9/11 Family Members File Petition with NIST


Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine today filed a petition with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeking correction of inaccurate factual statements and analysis in NIST's reports on the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Mr. Doyle is the representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, the Coalition of 9/11 Families*, and lost his own son Joey in the collapse of the twin towers.

Mr. McIlvaine, an outspoken 9/11 truth activist, lost his son Bobby when the World Trade Centers were destroyed.

Another prominent 9/11 family member supports the petition, but decided for personal reasons not to sign.

Also signing the petition are:

• Physicist Dr. Steven Jones

• Scientist and former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Kevin Ryan

• Architect Richard Gage (a member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use)

• And the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

The petition can be read here. It is very strong and solid, and well worth a read.

The family members' petition was mainly drafted by attorney James Gourley. It should be noted that the petition was commenced independently of, is wholly unaffiliated with, and does not endorse or sponsor the petitions prepared by any other persons.

* The Coalition of 9/11 Families is not a signatory to the petition.

NIST_DQA_Petition(redacted).pdf554.82 KB

Thank you...

Mr. McIlvaine and Mr. Doyle!

GW... is this that thing you contacted me about?

Here's an interview of me with RadicalPragmatist in Arizona... talking about outreach to the families... this petition makes me happy.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


yes. Thanks for your help.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

For those who haven't heard about what Jon said re Bill Doyle

Thousands Of Victims' Family Members Believe 9/11 Was An Inside Job

Alex Jones interviews 9/11 victim's father Bill Doyle who lost his son Joseph Doyle during the September 11th attack...

Original airdate: July 7, 2006

Alex Jones: Founded in September of 2001, the World Trade Center United Family Group is a nonprofit 501c3, and you were its founder and head and you say you represent over 7,000 people. What is the average view of those that you represent about 9/11 and the cover-up?

Bill Doyle: What they want is... If you want to believe the 9/11 Commission's story -- like a lot of us don't, ok? You really gotta go look in the... It almost looks like there was a conspiracy about 9/11 -- if you really look at all the facts. A lot of families now feel the same way.


Alex Jones: With your 7,000 members, I'm sure you've talked to most if not all of them. What percentage would you say believe 9/11 is an inside job to some extent?

Bill Doyle: Maybe half... Probably 50/50.

Full interview here:

"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








My thought


My thought is that they are more pathetic than rightwing apologists. Not AS pathetic. MORE pathetic. So pathetic that I'm tempted to leave them by the wayside. Not much makes my blood boil more than irrational liberals.

you ask them, did they have

you ask them, did they have control of our air defense systems too?









oh I definitely understand

oh I definitely understand and have encountered the same sentiment. I think it boils down to fear and America self-worship. You tell them, you can't imagine the possibility of a few people in the hundreds of thousands of people in our government and intelligence community that could be involved with this? Like when something shady happens in another country, those on the left will admit 'sure, its possible if not probable that Putin is bumping off voices going against him'. But never here. Oh no.

Its the same denial you see when a wife gets informed her husband has been molesting their daughter.

News editor at The Watchman Report, www.watchmanreport.com, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community



What like permanently? If that is what you mean, I disagree.

My experiences tells me different. If you are diligent, have a well prepared argument, and you pick an opportune time...you can squeeze water from a rock. I've done it a few times.

I would urge you to just consider that maybe everyone CAN be reached...

Why? 2 reasons...

Fact vs. Fiction


Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Great work RWF2 !

This is a basic logic trap that allows them to remain in denial.

(Actually, during such a stressful time the family members could easily have been fooled by fake calls.)

I tell people to check the FBI website and see for themselves that the FBI admits that they don't know who the "hijackers" were. I then point out that no proof has been provided by the government that shows that the "hijackers" even got on the planes. If they persist I tell them that I remain skeptical until I see credit card and/or cell phone bills that document the calls as the calls could have easily been faked.

I also try to engage them on a variety of 9/11 subjects to gauge their level of knowledge and how strong their denial is. Many people have a very difficult time getting their mind wrapped around the psyop that 9/11 was designed to be, give them time.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.




What I find with many peace activists

I find a disconnect with some peace activists on the "left" too. Anyone else sick of the whole Democrat vs. Repub game? Anyways, Ive approached many activist and mentioned 9/11 and Id say about only 40% are receptive. Its weird, theyll believe that Bush lied about WMD's, Iraq(killing over 650,000), Oil, Domestic Spying, Niger Uranium, the Economy, etc. But when it comes to 9/11, they think he "let" it happen, but didn't have a hand in it. I guess hell lie about two wars on two fronts causing total chaos and killing almost a million, but not a few thousand of our own, which in comparison is small beans. I used to be a friend to Democrats being that I'm a "Liberal" myself. But, I discovered that Democrats aren't Liberals and that they don't deserve the term. I think Alex Jones has portrayed the Liberal to be equated with the Left and so have many of his fans. I listen to Alex daily and its one of two things that get on my nerves, the other is the "GOD STUFF", but hey, he cant be all things to all people.

True Liberals are educated and love freedom and the Constitution, Democrats on the other hand are sneaky apologist bastards which would kill their own just to "look appropriate". They lie to themselves about 9/11 to stay in good standing with each other like its some sort of "take the higher road" approach,its pure garbage. These days, to me, its about those that speak truth and want truth, versus those that don't. My "allegiance" is with the 9/11 truth community, screw all the rest, lol.




Please have patience

with these "peace activists" as they slowly awaken to the truth of 9/11. It is a very hard pill for some to swallow. Denial is a natural human reaction and can be incredibly hard to overcome. If you try to force the truth on someone before they are ready they will either fight you or take flight, this is basic human psychology and is hardwired into all of us.

Always keep in mind that 9/11 was designed, first and foremost, as a psyop on the American people. The intense fear created by the perps and reinforced by the media has been very effective in shutting down many people's ability to think critically. Humans are inherently emotional beings, after all.

Whenever I talk about 9/11 with someone for the first time I ask them what they think happened that day and assess their level of understanding of the event and begin to work them through the following levels of 9/11 Truth:

The first level of 9/11 Truth is the realization that the government myth has real problems and can't be true. Simply educating people on the basic facts of 9/11 brings most people to this level. Getting them to watch 9/11: Press for Truth also works very well for this.

The second level of 9/11 Truth is the realization that elements within the US government and private sector made it happen (as well as elements from other countries). Further education and the application of basic logic brings many people to this point, others have various levels of denial to overcome and this takes differing amounts of time. The film 9/11: The Myth and the Reality is an excellent dvd to assist in this process.

The third level of 9/11 Truth is the realization that the left-right paradigm that most people accept without question is an artificial construct that is totally meaningless. This is a conceptual leap that one makes after one does enough research and reflection. This cannot be rushed, everyone comes to it in their own way at their own pace.

Many people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the narrow world view of the "American reality" that they have to engage in massive denial about 9/11 in order to maintain their basic expectations of life or they will literally have a nervous breakdown.

My advice when dealing with these people is to engage them carefully, ask them questions, see if they have any questions, listen to them very closely and answer their questions thoughtfully and without speculation. State facts only. When you don't have an answer to one of their questions tell them this is why we need new investigations. If you get frustrated or angry take a break and take it up another time. Remember that it is always a struggle to learn a totally new concept.

We are all brothers and sisters and we need as many of us working together to make this work. This is a non-violent revolution and we are attempting to totally reshape our political culture as we restore our constitutional republic.

We are winning, be patient and keep speaking about the truth to everyone you meet. A movement has to keep moving forward, after all.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Well Said. What's Next?

I want to commend you for your calm, well reasoned, and admirably expressed posting. The questions surrounding 9/11 are a tremendous challenge to people's core-beliefs, unexamined though they may be. I always strive to adopt a tone of civility, courtesy and fair-mindedness when raising the subject of 9/11 with people who have not done any research and who respond largely with anger and epithets. Those who respond with deep skepticism are only just a little easier to talk with, but it's important for all involved in the 9/11 truth movement to recall their own reflexes and responses to what seemed at first blush to be incomprehensible, insupportable and destructive to deeply cherished beliefs.

Recently I've been asking myself a new set of questions and I wonder what you'd say about them. They begin with this premise: What do I want to see happen?
For I am asking myself: If the truth of what happened on 9/11 is the atrocity I suspect (and see evidence of, though I have no desire for it to be the case) and there was complicity within our government and intelligence services, etc. — then what might be the consequences of such truths being brought to light? What will the aftermath of the truth being known look like? Do you see what I'm getting at?

Like many I desire to know the truth. Like many I have grave concerns about the scope of interests that would likely be involved with the events of 9/11. But I've been asking myself, what next? If the truth be known, what comes next? And if we are looking at a cancer that has metastasized across the globe...? I find this very troubling.
"The truth shall set us free" you say, and I would agree. But what will we (and not just you or I or any of us who've been looking into this) what will "we" of this country, and "we" of the world, be "set free" TO DO in response to "the truth"?

"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon

It's best to just completely

It's best to just completely steer the conversation away from "fake calls" and other crap that they want to bring up to defend their own ignorance. Challenge them on the irrefutable points - WTC7, the Commission’s omissions, distortions and conflicts of interest etc.

Thank you...

What are my thoughts on "to say 9/11 was an inside job, you have to be saying that the families who received phone calls from those planes are lying?"

I would say, I honestly don't know if there were hijackers of some kind aboard those planes. I do know, however, that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers received their visas from the CIA Consulate in Jeddah. I do know that it is alleged that two of the alleged hijackers received their visas from the American Turkish Council. I do know that it is alleged that some of the alleged hijackers received military training from within the United States. I do know that the CIA was tracking at least two of the alleged hijackers prior to 9/11. I do know that it is alleged that the Pentagon was also keeping tabs on some of the alleged hijackers prior to 9/11 even to the point of protecting them. There's more, but the point is...

I don't know what happened on those planes. I wasn't there. I do know that information exists about the alleged hijackers that does not coincide with what we were told about them, especially regarding their alleged identities, and their chosen "career path."

I would also say that you're right. You can't deny there were terrorists who hijacked those planes and crashed them into buildings. However, were those terrorists sitting in the White House? It's a good possibility based on all of the information that exists.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


Asked that I cite this.

"15 of the 19 alleged hijackers received their visas from the CIA Consulate in Jeddah"

September 1987-March 1989: Head US Consular Official Claims He’s Told to Issue Visas to Unqualified Applicants
Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly told to issue visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program. [BBC, 11/6/2001; Associated Press, 7/17/2002; Fox News, 7/18/2002]

"I do know that it is alleged that two of the alleged hijackers received their visas from the American Turkish Council."

From an interview with Luke Ryland.

There are some other things that Sibel knows about 911 that didn't make the report, for example, some of the people that she listened to on the wiretaps, I think it was the ATC but I'm not sure, organized passports (ed note: that should be visas) for at least two of the hijackers.

"I do know that it is alleged that some of the alleged hijackers received military training from within the United States."

1996-August 2000: Ahmed Alghamdi and Other Hijackers Reportedly Connected to US Military Base
After 9/11, there will be media accounts suggesting some of the 9/11 hijackers trained at US military bases (see September 15-17, 2001). According to these accounts, four of the hijackers trained at Pensacola Naval Air Station, a base that trains many foreign nationals. One neighbor will claim that Ahmed Alghamdi lived in Pensacola until about August 2000. This neighbor will claim that Alghamdi appeared to be part of a group of Arab men who often gathered at the Fountains apartment complex near the University of West Florida. She will recount, “People would come and knock on the doors. We might see three or four, and they were always men. It was always in the evening. The traffic in and out, although it was sporadic, was constant every evening. They would go and knock, and then it would be a little while and someone would look out the window to see who it was, like they were being very cautious. Not your normal coming to the door and opening it.” [New York Times, 9/15/2001] It is not known when Alghamdi is first seen in Pensacola. However, he uses the address of a housing facility for foreign military trainees located inside the base on drivers’ licenses issued in 1996 and 1998. Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami also list the same address as Ahmed Alghamdi on their drivers license and car registrations between 1996 and 1998. Other records connect Hamza Alghamdi to that same address. [Pensacola News Journal, 9/17/2001; Washington Post, 9/16/2001] It is unclear if these people were the 9/11 hijackers or just others with similar names. The US military has never definitively denied that they were the hijackers, and the media lost interest in the story a couple of weeks after 9/11.

September 15-17, 2001: Did Some Hijackers Get US Military Training?
A series of articles suggest that at least seven of the 9/11 hijackers trained in US military bases. [New York Times, 9/15/2001; Newsweek, 9/15/2001] Ahmed Alnami, Ahmed Alghamdi, and Saeed Alghamdi even listed the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, as their permanent address on their driver’s licenses. Hamza Alghamdi was also connected to the Pensacola base (see 1996-August 2000) [Pensacola News Journal, 9/17/2001; Washington Post, 9/16/2001] A defense official confirms that Saeed Alghamdi is a former Saudi fighter pilot who attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. [Los Angeles Times, 9/15/2001; Gannett News Service, 9/17/2001] Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School in San Antonio, Texas. [Gannett News Service, 9/17/2001] A defense official confirms Mohamed Atta is a former Saudi fighter pilot who graduated from the US International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. [Los Angeles Times, 9/15/2001; Washington Post, 9/16/2001] The media stops looking into the hijackers’ possible US military connections after the Air Force makes a not-very-definitive statement, saying that while the names are similar, “we are probably not talking about the same people.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001]

"I do know that the CIA was tracking at least two of the alleged hijackers prior to 9/11."

George Tenet (Mr. "I failed to tell the FBI for 18 months that two known al Qaeda killers were living in San Diego and planning the 9/11 attacks") - Kristen Breitweiser

"I do know that it is alleged that the Pentagon was also keeping tabs on some of the alleged hijackers prior to 9/11 even to the point of protecting them."

All I can say is read everything there is to read about Able Danger.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

This is Stupendous!

I guess I can talk now Mr. G


Are you...

Talking to me? As if to say that I prohibit people from talking about Controlled Demolition?

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

No, Mr G- the Attorney Author of the Petition

I've known about this for a couple of weeks but kept my tongue.



Cause I really didn't feel like fighting. Thank you for the clarification.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


Just what the doctor ordered :-)

This is something we all need to get behind fully and publicize to the MAX.

Real science will win the day.

Thanks to all involved and the very best of wishes.

Show "subpar data quality in this RFC" by Constitutionalist
Show "How did wheels & engine exit WTC2 intact & leave no exit hole?" by Constitutionalist

Sorry to disappoint... but here's the engine exit hole !!!

More info in blog : http://www.911blogger.com/node/7053#comment-126196

Hope this helps.

Show "no hole on the north side there" by Constitutionalist

NIST's report states exactly

which columns were breached

NCNSTAR 1-2B, page 279

Shows two severed columns on the far side of the South Tower. It doesn't show whether the corner was breached.

Show "And . . ." by Ningen

We shouldn’t tolerate this

We shouldn’t tolerate this "Ningen" shill like some people have been doing, he's constantly trying to pimp "no planes hit the WTC” disinfo except with a pseudo scientific tone. Someone who seems bright enough to come out with the stuff he does should also recognise how absurd "no planes" is, except he seems to be here specifically to add "credibility" in the "no planes" junk.

I submit "Ningen" is a paid disinfo shill.

I submit that you are slandering me

If my tone is "psuedo-scientific," it is because I am not a scientist.

If you are too stupid or lazy to read the NIST reports and other materials and think about what they say, that is not my problem. I don't "come up" with anything - I think about problems and say what I conclude.

Tell me where I mentioned "no planes" above? What I said is that the plane debris is obviously planted. Do you understand how to think logically and look at facts individually?

It is very disturbing to me that this plane debris is accepted as authentic by scholars when it is so obviously faked.

No one pays me anything, and I work for no one. So I guess I'm not as bright as you think, because I actually believe this and say it for that reason only. I am also open to being proven wrong, unlike you, who has obviously never thought about the facts for yourself.

I personally vote for holding off on the pitchforks

and blazing torches with Ningen, because he has a lot of legal expertise which I find interesting, and there is the remote possibility (fingers crossed) that hsgsj is going to persuade him that his concerns about the impact videos are unfounded.

Shills are as shills do -- not as shills believe, IMO. Ningen is no more obnoxious than a lot of us.

Casseia, seriously I don't

Casseia, seriously I don't mean to disrespect your judgment but this is an individual who has been trying to spread "no planes hit the Twin Towers" disinfo on this site. We all know what that shit is, so don't you find it suspect that this character "Ningen" is cleverly trying to drop that crap and mix in with the rest of us?

I second casseia's motion

While I have voted down many of Ningen's comments in the past I believe that he is sincere in his quest for truth and as he studies the physics of planes entering buildings he will realize that the video evidence does not contradict the fact that large Boeing jets penetrated the Twin Towers.

Ningen has expressed his willingness to admit he's wrong, if and when he comes to that conclusion. (Just as I happily admit that I could be completely wrong about what happened at the Pentagon) This is not the tactic of a shill or disinfo agent and should be commended, not condemned.

(Please let Mr. Bonaduce handle all the rope as he will only succeed in hanging himself.)

Cheers to Portland !

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

What the hell is going on

What the hell is going on here, you guys sound like the pod people, and I don't mean the "Pods on planes" people I mean the ones in that movie who got brainwashed by aliens or some shit. THIS CLOWN IS SUPPORTING "NO PLANES HIT THE WTC" DISINFO!! If he's saying he'll "check something out" and maybe "change his mind" IT'S BECUSE HE'S TRYING TO MIX IN HERE!! And I'm sorry if that sounds shrill, but he's a blatant shill and you guys have really let yourselves down, I can't believe it.

Would you accept a polite Nico, is that what this is? Disinfo is disinfo period, we need to stay on the ball and be vigilant about that crap making it’s way on here.


please don't take this as disrespect because I'm sure you know how much I value your contributions here. I hear what you're saying about a reasonable-sounding blend-in strategy, but I've been watching Ningen for some time, and my opinion is that he simply holds an opinion that most of us vehemently disagree with but is not acting in bad faith.

Unfortunately, I have had to closely re-examine my assumptions about what disinfo and infiltration might look like in this movement, and as a result I'm not concerned about people like Ningen. Of course I could be wrong, but that's my two cents for the moment.

casseia, I believe DBLS is correct

This Ningen character pulled the same crap @ the Break For News forum a few months ago...


I thoroughly debunked the no plane garbage on that thread, but "Ningen" and the rest of his disinfo friends refused to acknowledge that I had.

I'm firmly convinced that the persons promoting the no plane BS on that thread are a part of a state sponsored 9/11 disinfo campaign. If you visit it you'll see the same usual suspects: Webfairy, StillDiggin, Veronica Chapman, ewing2001, heiho1, and... Ningen.

Just my 2 cents worth.

"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

Dont forget Gerard Holmgren

A man of high intelligence and integrity that has been vilified for no good reason. Oh yes, and Spooked, who I don't always agree with but who always explains why he thinks what he thinks so that people can decide for themselves. His blog was linked from 911 Blogger until recently. The way I see it, we are all disenfranchised citizens operating behind a huge wall of government secrecy, just trying to figure out what happened, and hoping we can engage others in the same probing. I have not found your writing to be of any use, even 2 cents, in this endeavor.

No argument from me

that Ningen is irritatingly no-planish. However, as I mentioned above, I think "shills" should be judged not by what they believe but how they behave. Ningen has been here since approximately early December (initially as an unregistered poster) so we've had a while to observe him and I don't think you can argue that he is as disruptive as the other people you mention. I mean, read his legal opinion later in this thread -- he's worth "keeping around" for that kind of perspective even if he is TVFakery-positive.

I respect your opinion, stallion4. It's just that at this point, I am much more concerned with people who appear to agree with us but are in fact disruptive, rather than that cabal of easy-to-identify shills.

I get a little nervous when you say "legal opinion"

It's my perspective based on some study and experience but should not be taken as anything more. There are thousands of lawyers that know much more than me about federal administrative practice. My impression is that whoever did this thought through it carefully, but I don't know all the laws and facts.

Sorry -- I anticipated that, even,

I just couldn't think of a better, concise description. Your "legalish opinion"? "An opinion what sounds kinda like the guy knows somethin' like those guys on the second half of Law and Order"?

You're right

and you said "perspective." You couldn't have said it differently - I was just making the disclaimer that lawyers always make when pontificating about the law on the Internet. Actually, this is how it's done:

This information is not legal advice. Legal advice is dependent upon the specific circumstances of each situation. The law may vary from state to state, and the information contained in this [blog comment] is not guaranteed to be up to date. Therefore, the information contained in this [blog comment] cannot replace the advice of competent legal counsel licensed in your state.


1) I have consistently voted down any and all comments by anyone that promotes the "no planes at the WTC" theory.

2) I have a very good understanding of basic physics which immediately enabled me to evaluate the arguments regarding said theory and come to a conclusion.

3) I can understand how someone could watch the videos of the plane penetrations and buy into the "no planes at the WTC" theory. I don't agree with the theory, but I understand how someone could agree with it.

4) I take Ningen at his word that he is continuing to analyze the event with an open mind and is willing to consider that he may be in error. As far as I can tell he is a very intelligent person who is intellectually honest and who really needs to fully understand something before making a decision. Unfortunately, he got ahold of some bad (but clever) analysis when initially examining the WTC plane penetrations and now needs to work his way through it. I say give him the chance to do that.

5) We are all individuals with unique thought processes and we are all human and subject to make mistakes.

6) If in one month Ningen still promotes the "no planes at the WTC" theory I will have to seriously reconsider his motives and/or agenda.

7) I always separate style from the factual content when evaluating anything. I analyze the individual elements of a thing in order to understand its totality.

(In this regard Ningen has been anything but subtle in his promotion of the "no planes at the WTC" theory.)

A "polite Nico" would still be making insane claims and promoting absurd ideas, just without the epithets. I am far more concerned about people like Mark Roberts and a few debunkers here in SF that use their charm and rhetorical skill to misinform and mislead those just starting to seek the truth about 9/11.

BTW - The "pod people" from Invasion of the Body Snatchers were alien clones grown from pods placed next to the sleeping human victim, they were not brainwashed, as the clone came to life the human died.

I understand your frustration and share your concern with the increasing levels of disinformation that is spread across the media spectrum in an attempt to slow the growth of the 9/11 Truth movement. Countering a psyop on the scale and complexity of 9/11 is not an easy task and we need everyone we can get on the side of truth if we are going to succeed in restoring our constitutional republic.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thank you again

Your points are fair and respectful. It may be true that I have bought into a bad but clever analysis, and I will be thinking long and hard about this in the next couple of weeks.

I published a link to Dr. Jenkins' article with some preliminary comments, here:


You should be aware that my analysis, or at least the analytical method, comes mainly from the Journal of 9/11 Studies. They recently published a Letter by Eric Salter criticizing my criticism of Eric Salter and Steven Jones for not citing contrary data in the literature in their application of this analytical method.

Oddly, Salter fails to mention the most important literature that they failed to cite, an engineering journal article by Karim and Hoo Fatt. If you are interested, I discuss that here:


I don't get it -- is the analytical method sound or not? If not, then Salter and I should be ignored by the Journal of 9/11 Studies. If I am not going to be ignored, my criticism should be squarely addressed.

Finally, I'm done here, as I have said way too much. Please remember that this all started when I made a discrete criticism of how aircraft debris is treated in the Jones et al RFC. This criticism should be evaluated independently of whether or not it supports a plane not hitting the WTC.

I was slandered as a "paid disinfo shill" for making this point. I am confident this point is valid, regardless of whether Dr. Jenkins is right about the initial impact and the deceleration all occurring inside the building, and the point cannot be ignored because it is what it is and may lead to some other conclusion. ("Honey pot"? That would still be significant and incriminating.)

This thread is a good example of why accusations of disinfo are so disruptive and stupifying.

Thanks again for your thoughtful criticisms.

What if I'm not convinced?

(6) If in one month Ningen still promotes the "no planes at the WTC" theory I will have to seriously reconsider his motives and/or agenda.

I'm a bit confused. Is there some reason that I only have one month to change my behavior? Is it the Jenkins' argument?
What if I don't buy it? Will that sully my motives and give me an agenda?

Please explain the physics. I'm still not seeing it. I've watched the Sandia video and it seems different somehow.

One month

is more than enough time to study what happened with the plane penetrations at the WTC and come to a definitive conclusion, for anyone with an open mind, that is.

The NPT is so extreme and counter-intuitive that, from an activism standpoint, it is completely self-defeating. Even if the physics supported it, which in my opinion they do not, unless you can definitively prove it to someone in five minutes it is best left for discovery during real investigations. For this same reason I never bring up the event at the Pentagon unless someone else does first and if they do I just say that the real point is that NOTHING should have "hit" the Pentagon, period.

Firefighters don't debate how a fire started before putting it out, they put it out and then let the investigators determine how, when and where it began. Our country is burning to the ground right now, let's concentrate on putting it out first, shall we?

As to your possible motive and agenda, on this blog you are what you write. If you want to continue researching the NPT on your own, that is your business. However, if you continue to push it here as persistently as you have been without something more concrete than a subtle (but important) misunderstanding of the physics involved, too much faith in the NIST analysis and questions about aircraft debris that cannot be resolved without new investigations, then I will conclude one of two things:

1) Your ego will not allow you to balance the merits of arguing the case in a public forum with the obvious negatives attached to it (this assumes that you sincerely still believe in the NPT at the WTC and I believe you are sincere in that belief).

2) You are actively and aggressively persisting in promoting a theory that is not in the best interests of our pursuit for new, open and truly objective investigations.

This is not some esoteric academic exercise, this is a political struggle. Let's get the investigations first and then let the chips fall where they will.

For me to explain the physics to you to your satisfaction would take an amount of time and energy away from more important things (a value judgement on my part) than I am willing to commit to at the present time.

The Sandia video and what happened at the WTC are two very different collisions so they should not appear the same. That said, the relative deceleration in the Sandia video would be greater than the relative deceleration at the WTC as the resistance of the target surface at Sandia was significantly greater than that at the WTC.

As for the jet engine shooting through the building and landing in the street: I have no problem believing that a 7000 +lb. titanium alloy engine traveling 500+ mph could penetrate the exterior wall, smash through some cubicles and a few partition walls and then punch out the other side at 105 to 115 mph, especially if its initial impact was between two exterior columns. If I had a $80k workstation with Pro-Engineer on it I'd even be willing to model it for you (in my "spare" time, please keep in mind I have two teenage daughters and they come first).

Finally, if you are correct and no large Boeing aircraft did hit the WTC and this is definitively proved, then I will buy you dinner and for dessert you can hit me in the face with a cream pie in the restaurant of your choice. With a big grin on my face.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thank you, LeftWright

I have always appreciated the kindness that is evident in your posts, even when you are disagreeing with me.

Ningen has expressed his willingness to admit he's wrong, if and when he comes to that conclusion.

Easy to say, as Dem Bruce shrilly suggests. Harder to do - I'll have to eat crow. I'll try to be objective. It's going to take longer than I told hsgsj and bruce1337, as I have a huge job due next week. Hsgsj said he is going to publish his Letter response to Morgan Reynolds at Journal of 9/11 Studies in the next week or so, so I'll probably wait until I read his full argument.

[The Letter has been published, but it will still take me time to respond. Should I stick a fork in the crow? Stay tuned. I can already see that I may lack the training in calculus and physics to respond - I have always been using the simple method endorsed by Eric Salter and Steven Jones in their proof that planes hit. I hope I can step up the analysis by learning the more complex tools used by Dr. Jenkins, but I may not be able to do this. So far, my simple question is whether the Sandia situation is comparable as the concrete wall is completely rigid and the plane did not penetrate at all, so all the energy was converted to fragmentation of the plane, which is more what I would expect at the South Tower - more fragmentation outside the tower and debris deposited below, and not several city blocks beyond the other side of the building. The Sandia plane did decelerate completely in the end - outside the wall - and no one disputes that the South Tower plane would decelerate completely once inside the tower - otherwise it would all come out the other side. Did my crow just get bigger?]


It's true I am trying to blend in here, but I am pretty opinionated and hot-tempered at times, and I can see how I might turn people off. But I think the whole idea of "don't talk about it because it will discredit the movement" is wrong and dangerous, and don't think I should be censored for saying what I think.

Sandia vs 9/11

How is there a contradiction? The F4 went up against a massive concrete wall -- designed to shield nuclear plants -- and yet, its tail barely decelerated. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to deduce that the WTC's perimeter -- not designed to shield nuclear plants -- caused even less deceleration of the tail, and was penetrated by the 767. Of course, the 767 was both disassembled and slowed during this process, so apart from an extra strong engine, its debris didn't cause any more exterior damage visible from the outside and grinded to a halt somewhere within the tower.

So...what's left to ponder?

interns < internets

Lots to ponder

And it will take me some time to understand Dr. Jenkins' paper. For now, all I can say is that NIST's Figure 7-34 referenced in Dr. Jenkins paper does not make sense to me. Should I take this picture literally -- did the nose of the plane penetrate all the way to the core and not break up until it hit the core?


did you just ask me if you were to believe what NIST says at face value?

interns < internets


See my question below.

Dr. Jenkins and NIST v. this request for correction

Here's something for you to ponder.

This whole debate started because I questioned the use of the aircraft debris as a "key observable" in this request for correction. This is a separate issue.

I want an answer on the point I raised, since I got hassled so much for it on this thread.

Dr. Jenkins says in his latest paper:

I currently find no reason to reject the finite impact analysis of a Boeing-767 with the WTC towers based upon flawed methodology, misguided assumptions, or contradictions with observation.

OK then. NIST's finite impact analysis shows, in every impact scenario including the most severe, that debris did not leave the tower, even the massive starboard engine that did not pass through the core. [Update -- their models show landing gear leaving the tower, but not the engine part. This doesn't make sense to me, but I'm talking about the engine part, so my question stands.] Not only did it not leave the tower, it didn't even reach the other side of the tower to impact the external columns from the inside.

Let's say that NIST is somewhat wrong and the engine or part of it did impact the external columns on the other side from the inside. Even then, it would not have been traveling at any speed -- 100 mph would be an extremely generous estimate since NIST said it slowed to zero dozens of feet from the external columns. [See update below - NIST says they could tweak it up to 100 mph. My question stands.]

Let's give it 100 mph. It hits the external columns from the inside. Say they are weaker to impacts from the inside, though I doubt they could be much weaker and handle lateral wind loads. They are strong regardless, and this engine part is moving much slower than when it hit the columns on the other side from the outside.

NIST says the engine part would have to exit the tower at 105 mph to arrive where it did on Church Street. [Update: NIST says 120 mph.]

Are we to believe this part that I've generously given 100 mph pierced the external columns without losing velocity, and in fact gained velocity to 105 mph?

Is it correct to call this engine part a "key observable" that contradicts the NIST scenarios? No, and to say so is preposterous.

Dr. Jenkins says that he doesn't endorse the NIST report as a whole, but finds parts, of which this is one, well conceived.

Dr. Jenkins also says intense scientific scrutiny must be applied not only to the official story in the NIST report, but also to concepts within the 9/11 Truth movement.

That's what I am doing. Now tell me how that engine part accelerated while passing through steel columns.

A professor of physics, an architect, and other very accomplished experts signed off on this request for correction. The request for correction was prepared by a patent attorney with a degree in chemical engineering, working for a firm that does technology and aviation law, represents American Airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and has former military aviators among its lawyers. They have the expertise, and that expertise is reflected in the Request for Production as a whole. I've already said the RFC makes some great points and is well done. I just think they are mistaken on this point. Why is it so bad to question this one point? All I want is an answer on this question.

I'm not interested in why the perps would do that, how could they do that, etc., and don't think Sandia has anything to do with this. This is a discrete question that does not necessarily have anything to do with whether a Boeing hit the South Tower.

Update: I need to make some slight corrections that define the problem better. I did this from memory, but just reviewed NCNSTAR 1-2 B, pages 284-287, about the engine part found at Murray and Church, which is what I've been talking about.

NIST says that the engine part would have had to exit at 120 mph, not 105 mph. They also say that by tweaking the assumptions -- mainly making the engine not impact a floor by lowering the impact 1-2 feet -- the engine would have a residual speed of 100 mph inside the tower. They then say than in this case the engine part would lose 60 mph passing through the external column on the other side. NCNSTAR 1-2, page 284. That surprises me, as Karim and Hoo Fatt said the plane would not penetrate the external columns at less than about 250 mph, but I'll assume the engine part could do it at 100 mph and only lose 60 mph.

They don't explain how 40 mph becomes the 120 mph necessary to get the part to Murray and Church. My question stands.

You can down-rate, but you can't hide

The question is valid, and needs to be answered.

I don't mean just you, bruce1337. You've been cool about this. You do seem like one of the people that should have an answer, though.

Hey, who just up-rated and ruined my joke? :-)

Why answer?

Haven't we established yet that planes did indeed impact the towers? What will be accomplished by determining which part did what, exactly?

I haven't studied NIST's FEA, and frankly, I don't want to. It's patently irrelevant and diverting energy at this point. I have given you the benefit of the doubt, but your fascination with ever more minutiae is seriously eroding it right now.

interns < internets


I'm surprised. Are you seriously saying that it does not matter if evidence was planted, false photographs were shown to the American people, and these false photographs are being used as the basis for scientific arguments? This is "minutiae"?

I don't need the benefit of your doubt. I want you to doubt everything I say, including when I discuss a subject you approve of. The support when I write about approved subjects, and the ostracism when I don't, are wearing a little thin. I'm not Pavlov's bitch.

No one has to read the NIST report because I laid it all out, but my facts can be checked at this a link to NCSTAR 1-2:


I'm still waiting

Perhaps Greg Jenkins can answer, since we agree that the NIST report should not be rejected as a whole and agree that all claims are subject to scrutiny.

Thank you, cassiea

I'm sure the treasonous or deluded agents of our government know who I am, so I might as well identify myself here:

Dwight Van Winkle

Google me:


You'll find I have a long history of advocacy without pay for what I perceive to be social justice, beginning with work on climate change in the early 1990s and continuing with fighting commercialism in schools and other problems.

You'll also see I have been publicly questioning 9/11 since 2002:



The only reason I post anonymously is to protect my "credibility" with the courts, but we are in a constitutional crisis, everyone with a brain and a heart knows that 9/11 is a fraud, and I have free speech rights, so I will make an exception here.

I have law degrees from an American and Japanese university and have near-native fluency in spoken and written Japanese. If I were a "shill" I would be advocating for good pay the business interests of Japanese or American corporations.

I am not bragging -- I'm just explaining why I am so offended when some punk accuses me of being a "paid disinfo shill" because he doesn't like what I am saying, and suggests that I should not be "tolerated."

Dem Bruce whatever, the only interesting thing I've seen you post here is the Immortal Technique videos the other day. I beat you to it:


We both like Immortal Technique. Since we have something in common, how about laying off me?

DBLS also did a video called "Guernica Iraq"

which is incredible:

Guernica Iraq at 911 Podcasts

You both have valuable skills to contribute here and it would be great if you would just ignore each other. DBLS, maybe you could just reserve judgment for a period of time.


I'm sure he has done good work, but all I remember is being hassled by him, and Immortal Technique. I'll check out his video.

I couldn't ignore being slandered, but perhaps I should rethink my practice of responding to every unsupported "no planes is disinfo" comment with "no it's not, and here's why," because I have made my point, and it is creating conflict. And since I may have a nice big crow in the oven.

That said, I have one more comment about why I think that this RFC is wrong, and am going to make it.

Update: the crow is getting smaller. Caw caw.

No, you’re a clown who has

No, you’re a clown who has tried to muscles his/her way on this site and stealthy inject "no planes hit the Twin Towers" disinfo all over the place. All the other jokers who push that garbage have been quite rightly banished, but your trying to be clever about it and drop bits of crap subtly, well here’s some news - it's not working, go back to disinfo central.

Shrill and Shrillerer

Quit while you're behind.

It's true I try to be subtle, because I know this is very controversial. That doesn't make me a shill, and I don't think I am being manipulative.

This would be seen, no doubt about it.

I would like to ask Ningen -- with all due respect -- and others too, who suspect planted evidence around the WTC, when and how could it have been planted? Note what was happening in that location, all day and all night, for weeks on end, with rescue workers, police, cleanup crews, news reporters, and stunned crowds milling around.

Those items you mention are BIG: landing gear, jet engine. It would take a large delivery truck to bring them in. How strange! Wouldn't people see a truck like that? And placing the stuff would not be quick. It would need equipment, like large dollies if not small cranes.

This would be seen, no doubt about it.

It's a fair question

and I don't know, just like I don't know how witnesses and videos could be faked. I just don't think these questions resolve the issue.

What I do know is that all of NIST's impact scenarios show the engine part never leaving the building, even in the most severe impact scenario. In fact, the models show the engine stopping before it even reached the external columns on the other side.

This is a far cry from exiting through the external columns on the other side at 105 mph, which the Jones et al RFC treats as a "key observable." This is my beef with their argument, and what I have been shill-jacketed for raising.

I think they are saying that NIST should not have excluded any of the impact scenarios because none of them match this "key observable," but like I said, this is giving a mile to get an inch. They already make the point strongly with the 2nd "key observable," the "collapse," which is real and indisputable, and I think it is wrong to assume the authenticity of "evidence" that is highly suspicious if not ludicrous.

To answer your question, I think Morgan Reynolds argues that the engine part was under a scaffold, which would have allowed it to be uncovered that morning. (A truck parked in front would allow that to be done without notice in the chaos after the event began.)

But I don't think it is necessary to answer this question if the trajectory of the object to get it to where found is physically impossible.

The fuselage piece is particularly absurd -- although it did not go as far, it is less dense and more wind resistant and could not have gotten out of the building let alone fly so far.

I talk about debris from the North Tower here:


and here:


(This second one also shows pages from the NIST report on the starboard engine that supposedly left the South Tower.)

Your question actually is much harder to answer here -- how in the hell could that huge panel of columns have been planted in the middle of the street without anyone noticing? This thing is BIG! I don't know -- I just know it could not have gotten there as a result of Flight 11 impacting the North Tower, while both buildings were still standing.

I like your handle -- we are all students of 9/11 and just trying to figure out what the hell happened. We don't have all the information and it is hard to know the capacities of covert operations.

Thank you for asking this question -- I was going to write a comment about this after my comment below commending the Jones et al Request for Correction.


I finally have an adequate response to the question I'm asked most.

Q: What's up?

A: 9/11 was an inside job.

Great news, I just hope the

Great news, I just hope the disinfo shills in submitting their junk to NIST don't affect these inspiring efforts.

Classic misinformation

You drag in this irrelevant topic and start up the empty Wood v. Jones debate. If you are doing it intentionally, it is classic disinformation.

That tells me you won't be looking at this submission too critically, because your "side" of this empty debate submitted the report.

Don't worry, NIST has to and will look at it critically, whatever they think of Wood's submission.

All I can say about this report now is that it looks good from a legal standpoint. I haven't read the report carefully, so please don't take my criticism of one point to be a criticism of the entire report. This is the kind of misplaced sensitivity caused by the divide into Wood and Jones camps. I suspect this social situation has been engineered.

You don't fool me shill.

You don't fool me shill.

He doesn't fool me either DBLS!

"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 "... b/c that's Steve Jones' job! ;)" by Constitutionalist

This is MOST newsworthy

I am aware that our controlled media in the US will not say a thing about this. After all, we do not have freedom of the press in this country. Can 911bloggers in Europe, at least, get this news widely spread?

"Evil can only exist as long as we support it."
M.K. Gandhi

So shall we BOYCOTT THE MSM?

Student if you want to learn about control Watch!!!

The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private ... all » hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole...Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world's money..."

THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure that rules our nation and the world today. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation, including America, has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers

I will watch this

Thanks, g.i.r.

I am interested in this topic. Recently I read what I consider a revealing book on this topic, by Korten. I recommend it. I have also plugged it twice now, in comments here, and hope people do not mind. It is out of simple enthusiasm. Also, it strikes me that Korten has diagnosed what brought us to this aweful plight, to where our own government would do what it does.

Anyway, thanks; soon I hope for the time to give this video full attention. Then I will tell you my response.

Disinformation is dragging ‘us’ down.

The ‘directed energy weapon’ hypothesis is unreasonable.
I watched the interview with Judy Wood and she doesn’t even understand the basic principles of ‘perspective’ when it comes to photographs.

This RFC to NIST

does not mention DEW. Why do you?

You’re a disinfo shill,

You’re a disinfo shill, please get off this site!

You call this "information"?

What I say can be evaluated on its own merits by thinking adults. What you say has no substance - it is the ranting of a child. Grow up.

No, what you say is that "no

No, what you say is that "no planes hit the Twin Towers", there's ZERO merit in that, you’re a disinfo shill.


Am in heaven. Monica Gabrielle, Lorie Van Auken, and Bob McIlvaine all watched my interview with RP, and they all said I did a good job.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

More on anthrax attacks

The antiwar.com article above included a link to a web resource on the anthrax attacks, for those interested:


This is great news

I've just read the Petition and I have to congratulate the authors for their good work. Congratulations to everyone involved, and every activist here who puts in the groundwork day in day out.


"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert Einstein

Not too long ago I was

passing out fliers on 9/11,federal reserve and constitution and bill of rights etc. You should have seen the ppl who deliberately skirted around me or walked to the other side of the street. One guy even recoiled as if I was handing him a hot bag of sh!t when I wanted to give him one. I told him that our basic human rights are being taken away and his response was that they've been doing it for years, he didnt give a f*ck. THAT is exactly what is wrong with this country. As he walked away, I politely told him that its ok, Im standing here, fighting for him. If looks could kill.What is happening to this great country?? Unfortunately I know the answer to that question................

The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. ~ Dante Alighieri

Don't worry about people like that

and keep up the good work!

The totally corrupt US political system has made many people very cynical and feel utterly powerless. In other words, it's done the job it intended to do very well. As more people awaken to the truth all but the most heavily in denial will wake up and become energized. Some people will actually have nervous breakdowns and need help. Only a very small group will continue to stand with the perps as they will be seen as the traitorous murderers that they are.

When I'm doing public activism and I meet with indifference or outright hostility I always remain calm and civil, this usually has the effect of disarming all but the most hardcore debunkers.

Everyone comes to the truth in their own way and in their own time.

All we can do is keep putting it out there for them to see and hear. How we disseminate the truth will have a lot to do with how effective we are and this is my primary focus at this time. We need to carefully craft our message as we reach across the social and political spectrum to grow the movement and create the collective consciousness needed to restore our constitutional republic.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

First, a high compliment

The Jones et al. Request for Correction is very well-written, and has much to commend. This is very broad brush, but the RFC seems very well-thought from a legal standpoint, citing the laws and applying the facts to those laws, particularly as relates to procedural hurdles. Most importantly, perhaps, it addresses the "affected persons" threshold requirement very well -- legal standing is crucial. This is not my legal expertise or advice, but is just my personal opinion from a legal perspective. I think this one might have a better chance of getting heard on the merits. I don't think you should to have a family member dead or have been fired to have standing, as we have all been profoundly affected, but standing can be a tough requirement and whoever wrote this RFC apparently thought a lot about it.

In terms of substance, the second "key observable" -- the "collapse" of the towers --- is a great point. We all agree on this observable -- the towers are gone.

NIST excluded its base and less severe impact scenarios because they didn't result in initiation of collapse. The RFC at the bottom of page 8 makes the excellent and fundamental argument that NIST is begging the question and choosing the more severe impact scenario to get the result it wanted. Disproving NIST's "initiation of collapse" theory seems like a great place to start, and I wish we could all come together on this. That wouldn't preclude discussion of DEW on the Internet, but I agree with people here that for now it would be best to focus on NIST's "collapse" story and not talk about exotic weapons. Unlike many people here, I don't question Dr. Wood's good faith and think she is asking great questions -- I just wonder if the strategy might not be the best.

I like how this RFC does not mention thermate but asks for tests for explosive residue, which is totally necessary. Arabesque has made this argument, and he is right. If authentic evidence of explosives is not found, then we need to look at other possibilities, because we know it was not impact, fire, and gravity. NIST cannot get around this, and this is so damning and public proof would be such a huge step forward that I am willing to accept the possibility of a "limited hangout" to cover up some new weapon.

Yes, Dem Bruce, this is subtle because it is complex and I am on the fence of the whole Wood v. Jones debate. I'm saying exactly what I think. Regardless, this RFC stands on its own and if it is not heard, that won't have anything to do with Wood's RFC. Your worry is unnecessary and divisive.

I think we can

Ningen, this is a useful comment, IMO.

You say, "for now it would be best to focus on NIST's 'collapse' story," and "I wish we could all come together on this."

I think we can.

Please also look at my question to you above in this thread.

I answered above

And that answer replaces what was going to be "Second, a criticism."

I agree we can come together. I mean come together on the issue that the NIST story is absurd because it does not explain how the resistance of the floors below was somehow removed.

We don't have to agree on how the resistance was removed, if we agree on forcing the first step of making NIST acknowledge that it was somehow removed and that this must be explained.

With this Jones filing we can do that, and I hope people that distrust Jones can get behind this filing because it serves our common purpose. I frankly have some distrust, whether justified or not, but I support his filing even though I disagree that the plane impacts should be assumed, because I think this could move the process forward in a big way.

I don't think that Morgan Reynold's request for correction hurts this effort, as this is a separate issue. (If he's right the entire premise of the NIST theory is knocked out, but the issues can still be separated.) I also don't think Wood's filing affects the legal and substantive effectiveness of the Jones filing, and worries about discredit by association are way overblown, and there is a common issue in Wood's filing -- the resistance was somehow removed.

Finally, I don't think Judy Wood and others having a website probing controversial or speculative questions is a problem at all. I have read Jenkins and watched his interview with Wood, and benefited from his criticisms, but I still think Wood raises some very interesting questions that I want kept on the back burner.

Screw the media and what they might say (but are not saying) say about Wood and DEW . This is not the reason they refuse to seriously address 9/11.

I don't know what to think about Ed Haas saying that the WTC 7 report should not be issued until his concerns are addressed. On the one hand, it seems proper to want it done right the first time and not have a false report issued, but on the other hand I can see people's concern that it is good to force NIST to make their false position final so they can be proven wrong, and that delay is not good. I'm not interested in whether Haas has a nefarious purpose because there is no way of knowing and such debates only harm unity of purpose (which is separate from diversity of views).

In a way, I think WTC 7 is a sideshow for the very reason that it is obviously a controlled demolition that has been greatly downplayed by the government and not addressed by the 9/11 Commission. Also, WTC 1 and 2 are where thousands died, which are the fact and images that drive the Terror War on the Globe.

Have you seen Dr. Wood's Interview?

Do you have an opinion on it?

I had thought to do an analysis/commentary on a transcript to show all of the times she evades questions, changes the subject, never responds, makes mistakes and best of all--presents misleading arguments. But perhaps this an idea that Dr. Jenkins could pursue. He is more qualified than I to discuss the physics involved. And I appreciate his sense of humour.

For the record Mr. Fetzer considers her to be the very best 9/11 researcher. At least that's what he says.

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

I thought I was done : - )

I have skirted this question, because I think there is something very significant in what Judy Wood is saying. I just don't know what it is.

I have said before that I think that Jenkins is obviously right that the "snow cone picture" shows smoke coming off the North Tower from behind, and not dust going up. The perspective argument is clearly valid, and watching Dr. Wood ignore this was very disturbing to me. I can see why people are troubled by this video, and I think the "she was tired and ambushed" argument is weak at best.

It is not clear to me why it is so important to Dr. Wood that the dust went up. I see the material going out and down, not up, but I think she has a point that the building was obliterated in a very strange way. I think this is what she was saying in the Jenkins video when she was arguing with Jenkins about whether there was debris going down. She started out saying maybe that some pennies were falling down, and seemed to be ignoring Jenkins' questions about the material going out. I thought she was saying that there is less material than expected given the mass of the building, and that she eventually made this point, so I thought the end of the Jenkins video, quoting in text the "pennies" comment, was unfair and manipulative. And there are things I like about her style.

I am not a practitioner of disinformation, as I have fought hard to show today. However, I think that disinformation is very sophisticated, and practiced by some very smart and manipulative people backed by years of experience and hundreds of PhDs in psychology. I developed this impression while fighting advertising in schools, when I learned that business school libraries are full of corporate- and government-funded studies by PhDs in psychology on methods of psychological manipulation.

I hate to say this, because it impugns people without any evidence, but I wonder if this whole debate between the Jones camp and the Wood/Reynolds camp is not an elaborate scheme to create division and cover up something. It might be to cover up a DEW like Dr. Wood is saying, or something else.

I say this in part because of a point you have raised and I have agreed with -- Wood and Reynolds should not have attacked Jones with inflammatory language like "retarded." We agree it was over the top.

I also wonder why Dr. Reynolds is on Wood's DEW paper, when his research on the planes is completely separate. I struggle to keep those issues apart, and this doesn't help.

But I also say this because the rapid obliteration of the towers seems beyond what any conventional explosive or incendiary could possibly do without packing the buildings in a way that seems implausible. So my gut tells me that thermate/explosives is not the answer.

Please understand that I think this latest RFC is very good, other than one point I raised, and I think we should all get behind it on the common issue that NIST must be forced to acknowledge that removal of resistance cannot be explained by impact, fires, and gravity. I also agree that NIST should be forced to test for explosive residue.

Where we differ is that I wonder if all this whole schism is not designed to discredit valid arguments. It seems scripted to me.

Remember, the controlled demolition and no planes arguments did not originate with Steven Jones and Morgan Reynolds.

I may be paranoid, but I think it is possible that valid arguments raised by citizen researchers are being purposely discredited by more prominent people making the same arguments but in a flawed way, and as part of this dialectic of Jones v. Wood, with Fetzer somewhere in the middle. And I am not sure if these people are even doing this on purpose, but are themselves being manipulated.

It is also possible that this is all a natural dynamic of human beings responding to a very troubling and puzzling situation.
But I think there is very sophisticated tweaking of this dynamic going on, and that this is the real disinformation.

Does this make any sense? It's been a long day. I know it sounds bizarre, but you asked what I think, and this is what I think. I'm not willing to rule out Dr. Wood's arguments for the very reasons you think I should - and your arguments are good.

Your criticisms have ample basis, but I thought she got better toward the end of the Jenkins video, and that Jenkins was being a bit patronizing, so maybe she was reacting to that.

It just occurred to me that I'm starting to sound like Nico. Damn, Arabesque, I spent the whole day denying I'm disinfo, and you suckered me into revealing my true nature.


"I hate to say this, because it impugns people without any evidence, but I wonder if this whole debate between the Jones camp and the Wood/Reynolds camp is not an elaborate scheme to create division and cover up something. It might be to cover up a DEW like Dr. Wood is saying, or something else… I may be paranoid, but I think it is possible that valid arguments raised by citizen researchers are being purposely discredited by more prominent people making the same arguments but in a flawed way, and as part of this dialectic of Jones v. Wood, with Fetzer somewhere in the middle."

Well... I suppose that could be your feeling. But it's my feeling that you're wrong on that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop criticizing on the facts--by all means, go ahead. But we could sit here all day talking about our feelings on this and that and not get anywhere. However, if you are going to be suspicious about Jones, you shouldn’t be surprised when people are suspicious about you. It is the nature of conspiracy theorists to be suspicious, no? However, I’d just like to say I have defended your right to free speech here before, and I would do so anytime as long as you continue to be honest in these discussions.

That being said I wholly disagree with the no-plane hypothesis for many reasons, not the least of which is the concept of total evidence.

One of the things that I notice within the 9/11 “truth” movement is a propensity to take one piece of evidence that is open to subjective, or even mis—analysis (i.e. one photo of a damaged building that just happens to ignore the fact that composite photos show the damage is much larger) and then claim it somehow disproves all other evidence. I like to call this the “conspiracy method”. I don’t think this is putting our best foot forward. If we want to prove anything, we have to show that ALL of the evidence supports our claims—not just some. Yes, there are things that can happen that are worth questioning, but not at the expense of looking at the bigger picture and the totality of the evidence. And I welcome these questions—and yes, they SHOULD be answered—probably not by me, because I am not a physicist.

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

Wo-o, wo-o, wo-o-o


I don't think I could have been more honest than I was in that mind dump above. I know I could be wrong -- my God, how could what I said be "right"? You asked, so I told you.

I suspect everyone, even myself. It's in my nature as a conspiracy boy living in a conspiracy world. It comforts me and helps me deal with my alienation. Arguing with a real physicist makes me feel smart.

I don't know that I need you to defend my right to free speech. But thanks.

Your foot is forward with this new RFC, so if you think it is the best, what's the problem? NIST can't ignore it, and if they do, it won't be because of Judy Wood.

Hey this story has remained up on Digg!

For once!

We dominated the comments discussion also.

Get in there and post a thoughtful comment..
On the 11th day, of every month.

Complicit Media...

The only three "news" listings of this petition.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Accepting cash from the "FUND"

Did these fellas accept $$ from the "FUND" ? Does anyone know how many families did not and refused to sign anything? I'm new to this site, but the only person I've read about is Ellen Mariani. What a courageous woman. It's hard to blame anyone if they took the $ because of dire need, and i'm sure there are holes in the document they signed, but i'm wondering what the strategy is for those haven't signed it. Those who aren't direct victims of 9/11 (just plain old everyday American taxpayers) are gonna have a hard time suing anyone. Victims at least have a clear cause of action and more solid legal ground to launch the first salvo into the fascism that has strangled this country for the last 6 years. Can anyone provide a link that lists those who have not signed the 'shut the hell up' agreement???