpeel like a banana, as it was described by live news reporters on the scene. In addition to this, it appears other parts of the building were demolished in large square and rectangular chunks, as seen in the photo of this Infowars article. If you look at the way the building was constructed, you will see that it would be impossible for the building to break up like this on its own because of the way each individual grid piece was placed. Kind of like a puzzle. Examine the satellite and aerial photos of ground zero and you will see long thin sections of the perimeter that show the unzipping phenomenon and the square chunks.

bad logic

The (unspoken) premise that "if all CDs are done in one way, then we may safely presume that CDs cannot be done in any other way" is false.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Has anyone seen this video?

This gave me hope until the words rolled off the tounge of the femal Fox reporter at the very end.

If there isn't a need for oil, what will be the next battle front?

"suddenly and

"suddenly and inexplicably, the US withdraws from the middle east..."

I just spotted this

I just spotted this while browsing.
I couldn't believe what I was reading. I am not a demolition expert but I could debunk it myself. I wonder who paid this guy off? It looks like we are up against the devil himself.

"It looks like we are up against the devil himself."

"It looks like we are up against the devil himself."

That's what I've been trying to tell people, but they don't want to listen.

- nick9/11


I did a search, didn't feel like reading the whole piece of garbage, for "FREE" as in 8-second freefall and found NOTHING.
So the entire thing is crap if he doesn't address the haste of the falls.

and the guy claims that in his career they NEVER use, nor have ever heard used in the demolition industry, the expression "PULL IT" to refer to a controlled demolition.

PROVING that the analysis is a fabrication that's full of shit.
That guy should be hung as a traitor.

That guy should be hung as a traitor.

You got that right. It makes me sick when I think of how so many "True Americans"? will defend the official fairy tail to the death. They just won't face the facts that America has been taken over from within by satanic gangsters. Everyone from Jefferson to Ike and Kennedy warned us but nobody listened. Now we realy have our work cut out for us. Thanks my American sleep-walking friends. Thanks for a shit load of misery in my golden years.


The planted disinformationists are SO much worse than the ignorant Americans out there.
Truly evil.

Same type of bullshit with the Ron Paul crap going on now.
It's been such a great test to see what media outlets are trustworthy.
It really gave credibility to all the shit we've all been saying all along about our "media" being compromised.

" Thanks for a shit load of misery in my golden years."

Boy, you got that right.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

off topic

Maddog, theyve known about hydro-energy for a long long time now. They keep us on petro because they can control the markets. These wars for oil is all a sham.
We are fighting over something thats free and every where. When they give society the use of Hydro-energy, we will be able to live in freedom and peace..because there should not be reason for war ever again.
I looked for the original video of Joe Cell posted about a year ago(about 1 hr video)..hes a guy from Autrailia that evented this.But looks like it was pulled. Imagine being able to drive across America on a gallon of water.


I know, and that is only one form of cheap energy. A few years back I read about a group of scientists that were developing what they called a focus fusion reactor. You could power your house for a year on a glass of water. They were threatened by the government and had to move their research out of the country.

something from nothing?

I heard you need massive amounts of energy for the electrolysis process. That energy has to come from somewhere (fossil or nuclear). Do you know differently?

Splitting water into O and H2 is simple.

Massive amounts? I doubt it is as massive as they'd have us believe. We did electrolysis as a sixth grade experiment. I guess conservation of energy dictates that it has to be less than 100% efficient.

To split H2O into O and H2:

Get a closed container of water, submerge two separate tubes in opposite sides of the container. Insert an anode (positively charged electrode) in one tube (submerge tip in water), insert a cathode (negatively charged electrode) in the other tube (submerge tip). Run a current thorugh the system. O- gas will bubble up around the anode, H2+ around the cathode. I guess it takes more energy than you get back out. Still, we could be getting the energy for H2O electrolysis from wind, hydroelectric, and solar energy instead of hydrocarbons.

Has anyone seen these guys?

Supposedly they've invented a "perpetual motion machine". Zero point energy. Rotating magnetic fields... I haven't looked into this much yet, but I know it violates the laws of phyisics as we have understood them for about the last hundred or more years. I would have to brush up on my science to get a better understanding. They have videos on YouTube, and they claim that their device produces "free" energy. They seem sincere... They're trying to get other scientists to test and verify their results. We'll see. (Or maybe we won't if big oil has its way.)

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Research Joes Cell

Research Joes Cell. He uses stainless steel tubes in ordinary tap water and just uses a regular car battery charger, cant remember the amps, the the process produces bubbles that accumilate at the top if the water. Inside those bubbles is Argone gas I believe. I may be wrong on the gas, Im not a chemist or anything, but he threw a match on top of the bucket of water with the bubbles and BOOM!

Its not Hydro-power as I stated above, that is the wrong terminolgy for this. I blieve it has something to do with fusion. The details is something im not able to explain. I have no expertise in this, but I know what I saw was free energy. Energy pulled out of bubbles made from a battery charger and Steel tunes and a bucket of tap water.

Iver done hours and hours of research looking for some article to debunk this, but all I have found is articles and people that have duplicated this feat.

It's old fashioned electrolysis

and the "free energy" came right out of the charger. Don't be fooled, read up on this very simple concept and realize that water is as much of a fuel as ash is. I don't mean to sound rude, but how can you say you can't explain the process, yet know you witnessed "free energy"? Gut IQ?

I'm get really irritated when people advertise water as the fuel of the future, because "nowadays, there are these things that run on hydrogen -- and hydrogen is water, right?"

interns < internets

Already refuted

Jim hoffman already refuted that piece. It is one big piece of crap by blanchard.


Help me shout 9/11 articles on:


9/11 has certainly been revealing in terms of exposing the MSM as willingly complicit.


It's about time, too! Waking up to the propogandistic and DISHONEST nature of the MSM is imperative for all Americans.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

still taking posts (at least some of them)

It's still going - try to add your own post(s) if you can. Here's my current favorite:

May 18th,
7:11 pm

ml & ME:
Give it a rest with the Rosie’s “melted metal” terms, will ya? I’m a metalworker in all categories you mention. ml, precious metals don’t melt at 1000 degrees, unless they’re some exotic low-melt bismouth alloy or something.

GOLD melts at 1945 degrees F.
SILVER melts at 1761 degrees F.
IRON melts at around 2750 degrees F.
STEEL usually melts at around 2500 degrees F.
ALUMINUM melts at 1220 degrees F.
COPPER melts at 1981.4 degrees F.


The only metal in the WTC, therefore, that could be actually melted by the jet-fuel alone would be any silver jewelry the residents of the building might have been wearing.

Regarding the hypothesis that the fuel ignited the furniture, etc. and that this then reached temperature required within the hours after impact and prior to collapse? Well, better minds than mine have devote lots of time to that one (see for example:

It is BY NO MEANS conclusively possible, in fact apparently HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that there could have been enough heat generated (without injected pressurized oxygen in a controled, contained blast-furnace environment to maximize combustion temps), given the time available (”heat-work” as the ceramicists call it) to deflect the steel enough to cause the building to fail, let alone shred the whole thing into a smoking pile.

The meaning of “melted Steel” is construed to be “softened steel” in Rosie’s case, as in buckling from from fire alone– the point of the Truthers being that there is no plausible way to demolish the entire building so cleanly even if the fires were improbably hot enough to able to soften the steel in a small section of floors.

Any reference to actually “melted” metal, refers to the footage of apparent metal pouring out of the impact area, as well as eyewitness accounts of pools of molten steel under the piles, both of which point to a far higher temperature than any kerosene or combusting office furniture could possibly create given the conditions available (i.e. an air-fed burn, no compressed oxy, no blast furnace).

Anyone who tries to say that those streams of gowing orange were aluminum laced with combustable fragments is really stretching. What would have appeared in that scenario is a silvery pour, with flaming bits floating on top, NOT an incandescent obviously extremely hot fluid.

Molten aluminum looks like molten lead. Molten steel looks like the documentaries of steel mills, very orange, and glowing very hot. No possible confusion between the two, no matter how many flaming combustables you try to mix with aluminum (the aluminum would probably extinguish the flaming debris included in it before it would possibly turn orange and glow like that, and aluminum would vaporize long befor it turned orange).

If you have any question, take a torch, melt some aluminum, mix in some sawdust or whatever, ignite it, and see if you can make it look like an iron foundry, which is what those flows looked like.

Of COURSE you can melt metal with fire, and you can melt glass, and fire ceramics, etc. That’s the way it’s traditionally done (prior to new induction-style furnaces, etc.)

But to sustain a fire hot enough to do any of these things, you need a much more dense form of fuel, such charcoal, coal, etc. with some form of forced oxygen, or you’d need a precisely built tunnel-kiln that draws air, and keep it stoked for days and days (as in Japanese wood-fired Anagama Kilns) etc. etc.

Anyone who works with metal or buildings or fire would find it suspicious that most of the fuel in one of the towers flared outside the building, but despite the drastic reduction in fuel, it still managed to be the first one to go.

As to #7, to which Rosie refers, this idea that Rudy’s fuel oil stockpile in the basement (which flashes at like 700 degrees) could have built up enough heat to deflect the girders and/or trusses to the degree that once again the entire thing falls apart into a pile of rubble neatly masticated for trucking to barges, is hereby suspected of disinformation. Let’s see you do peer-reviewed tests that experts can confirm, show that this can happen, and explain why it doesn’t happen when the huge tanks of heating oil in the basements of every large building flare in a fire.

I’m no scientist, I don’t claim to have definitive answers, but until you have definitive, peer-reviewed physical tests and science, and until all the questions about the NIST paper are addressed in a scientifically proven way, none of us can definitively say whether the official theory of the collapses were definitively plausable (likely not, I would wager).

But surely, despite the convincing slight-of-hand (fire=collapse=shock & awe = Bush gets to take over the country and do whatever he wants with our money, lives and national reputation, and all his friends make out like mega-bandits), there are many questions.

What confuses me, is how the bloviated Truther-busters above are so sure about the NIST explanation, when the science simply isn’t there the way it needs to be to justify all the consequences. Why is everyone so convinced it’s not another Gulf of Tonkin, what do you have to hide??

Let the investigation be reopened, produce peer-reviewed tests, etc. and show us once again how this unprecedented multiple collapse supposedly worked by fuel combustion alone.

— Posted by JS