Letter: Group questions official story of 9/11

My letter to the editor of my local paper made it in for the Buffalo premiere of Experts Speak Out. It made the print edition too. Had a 250 word limit. Hope there is a nice turnout. I am heading there myself later. News of other events has been a bit scarce I'm sorry to say. I'll post how it goes tonight in Buffalo.

Peace everyone.


Posted: Friday, June 8, 2012 12:23 pm

Has anyone ever wondered why so many people do not believe the “official” 9/11 narrative? Well 1,700 reasons are coming to Buffalo today, at 9 p.m. at the Market Arcade Cinema in the form of a 90-minute documentary by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org). See 911expertsspeakout.org for venue information or view it online.

Ae911truth is a organization of of 1,700 licensed and/or degreed professionals who petition for a new investigation, into the destruction of all three World Trade Center buildings that fell that day. Yes, that’s right, I said three, and those reading this who did not know three buildings fell that day need to be there the most. WTC 7 was a 47-story steel-and-concrete building that free-falls through itself for over 100 feet. It drops like a stone accelerating at the same rate as gravity. Many have never seen the destruction of WTC Building 7 and those who have, never see 9/11 the same again. They can suspend the Constitution but not the laws of physics. The official story is easily falsifiable. We must begin viewing 9/11 and the “war on terror” in a new context. These highly respected professionals in the fields of structural/mechanical engineering, architecture, physics, chemistry, and more risk everything by speaking out publicly about the glaring flaws in the NIST reports and the vast evidence ignored by investigators. See the facts and join the discussion.

Great work dtg86. Good letter. Great to have it published.

All of us can help promote these events if we want to: http://911expertsspeakout.org/action_kit.html


The sock puppets are out in force on that article. Quoting Popular Mechanics and Randi - dissing the 1700 architects and engineers and all easily debunked - but short, quality responses are required...

Despite the Randi et al

Despite the Randi et al pseudoskeptics' predictable bunk, the majority of those posting responses have been rational and open, and in favor of ae911truth.

Funny, I was just here....

It is kind of funny but I was just reviewing some Randi crap and it comes up again here and on Ynda's comment. I really appreciate the pseudoskeptic link as I didn't know anyone had formalized that. The way I arrived at the Randi site was through reading Penn Jillette's book God, No! Jillette explains his arrival at atheism through a series of many vignettes. These are are personal stories that come from a very cogent mind. Sure, he could have had someone ghost the book but the stories themselves are personal and require a lot of reflection just to keep up with his strange internal logic. Which is how I got to the Randi site. I just wanted to look again at what passes there for critical thinking and it is not much and Jillette is a big friend of Randi's. There is a lot of glad handing of trite phrases like "oh, that has been debunked." I saw just a blurb that said "Mae Brussell is a flake." I will say a little about her in a bit. But the whole survey of the JREF site just puzzled me. How does someone as smart as Jillette arrive at supporting this kind of logic? I'll explain why I am even bothering about him when I try to tie this up. My only answer for this is that these kinds of organizations are something you subscribe to not something that you put a lot into. It has to be that, I mean what else could it be. This woman I know, Summa Cum Laude from a good school, tried to best me on my thinking about L. Ron Hubbard's Emeter. When I told her it only measured galvanic skin response and was a twitchy meter at best she responded with "no, its better than that because they did something to it ." As with the JREF people, this is something that she subscribes to not something she discovered or thought out. And I am really convinced that the "due diligence" here, to her anyway, is the money she pays. It has to be worth something, right? I mean it costs a lot of money. This is the same kind of ascribed status that you see when someone goes to the mall and pays a fortune for clothes that say: "Aeropostale," "The Gap," or "Abercrombie and Fitch."
Regarding Mae Brussell, she is hardly a flake. I am currently pouring over 700 hours of material she recorded for her various radio shows in California. She was one of the first and perhaps one of the most important researchers of the JFK assassination. Her passion began when she received, as a gift, the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Report and thought, as I did when just a kid, that it was a piece of #$&@. As time went on her research interests broadened. The reason for this was that her main research tool was to read newspapers and cross-reference and cross-file the major players. Hardly the work of a "conspiracy theorist" because she was dealing in fact.
Penn Jillette's shtick in magic is honesty. He does not pretend to be a mysterious character who has traveled in the far east and will now regale you with the mystical wisdom that he learned. He does tricks and says as much. Penn will even expose some of his illusions to the curious but his secrets are safe. They are safe because, according to him, the solutions are "just too ugly." They design their illusions and practice them over and over assiduously. If you want to know his secrets you are welcome but be prepared to get bogged down in some very arcane minutiae because what is elegant and effortless on stage on paper is "ugly."
So, just with Mae Brussell alone, I have budgeted over 700 hours of work. I am doing due diligence and I know I am not alone here. You know that the press a'int doing any due diligence with their slashed budgets for investigative reporting. We are about to lose yet another urban daily The Times Picayune in New Orleans. Pravda, anyone? How many blogs have you read here? How many videos have you watched? But whatever you do you are wrong. Why? Because "that has all been debunked" and you are just a "twoofer." Not only has it "all been debunked" but it has "all been debunked" by Popular Mechanics. Bullshit! Why? Because all that "debunking" is not and never has been any original thought of the people that subscribe to it and get their surety from the ascribed status of a group of people that claims that it knows what is going on. How do I know that? Because I have done due dillagence and looked into how the tricks are done and it is ugly.

Pretend sceptics.

When you examine their standpoint you will notice that they are SELECTIVE sceptics.. sceptical only about what suits them.

Pseudoskepticism is a form of pseudoscience

Yes, in other words, the classic notion of bad science. True skepticism - with the mandate to investigate *all* the evidence without favor - is an essential component of the scientific method. Pseudoskepticism, by its very nature, is pseudoscience - ironically that which the JREF crew (etc) attempt to debunk!

More often than not, it appears, that this form of "cherry-picking the evidence" is agenda-driven or opinion-driven, and in the case of 9/11 - and numerous other controversial events with heavy duty political ramifications - to serve as a mechanism to protect establishment or authority (the 9/11 Commission Report was a classic example of such). Those who disagree, are by default, subject to ad hominem attacks, typically the "conspiracy theorists" weasel words, in the absence of logical argument. That is how JREF "works", and it is a very effective weapon to convince a population which has become increasingly scientifically illiterate/dumbed down in recent decades... with the corporate media being the means to disseminate such propaganda.

Mae Brussell

Naturally they consider Mae Brussell to have been 'a flake.' Approaching news coverage with a critical, discerning mind, rather than be a passive receptacle for official pronouncements--that is a surefire way to find oneself different from the majority, hence 'weird' and 'flakey,' and therefore, in the view of these pseudoskeptics, 'wrong.'

I can't say I've spent over 700 hours researching her; but I do know that in the summer of 1972, she wrote an article on Watergate only weeks after the break-in that was way ahead of where the national press was at that time (e.g., Martha Mitchell was telling the truth! But that's not what the press was saying). She even pointed to important aspects of the scandal--relating to the Bay of Pigs and CIA fronts, like Mullen & Associates--that should have been probed much more than they eventually would be.


I am not trying to make a macho thing out of doing a lot of research but with Mae Brussell if you want to follow a thread you have to listen to a lot of material because she meanders a little. Currently, I have been looking into the People's Temple ever since the movie Milk came out. Harvey Milk and Moscone both had connections to the People's Temple. The main thrust of my idea was that I doubt that people who support government theories spend a lot of time doing research although they may claim otherwise. It is just too f'ing hard.

Sock Puppets

The sock puppets are there in larger numbers than truthers...

This is an extract from my latest reply on the thread:

"I have gone back to the original science papers associated with the building collapses and the NIST studies themselves. They don't inspire confidence. Bazant, Steffan, many of the fire studies all duck the question or indeed knock NIST's own fire model. Google NIST ex-Fire Chief James Quintere for his complete demolition of NIST's approach, management and conclusions of the WTC studies.

I have done a random check myself on 1,700 professionals - this is just the architects and engineers, there are other thousands of other professionals - and many of them are senior partners or own whole architectural practices. This is very easy to check.

You say "No amount of proof, no number of studies, experiments, etc. will change the minds of 9/11 conspiracy fans." - I disagree. Having 9/11 uninvestigatived is not comfortable for me or indeed the 9/11 Families that are calling for further investigation. You cannot be a "fan" of injustice. I guess you can be motived towards seeking the truth to all those shattered bodies (most of which, btw, look as though they blown to bits rather than burnt or crushed).

This is only a game of whack-a-mole because of people like yourself that are somehow satisfied by unsubstantiated claims made by the government and media during the actual attacks. This is not science, not justice and not caring for the 9/11 Families that urge us to "Press for Truth"."

We think we could do a better flash-mob on these threads better than the PysOp agents... (imho)

Juvenile Re-Inforcement of Epistemic Fallacies

J-REF = Juvenile Re-Inforcement of Epistemic Fallacies

J-REF = Junk-Science Rebuttals for Embedded Fools

J-REF = Junky Replies to Entrench Fraud


Good answer, Ydna. And three great acronyms, Simple Truths! Worth remembering. They may come in handy some time.

Flash Mobs...

Thanks for the comment, RM. It's Ynda rather than Ydna, but hey! :-) But there are precious few truthers responding. As I said, I think we could do flash mobs a bit better. We are up against professionally organised, but thinly spread, PysOp teams. The very minimum we should do is to be able laugh down all the JREFers and debunkers with some simple facts: where's the investigations into money, crashes, hijackers, body parts etc


There's now a CAPTCHA check and login disable to stop me contributing to the discussion. It started to enter into a slanging match. Good luck to LifeB4911, Lippy and jsmillfish.