Connect With Us

14. Increased Tensions with Unresolved 9/11 Issues

Several contentious issues still plague the US government and their version of the events of September 11, 2001. Those in political power along with media elites would like to see the ongoing grassroots debates surrounding unanswered 9/11 questions and discrepancies disappear, despite the mountains of evidence that suggest that American citizens were told little about the truth of the biggest single-day attack on their homeland in history. Nearly ten years after the events, many unanswered questions still exist: How did Building 7 fall? What caused the destruction of the twin towers? Where is Osama bin Laden? Are people that question the official story of 9/11 dangerous conspiracy theorists?

Student Researchers:

  • Mike Smith, Nolan Higdon, and Sy Cowie (Diablo Valley College)
  • Mikey Hemkens, Ryan Huffman, and Colin Doran (DePauw University)
  • Greg Bernardi (Sonoma State University)

Faculty Evaluators:

  • Mickey Huff (Diablo Valley College)
  • Andrea Sununu and Kevin Howley (DePauw University)
  • Rick Luttmann and Peter Phillips (Sonoma State University)

The academics and intellectuals who have tried to answer these questions have been ignored or derided by corporate mainstream (and even some progressive leftist) media, political pundits, and government officials who clearly intend to silence the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, or anyone who questions the officially sanctioned government stance on the matter. However, the questions will not go away and increasingly beg for answers.

As of spring 2010, over 1,200 architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11. These building professionals and academics are motivated by the fact that the 9/11 Commission Report has been proven erroneous on multiple counts, scientific explanations have been flawed and contradictory, and the American people deserve a more fact-based explanation.

At the same time, new evidence of explosives that can be used in controlled demolition has been found in the dust traces of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers and Building 7 of the WTC complex. After careful examination of the official story about 9/11 (in which the commission never even mentioned Building 7), along with the forensic data omitted from official reports, these professionals have concluded that a new independent and transparent investigation into these massive and mysterious structural failures is needed.

Richard Gage, a San Francisco–based architect and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, states, “The official Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) reports provide insufficient and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” Gage, along with other architects and engineers, attacked NIST’s first reports such that NIST eventually changed their conclusions, addressed new evidence, and released a new draft report in 2008. In the thirty days after the 2008 draft report was released, NIST took public questions on the report. Gage’s group sent a letter that covered myriad inconsistencies and omissions in the 2008 report. However, the final report released later in 2008 addressed almost none of the concerns raised. The scientific method was not adhered to in this study.

Gage and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s actions pushed NIST to recognize that Building 7, a forty-seven-story skyscraper that was not hit by an aircraft, did come down at free fall acceleration for more than one hundred feet. An explanation as to how or why it fell at free fall speed was not provided by NIST. NIST continues to state that looking at the thermitic materials found at Ground Zero noted in the demolition theory “would not necessarily have been conclusive.” Despite their own claim that evidence of demolition is inconclusive, they decided not to test or address it at all, as if this could not and/or did not happen (see chapter 7 of this book for more details). Again, the scientific method was not fully followed by government agencies.

In other 9/11 related matters, there is the ongoing mystery regarding the whereabouts of the alleged perpetrator, Osama bin Laden. Even though bin Laden did not take credit for the incident (he in fact claimed the contrary, nor is the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) holding him as a suspect in those crimes due to lack of evidence) government officials of both parties regularly refer to bin Laden as the one responsible for the 9/11 attacks (see story #16 in Censored 2008).

Furthermore, Dr. David Ray Griffin, a former professor at California’s Claremont School of Theology and author of numerous books on 9/11 issues, suggests that Osama bin Laden has been dead for nearly nine years. He argues that bin Laden died on December 13, 2001, of kidney failure or a kidney-related illness. There are records of bin Laden being treated in an American hospital in Dubai for a urinary infection, often linked with kidney disease, and a related order for a mobile dialysis machine, essential to his survival, that was shipped to Afghanistan. Griffin, along with doctors that he cites, says it would be impossible for bin Laden to survive in a cave with that machine for any substantial period of time. Griffin goes on to note that the US and British governments are aware of bin Laden’s death, and have been covering it up to continue the war on terror. (See Griffin’s book on the subject, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?).

In other ongoing tension concerning 9/11 on the home front, President Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, claims that the United States government should infiltrate and discredit activist groups.

Sunstein’s call to discredit groups includes those who challenge the official views of the 9/11 attacks, the so-called 9/11 ‘truthers.’ Sunstein acknowledges that the US government has been involved in conspiracies in the past, but he confidently believes that this is no longer a problem. (See the Truth Emergency section of this volume for more on this issue, especially chapter 6.) He claims that groups that question the events of 9/11 are dangerous and could lead some people to violence (while presenting no concrete evidence to prove this).

Sunstein maintains that refuting these groups in public is not productive. He suggests that the most effective method of refute is to infiltrate and cogitatively discredit their internal sources. Sunstein is essentially calling for a return of the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) from the cold war days when agents of the US government covertly infiltrated antiwar and civil rights groups with the intent to disrupt and discredit their activities—provoking violence or planning illegal acts themselves in order to bring groups up on criminal charges.

Sunstein’s call for infiltration of private citizen groups plays to the very concerns of many 9/11 activists—concerns that they may be targeted or infiltrated, tried on some trumped up terrorist or criminal charges, and then may not get a fair public hearing. (For more on this, see story #6 in Censored 2009, and story #20 in Censored 2008.)

Such a climate of fear and intimidation does not bode well for First Amendment rights, nor for academic freedom in the US, let alone the possibility of discovering the truth about what really happened on September 11.

Update by Shawn Hamilton

Over one thousand architects and engineers have signed a petition to reinvestigate the 9/11 destruction.

When I went to San Francisco to cover the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) press conference, I didn’t tell the news department with which I am most closely allied; I was afraid I’d be told not to do the story. This may not surprise anyone considering mainstream media’s deafening silence on 9/11 issues, but this wasn’t an organ of mainstream media; it was an alternative radio station founded on principles that encourage coverage of underreported stories. To be fair, no news director said I couldn’t cover the story, and the story ran that weekend. The point is that I had felt constrained by the prevailing atmosphere of suspicion and fear surrounding media reception of 9/11 topics generally—including at this “progressive” station where people are sharply divided on the issue. I’ve never seen such general weirdness surrounding media coverage of an issue except for the Kennedy assassination. In the 1970s people mocked those few who suggested Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone, branding them “conspiracy nuts,” just as 9/11 activists now are labeled “truthers,” which sounds like “flat earthers.” Some of these activists have embraced the “truther” tag, but I suggest they should refrain. The term is not meant to be a compliment.

I asked theologian David Ray Griffin, who spoke at the conference, why he thought the media was acting so bizarrely towards 9/11 issues. Griffin pointed out how the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” are manipulated to make reporters fear losing their reputations and jobs. “You know how it works. Everybody in the media knows how it works,” he said. “Nobody has to be explicitly threatened; they just know the rules.”

The press conference was a newsworthy story whether or not anything the group claims is true. It’s a valid story because so many citizens are questioning the official explanations for the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The fact that over a thousand licensed architects and engineers are demanding a new investigation increases that relevance. If what they say is even partly true, the implications are profound, but either way, there’s a legitimate story. I don’t expect news agencies to endorse the views of groups like AE911Truth; that’s not their proper role. I do expect them not to run for cover when they hear those unsettling words: “9/11.” Democracy is not served by reporters fearing to cover sensitive stories.

As of summer 2010, AE911Truth (ae911truth.org) has gotten more than 1,200 building professionals to sign its petition to Congress demanding a truly independent investigation, and a new group has formed called Firefighters for 9-11 Truth (firefightersfor911truth.org) that challenges official reports and public misconceptions of what occurred on September 11. A group called New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (nyccan.org) is attempting to convince the New York City Council to investigate the anomalous circumstances surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (ae911truth.org/index.php/news/41-articles/286-nyccan-ae911truth-ask-ny-city-council.html). All the Web sites I’ve mentioned have links to some of the more credible 9/11 Web sites. The AE911Truth links page is a good place to start. I will be following related issues on this Web site as well: examiner.com/x-36199-Conspiracy-Examiner. My email address is lesseroftwoevils@rocketmail.com.

Update by Daniel Tencer

In May 2010, the New York Times Magazine ran a comprehensive profile of Cass Sunstein, the first such profile to be found in the mainstream media since the law professor took over as head of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The article’s title—“Cass Sunstein Wants to Nudge Us”—is an understatement given the views Sunstein has expressed over the years, but it at least heads in the right thematic direction: that much of Sunstein’s academic writing has been focused on social control and government control over information.

Not surprisingly, the article treated Sunstein with kid gloves and largely glossed over the more controversial elements of his ideas. It focused on him as one of the leading proponents of the concept of “libertarian paternalism,” a burgeoning new field of study that blends behavioral psychology with free-market economics and posits that people can be “nudged” into making the right choices (i.e., the government’s desired choices) not by laws and regulations, but by making the “right” choice seem more psychologically appealing.

Writing at the Huffington Post, Russ Baker criticized the New York Times for “burying” Sunstein’s more controversial assertions thirty-five paragraphs into the story, where we are finally told that he advocated for the “cognitive infiltration” of conspiracy theory groups. The Times then quotes Sunstein suggesting that, as a government official, he would not execute the more radical or experimental elements of his academic ideas. But, as Baker points out, that comment was made in the fall of 2009—before Sunstein’s paper on conspiracy theories came to light in the media. What appears in the Times to be Sunstein backing off his more controversial ideas is, in actuality, no such thing.

Understanding Cass Sunstein and his effect on government and society is made difficult by two things. The first is that he is a political chimera who has supporters and detractors on both sides of the political spectrum. Among conservative critics, the populists have come out against him, while the intellectuals appear to have thrown their weight behind him. Even as Glenn Beck declared Sunstein to be “more powerful than the Fed” and desirous of “controlling your every move,” columnist George F. Will declared that his ideas would lead to better, smaller government and would “have the additional virtue of annoying those busybody, nanny-state liberals.” In the UK, Sunstein’s works are “required reading for aspiring Conservative MPs,” reports the Daily Telegraph.

The second element making it difficult to understand Sunstein is that his position inside the government deals primarily with dry, bureaucratic issues that fail to capture the imaginations of either the mainstream press or the alternative media. As head of OIRA, Sunstein is responsible for reviewing all new government regulations. Yet thus far his decisions—those that we know of—have been on a small scale and largely technical, such as his call to streamline the process of naming and writing regulations so that citizens have better access to them.

Sunstein did, however, manage to anger environmentalists recently when he blocked a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation that would list coal ash as a dangerous carcinogen. Environmentalists accused him of caving to the coal industry, which doesn’t want to see its coal ash disposal costs rise under the new rule.

So where is Sunstein headed? Is he likely to attempt the sort of information control programs that he has advocated in the past? Even if he does, it’s likely the mainstream media will support at least some of his efforts to push the political debate towards an “acceptable” center. In a 2009 New Yorker review of his book On Rumors, Sunstein is given credit for predicting the circumstances that would lead to the rise of Internet rumors such as the “birther” claim that President Obama wasn’t born in the US, and the “death panel” allegation about health care reform. He is then cast as the hero fighting against these trends. Given the existing precedent, it’s likely that any attempt Sunstein makes at shaping the content of public information will likely find a positive hearing in the old guard media.

Sources:

PR News Wire, “1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation: Cite Evidence of Explosive Demolition at Three World Trade Center Towers,” February 19, 2009, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/1000-architects—engineers-call-for-new-911-investigation-84768402.html.

Shawn Hamilton, “Over 1,000 Architects and Engineers Have Signed Petition to Reinvestigate 9-11 Destruction,” Examiner.com, February 23, 2010, http://www.examiner.com/x-36199-Conspiracy-Examiner.

Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, “1,000+ Architects & Engineers Officially Demand New 9/11 Investigation,” Infowars.com, January 18, 2010, http://www.infowars.com/1000-architects-engineers-officially-demand-new-911-investigation.

Global Research, “1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for a Real 9/11 Investigation,” January 25, 2010, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17507.

Sue Reid, “Has Osama bin Laden Been Dead for Seven Years—And Are the US and Britain Covering It Up to Continue War on Terror?” Daily Mail (UK), September 1, 2009, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years—U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html.

Daniel Tencer, “Obama Staffer Wants ‘Cognitive Infiltration’ of 9/11 Conspiracy Groups,” RawStory, January 13, 2010, http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups.

  • time to UNPLUG THIS ILLEGITIMATE CABAL RIGHT NOW October 5, 2010

    needless to say, it’s long past time to UNPLUG THIS ILLEGITIMATE, MASS MURDERING CABAL RIGHT NOW! it’s long overdue. IT’S TIME!

  • jojo October 5, 2010

    Let’s get down to reality–not one politician will risk losing their kosher grave buck$. One politician stuck her neck out and look what happened to her–lucky she ain’t dead taking part in the releaf to Gaza.
    Here are the facts, Only Israel could have pulled off the 9/11 attacks and no matter if it was OBVIOUS they did it. They are the USA home of the Brave and for them only-Land of the free. Notice all the media–HUSH Notice Hollowood HUSH Notice U.E. HUSH
    Only politician that has MAN’S real BALLS– is President of Iran. Yaah–Israel firsters did it. I noticed not a hint of Ashkenazies envolved in this article.What’s with the cover-up? Are we saying that some Arabs could have placed 120 x 2 Bunker Concrete Busting bombs in WTC1 2 without DETECTION. Please :^/

  • George October 5, 2010
  • randall October 5, 2010

    Yes,
    The frame of reference among the 911 Truth community is the obvious:
    is Israel and the 5 Urban moving systems employees (Mossad) mentioned?
    “inside job” is a disinfo term put out there just for that reason.
    Our country has been infiltrated by an extremist group of Judaism since
    they instituted the Federal Reserve in 1913.
    Infiltrate and take over the Power centers: Government , media, and education.
    This has been done.
    Disenfranchise the majority by highlighting race differences between them and minorities, and calling anyone who notices this “racist” or “anti-semite” .
    Hmmmmmmmm…. is there an extremist group in the world who thinks they, and they alone were chosen by G-d to rule the world?

  • randall October 5, 2010

    Google and watch Missing Links. It’s definitive and links names faces and
    associations between elements within this group concerning what happened on that day, from the neo-cons to the media talkers such as
    Hauser (with CBS and Rather) to Silverstein and NY port authority.

  • randall October 5, 2010

    It doesn’t matter what you think about them that counts.
    You have too realize what they think of themselves that does.

  • Richard Lee October 11, 2010

    The problem is that in a predatory, monopolistic capitalist society money rules. To have a functioning democratic society you first have to have an independent mainstream media. The media however, are owned by rich corporate elites, many of whom got rich by illicit means, and who support those who support their corporate interests (Republicans). If justice were to prevail many of these would not only be without such funding but also probably be incarcerated for their crimes facilitating their ill-gotten wealth. So justice must be limited or blocked. Since justice provides the foundation for any civilized society we are then denied both democracy and a civilized society. The solution is obviously a truthful and objective media, but since the corporate media influences not only its customers but also the alternative media this is rarely provided for. We are thus left with little hope to find justice whether it be the JFK political assassination, his brothers, or on up through such covered up conspiracies to the 9/11 false flag attack. Hopefully Project Censored will provide that light we need to shine upon these conspiracies and offer the possibilities of reeffecting our democracy.

  • Dan Noel October 11, 2010

    I’ll respectfully take exception to Richard Lee’s 10-11 comment. The magnitude of the 9/11 false flag was so big and its cover-up was so poor that its censorship had to provide an exceptional amount of work. As such, “we the people of the world” have, for the first time, objective evidence of a huge conspiracy to censor important information. The censors include literally tens of thousands of VIPs and outfits who had an apparent vested interest in denouncing 9/11. The analysis of the 9/11 censorship yields breathtaking conclusions and will potentially usher the human community into a very favorable paradigm shift. Details are available at http://www.global-platonic-theater.com.

    Love,

  • Richard Lee October 11, 2010

    Regarding Dan Noel previous comment, the crime and cover up of the JFK assassination was just as big, but justice, despite numerous corrupted Blue Ribbion Commissions, was never found and the absense of any media investigative truth and pressure was similarly absent. In fact the media, a CIA asset, has always been complicit in all such major conspiracy crimes ever since. It’s that absence that has made the difference in forcing our corrupted politicians and our Judiciary to deliver justice and that has doomed us to the constant repeat and betrayal of these crimes and our democracy with them.

  • Kimberly October 12, 2010

    Cass Sunstein takes advantage of comments such as the ones ‘jojo” and “randall” make above to argue that the 9/11 Truth Movement is anti-Israel, anti-semetic and therefore dangerous. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and the professional 9/11 Truth groups (religious leaders, firefighters, military personnel, medical professionals, meida professionals, etc, etc, etc) ALL have agreed to refrain from laying the blame for 9/11 at the feet of ANY specific entity, foreign or domestic, preferring instead to demand answers to very pertinent questions, and to present scientific research (such as the “Active Thermitic Materials Found in the Dust of the World Trade Center Catastrophe” paper published by Bentham Open Chemistry Journal in 2009), and information and analysis based on FACT. I see ‘jojo’” and “randall’s” accusations that Israel was the main force behind the September 11 attacks as disinformational — they’re either intentionally playing along with Cass Sunstein (performing cognitive infiltration) to misrepresent the 9/11 Truth Movement, or they have ignorantly fallen for disinformation fed to them, and are playing right into Sunstein’s hands.

    The fact is, none of us actually knows WHO planned and carried out the attacks — those of us who have educated ourselves about this issue for many years have some ideas, but they have yet to be proven in a court of law. The 9/11 Truth Movement is seeking the truth of what happened leading up to and on the day of the attacks, and why the response to the attacks was as it was. The longer we’re stonewalled, the more certain we are that we have very, very legitimate cause to demand a new investigation of this monstrous crime, with subpoena power leading wherever it will lead, …

  • Harriett October 12, 2010

    Kimberly has the correct take with the AE911Truth movement. There is no benefit of entering into the blame game unless we find out EXACTLY what caused the towers to collapse. Why the collapse of Building 7 is even more of a mystery and the scientific facts should definitely be brought to light along with the towers. If it was controlled demolition of all three, then we surely need the who, what, when and why the explosives were planted answered. Capital punishment anyone?
    I well remember the JFK assassination and to this day I wonder at my naivete in believing the “official” explanation of the lone gunman. I completely bought into that theory and a Soviet involvement until we had two more “lone gunman” (King, Jr. and RFK) murders. I also know how skittish even the internet is about the JFK murder because twice, in posts on internet blogs, I mentioned by belief of who was behind it and was immediately blocked from any further posting. I was amazed as I am an old lady with no significance whatsoever!
    I hope the AE911truth people can forge ahead to bring their scientific findings and facts out in an investigation (with subpoena power) but I won’t bet on it. I suspect 9/11 will go the route of the murders and become just another coverup; even though numerous books with scientific evidence point to official explanations as very questionable. For starters, the timeline of the military’s response (or lack thereof) to the hijackings has never been nailed down.

  • George Kay October 12, 2010

    It’s obvious to even the most gormless, that the officially mandated version of the events of September 11 is patently false. The question to all my friends who demand a new investigation is , ‘who is going to do the investigating?’ Every facet of the government and judiciary are on-board with this story. Those who have bucked the trend have been ridiculed or worse. So who will stick their neck out in this climate and take the initiative? Unless a mass movement of millions of Americans involving, strikes, marches, sit-ins and more occurs, nothing will ever change. No object will ever change its direction, unless a force acts upon it.

  • alucientes October 13, 2010

    @George Kay ‘It’s obvious to even the most gormless, that the officially mandated version of the events of September 11 is patently false.’

    I agree that one would think so.. and I wish this were true but clearly it’s not/
    I have been analyzing why for a while now. It seems people rather east glass than look at look at it. The implications are so ugly. I completely understand this and will make every excuse in the world to believe it is impossible. The entire thing, is after all, one greater improbable event piled upon another. (To paraphrase jim hoffman).

    It was only after removing everything but a few basic facts like, the FEMA BPAT), WTC7′s freefall implosion, the squibs, the astonishing level of destrutive explosiveness in the towers’ destruction which pulverized most of the concrete and 20guage corrugated steel floor assemblies, completely disassembled the massive (and highly redundant) superstructures in each one, (despite the fact that each sustained such a different angled impact) and blasted them hundreds of feet in every direction, leaving 1100 people officially unaccounted to this day They also caused massive pyroclastic-like clouds, ll in 15 seconds each.

    view the photos and videos of these events, (see North Tower Exploding on Youtube by David Chandler), look at the testimony of people who were there, the residual temps recorded by NASA and Bechtel (up to 2800F) -rain and constant FDNY water hoses going 24/7 (some much water that they were ‘creating a lake in lower Manhattan.’ -to quote a quote in the NY Times at the time) and still the fires burned underground for 99days. What is that? Not desks on fire! Molten metal, (see fema bpat May 2002). And yet even with aaallll of this (and precedence in the form of 100 plus years of hi-rise fire history), the idea that explosives were used in lower Manhattan on 9/11/01 is somehow relegated to fringe kookiness. Why? Maybe it is no different than the killer’s mother saying, ‘ Not my baby boy, no way he could not do such a thing.’ People refuse to believe their own leaders could slaughter them like pigs and if these things (‘conspiracy theories’ lol)were true, it would be all over the news.

    ‘None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe themselves free.’

    I have no clue how most aspects of the attacks were carried out (or what a barrel of oil looks like), most of us can only imagine, but that the attacks occurred is not in question. Simply coming to the realization that explosives (the type and in what manner is irrelevant for this purpose) were used is enough to know the entire thing was staged and needs to be properly investigated.

    A ‘proper investigation’ is one that consider ALL of the evidence, reveals every aspect of it’s efforts to the public, is impartial, and has subpoena power,
    -unlike FEMA which did not even test for explosives (despite clear NFPA regulatory obligations to do so), refuses to release the parameters they used in creating their WTC7 computer models and is a non-regulatory agency.

  • John Quindell October 13, 2010

    Peace Ideas

    People would be more willing and less fearful of adopting the views of 911 Truth activists if they felt they were calling for forgiveness rather than retribution and punishment.

    The peace movement should call for granting amnesty from prosecution and guarantee of an ample, lifetime pension to anyone who agrees to testify on their roles in the events of 9/11, extending this offer to any members of the US government, foreign governments and/or terrorist groups involved in the planning or execution of the attacks of that day.

    Additionally, individuals should step forward and volunteer to spend time working with those who give testimony on crimes they have committed so that they might be reintegrated into society.

    Instead of executing Nazi war criminals we should have devoted all the human resources available to us to rehabilitating them, awakening in them awareness of the nature of their actions so that they could have come to understand that they must make amends. If they had remained alive they would have been a living testament to the transformative powers of forgiveness.

    Historians and psychologists especially should come out in favor of preserving invaluable study material in the form of the opportunity to converse with the authors of unfortunate historical deeds.

    We must find a solution to the existing state of affairs that would be acceptable to both the accusers and the accused. It should solve the problem it sets out to solve without creating additional problems. It should present itself as an ethical means to an ethical end.

    In “The Art of War”, Sun Tzu said never to surround an enemy. If you do not leave him an out, he will fight to the last man.

    For an interesting discussion of these ideas, see the comments to this article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joseph_s_070414_a_9_2f11__22smoking_gun_22.htm

  • Brian October 14, 2010

    Christopher Bollyn’s research shows clearly who was behind the attacks. No reason to take flight in fear at one glimpse of the “antisemitism” scarecrow. So Silverstein and his buddies did it to lock the USA into Israel’s war schemes, and the US fascists went along because it was their wet dream too. Big deal. I’m not offended. And of course, being 50% Palestinian/Lebanese, I’m much more “semitic” than an average European Jew, so I can hardly be antisemitic, can I? Oh, you mean anti-Zionist? You betcha!

  • TheHolyCrow October 15, 2010

    So, whats up with the C-4 dug up at the Marble Cemetery not too far from the WTC site. Police say it was manufactured 12 years ago, and had been in the ground for years. Could one suppose that this was leftover demo material that
    was used to bring down the 3 skyscrapers ? Funny how the story came out nine (9) years one (1) month and one (1) day after 911. Maybe the bomb squad will dig up some NANO-THERMITE in the cemetery also.

  • Marks2Much October 15, 2010

    Several people responding on this site are already trying to manipulate opinions by taking the blame away from Israel. Sunstein is jewish and in an influential position. Of course he’s going to deflect attention away from Israel. There’s nothing anti-semitic to point these FACTS out. For more on all this, visit this site: http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5367
    They’ve carefully connected the dots on it.
    Then pass the site along.

  • Asad Kayani October 19, 2010

    I agree with what Kimberly says; carry out a truth finding investigation. give answers to-who had the capacity/resources/ingress to carry out the attack; how did building 7 and even the others come straight down; what materials were used to bring these buildings down(source of material used/manufacturing country). Only then can the AE911truth will come to rest, otherwise, this 1200 strength will multiply in squares to 1200.
    I am not an American, but I feel sorry for 95% good American people, and some of my friends. I am also positive that they are taken for a ride, and as Randall says, I quote:
    “Our country has been infiltrated by an extremist group of Judaism since
    they instituted the Federal Reserve in 1913.
    Infiltrate and take over the Power centers: Government , media, and education”.
    In our hearts of heart, most of us believe and know that a great and lovely country like America is not run by the Americans, but by v small group with in but controlled from with out. If I had any ny interest in the US politics, I would work for ensuring that all the power centers are demcratically snatched away. God speed & best of luck, Americans. And as jojo says, produce something like the Iranian President (I am not an Iranian).

  • John Cameron Australia October 22, 2010

    SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN EVIDENCE— PLEASE REFUTE.

    WTC 7 NYC 9/11 IN FREEFALL FOR 2.5 SECS.
    NOT IMPACTED BY ANY AIRCRAFT. MINOR FIRE DAMAGE ONLY.
    A SKYSCRAPER BUILDING 47 STOREYS HIGH TOTALLY DESTROYED IN 6.5 SECS.

    DAVID CHANDLER A U.S.HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER PROVE USING SCHOOL LABORATORY EQUIPMENT–
    “THAT THE TOP SECTION OF WTC 7 FELL AT FREEFALL SPEED FOR 2.5 SECONDS.”
    EQUIVALENT TO SOME 100 FEET.

    CHANDLER SENT THIS INFORMATION TO U.S. GOVT. AUTHORITY NIST AS HE DISPUTED THE PROFESSIONAL TEAM FINDINGS AS EARLIER REPORTED.
    DR.SHYAM SUNDER LEAD INVESTIGATOR NIST LATER CORRECTED GOVT. REPORT TO CORRESPOND WITH EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY CHANDLER THEREFORE ADMITTING THE FACT THAT WTC 7 WAS IN FREEFALL FOR 2.25 SECS.

    CHANDLER OPERATING ON A SHOE STRING BUDGET WAS THUS VINDICATED.
    PROVEN SCIENCE OF GALILEO & SIR ISAAC NEWTON TRIUMPHED OVER POLITICAL & “EXPERT” SPIN DOCTORING.

    FREEFALL.
    ANY PERSON WITH A MODICUM OF INTELLIGENCE WHO DOES NOT COMPREHEND THE ENORMITY OF THIS PROVEN FACT BASED SCIENCE IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.THEY ALSO DISPUTE PROVEN SCIENCE OF GALILEO & NEWTON.

  • Kay November 14, 2010

    Excuse me, Israel had nothing to do with 911! However, the circumstantial evidence points to the Bush family/Saudi Arabia! Who was in charge of the security of the buildings “A Bush family member” Who was in charge of security at the airport the planes took off out of “Bush Family Member!”

  • stars November 14, 2010

    Please remove and disable the comments for this. IT seems every idiot who gets pushed off of every other internet medium with their idiotic comments somehow gets their audience here.

  • Fidel November 14, 2010

    Truthers lie.

    They mean the north face of WTC 7 fell briefly at freefall speed ( faster than freefall, actually ) not the whole building, right ? I mean nobody would actually want you to believe that the whole building came down at free fall speed would they ?

    Well maybe they would if they were someone like Richard Gage who makes his living suckering in the gullible like any other evidence free “profession” like a faith healer or psychic.

  • ResearchGuy December 1, 2010

    “Fidel” accuses 9/11 truth activists of lying and profiteering. It doesn’t take a brilliant person to understand where the big profits “lie” on this issue.

    It is the government engineer/propagandists at NIST who would rather keep the discussion “evidence free.” As stated by others here, NIST refuses to test the World Trade Center dust for residue of explosives, refuses to release the full details of its mathematical models so that others could attempt to validate them, and pretends not to know the difference between thermite and nanothermite. That last is especially galling, given the “top 10 connections between NIST and nanothermite” (Google that). It was only after physics instructor David Chandler backed them into a corner at a public event that they apparently felt forced to acknowledge the more than 2 seconds of freefall (equating to more than 100 feet).

    Before that, WTC lead investigator Shyam Sunder denied that any freefall had occurred, accurately explaining that that would have had an acceptable implication: “no supporting structure” underneath the part that was falling at that unimpeded acceleration. What happened to the thousands of tons of interconnected structural steel that should have impeded the collapse? And how did the collapse proceed so symmetrically and thoroughly, all the way down to the ground at CLOSE to freefall acceleration even outside the 2.25-second period? There is only one explanation: an extremely ambitious and successful professional implosion with explosives, planned and prepared for over weeks or months before the planes hit.

    You either have to deny the fully documented facts and their implications, or you must update your understanding of how elites operate in the modern world. Alas, most people continue to find the first option more attractive.

  • ResearchGuy December 1, 2010

    Of course I meant to write that freefall had an UNacceptable implication.

  • Peter Phillips December 1, 2010

    9/11 Family Group: Judge Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera Are Right to Question Building 7 Collapse

    Contact: Manny Badillo, http://buildingwhat.org/contact/
    December 1, 2010

    New York – Today, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), a group of family members of those killed in the 9/11 attacks, issued the following statement:

    We who lost our loved ones on September 11, 2001 vigorously applaud Judge Andrew Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera for the courage they have shown in publicly questioning the official claim that the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 was due to fire.

    In the week since Judge Napolitano aired his views on Building 7, many voices in the media have singled him out for attack while conveniently ignoring the sequence of events that led to his revelation and the overwhelming evidence that validates his concerns.

    This past month, on TV screens across the New York Metropolitan Area, millions of viewers have been seeing footage of Building 7’s collapse for the first time ever. This is because we took it upon ourselves to produce and appear in a TV ad to draw attention to the fact that more than 1,300 architects and engineers publicly join us in challenging the official explanation that Building 7 came down due to fire. We were fortunate enough that Geraldo Rivera saw our ad and invited our representatives to appear on Geraldo At Large. There they presented the irrefutable evidence that Building 7’s collapse could not have resulted from fire as the government claims. Geraldo Rivera then appeared on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano to discuss our campaign and express his doubts about Building 7. The following week, Judge Napolitano courageously voiced his own opinions on this matter.

    However, you would not know anything about our position if you are getting your information from outlets like Media Matters and the Huffington Post. On November 29, Media Matters published an article entitled, “9/11 Victim Families Criticize Judge Napolitano Comments,” in which four 9/11 family members were quoted as attacking Judge Napolitano, without a single mention of the more than one-hundred 9/11 family members from NYC CAN who share Napolitano’s skepticism. One family member quoted in the article went as far as to say, “Anybody who talks about that is obviously not a family member and just trying to stir the pot and cause controversy.”

    We who lost loved ones on that day cannot stand idly by as our honest search for the truth about their death is trampled upon. We demand that Media Matters apologize for its unfair, irresponsible and injurious coverage of this deeply sensitive issue. And we call upon other voices in the media to follow the lead of Geraldo Rivera and Judge Napolitano, who have so courageously begun to question our government’s scientifically bogus explanation for Building 7’s collapse.

    For more information and to view the TV ad, go to: http://www.BuildingWhat.org

  • channing December 8, 2010

    To “Fidel”,

    Nice diversion Fidel. The name “Fidel” being singularly associated with a past cold war “enemy” and all while ignoring the fact that Fidel Castro is a 911truther today along with several other past and present world leaders who’ve made that point in public as well as the majority of the rest who just keep their mouths shut, according to Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga who also was directly involved in numerous false flag operations in Europe.

    Anyway, it is really funny that you ‘joke’ that the north face could have fallen without the south where all the smoke was bellowing. Since all currently available videos show barely any fire at all on the north face just prior to collapse, your implication is that the north face must have broken down at free-fall acceleration out of sympathy for the south’s smoking trauma?

    If the north face alone fell faster than the south face, then why isn’t the interior of the building revealed in even a single video of the dozens currently available? Ah, that must be the joke.

    And btw, a couple of the videos of the collapse are taken from elevations sufficient to expose such an asymmetric collapse as you wish to imply, and at least one I know of shows the entire penthouse and roofline descending in unison.

    Seeing you, Fidel, are the thus far sole critic of this important Project Censored item, perhaps you would care to educate them and me?

  • MG December 20, 2010

    9/11 Truth

  • Obbop December 23, 2010

    “There’s class warfare, all right, Mr. (Warren) Buffett said, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

  • Brad December 24, 2010

    This is nuts. Each of the towers was hit with a very large airplane. Fact. You can’t dispute it. The heat from the burning fuel caused supports to fail, and ultimately cause floors to pancake. It is as simple as that. Once one floor goes, they all go. Ask any structural engineer. Even those that are still in college.

    Oh, and by the way, a falling building (and its radius of high velocity, massive debris) can cause other buildings to lose structural integrity and fall. I’m surprised it didn’t do more damage.

    I can’t believe people are still doubtful about what really happened. A group of Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings, and brought them down. Islamic. Terrorists. Say it with me. I-s-l-a-m-i-c t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t-s. Now say it three times. Take a deep breath, clear your head, and say it again.

    So you think our government did this? The same government that can’t even balance the country’s checkbook? These people aren’t even capable of carrying out their sworn duties, let alone a massive conspiracy. Give me a break.

  • peckish December 26, 2010

    Brad, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The “heat from the burning fuel” is not, repeat, is not hot enough to stress steel. The floors didn’t “pancake”. You are repeating ignorant information that any structural engineer could indeed refute. Over 1300 engineers (yes, including a lot of structural engineers) say the official story is bunk. Are you an architect or engineer? If not, don’t repeat misinformation.

  • ralph babbitt December 26, 2010

    It is easy to find disgruntled religious extremists and allow them to hijack planes and then perhaps remotely control them into buildings. What is difficult is to get a building when it is 5% on fire to collapse at freefall speed into a perfect footprint. (see physics101)
    Was this event what Rumsfeld and Cheney needed to satisfy their comments in a paper in 1999 that “a pearl harbour-like event” would be needed before the American people would be behind a new invasion of Iraq.

  • JTK December 27, 2010

    Peckish, please get educated on steel before making those claims. The malleability of steel goes up with temperature. You can google a graph of that if you like, but don’t claim that the heat was not enough to stress the steel. When any piece of steel is heated it loses structural strength. This is the very basis of the iron age. If steel did NOT get more malleable with heat then we would still be living in the bronze age, which we are not. You can observe this process at a backyard smithy, the kind of place where horses get shoed. Long before yellow hot, which is long before red hot, which is long before white hot, the steel or iron becomes weak enough to work with a hammer. By heating one area a smith can control where the bar will bend, as that one area is more malleable.

    Now, that brings you up to where the rest of the world has been for nearly 3000 years.

    As for the architects and engineers for truth, google them too. It turns out relatively few of them are structural or materials engineers and many are electrical engineers. Others disagree with having their names on the list.

    The floors DID pancage, that is visible on the video of the collapse. Please don’t make so many claims that contradict the evidence, it makes you look foolish.

    And yes, I am an engineer. Enjoy your day, and please please please don’t make those ridiculous claims anymore. If the truth disagrees with your fantasy version of steel, tough.

  • JTK December 27, 2010

    Ralph Babbitt:

    The building did not collapse at free fall speed. Those claims are absolute garbage, they contradict the video evidence of the collapse. Feel free to look at the video again, you will see structural elements that have fallen well below the collapse region. This is indisputable evidence that the collapse is not happening at or near free fall velocity. Some guy on the internet claims it happened that fast, but the evidence contradicts him. The perfect footprint myth is, well, a myth also. Again, it contradicts the video evidence. There was a massive pile of debris, everyone remembers this. Are you really claiming that pile of debris didn’t exist, and it was actually all piled up on the buildings foundation and none left that foundation? That is what perfect footprint means. It is so obviously false that nobody that really understands it can honestly make that claim. I will assume you are being honest, so consider yourself more informed now than you were moments ago.

  • researchALLwars December 27, 2010

    the documentary “9/11 Ripple Effect” will show you evidence that is more than damning. Much more.

    Pancake Theory? Really? A theory BORN on sept 11 2001? My good friends:

    -The jet fuel WAS the great fireball during impact. Do you think that some unknown, sealed, intact portion of the jetliners fuel supply was left in that building- releasing over time to melt that steel? What do you think made the voluminous fireball which is ejected out, opposite the impacts? The entire supply of your steel-melting jet fuel is expired in 4 seconds.

    -How in this vast universe would even FIVE floors of “weakened” steel turn millions of pounds of re-enforced concrete, built 1300ft high and DESIGNED to survive jetliner impact, into DUST? Do you “engineers” *cough* even know what sections of steel you are talking about? The steel floor supports are trivial when discussing building skeleton failure. The skeleton I-beams in the core of WTC’s 1 and 2 are just under 5′x3′ thick made of 3″ plate steel.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/construction-1.jpg

    I implore you to show me how a low-temperature office fire can even dream of weakening one those massive columns, let alone all of them.

    Right in front of your eyes (like the huge Fasci symbols in the U.S. Senate) is the end result. A pile of dust and shattered steel columns cannot possibly be made from an office fire. Read that sentence again.

    In the last hundred years, our sprawling civilization has seen dozens, if not hundreds of skyscraper fires- some of which engulfed the entire structure, top to bottom, for DAYS. Not hours. And the steel skeletons of these buildings ALL remained standing after the flames are extinguished. The absolute worst-case scenario involving a core-beam failure would undoubtably produce an ASYMMETRICAL collapse. These great towers fell straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed. (JTK you are one washed fellow if you think you see anything else but freefall speed in ANY video.)

    On September 11th, 2001, this civilization saw its first THREE collapses from fire in a single day.

    I don’t even want to begin on the NORAD bullshit operations that were going on at precisely the same time. Where were our vast, trillion dollar air-defenses over Washington that day? We got buildings taking hits in New York, and a hi-jacked plane headed towards D.C., and nobody moves? Wow. I mean…. Woowwww.

    It is not the Government behind this. It is the powerful forces BEHIND our bumbling government who are capable of such slaughter. They have been doing it for thousands of years. The government is put there (on TV) for us to aim our hatred or admiration, while the controllers remain perpetually unseen. It is time for all of us to open our minds and STUDY the history of our species. It is certainly not the false tale of constant, upward progress that our rulers have indoctrinated us with through academia.
    .
    .

    You think you’re gonna learn the truth in SCHOOL? You better get on amazon and find a few books about the power elite. Head on over to youtube and hear some of the real teachers teach on subjects deemed controversial for that narrow reality tunnel in which you operate.

    9/11 is the most blatant psychological operation in a long, tragic history of psy-ops. Take a second look. Or just look away. I will choose option one. I hope, for the sake of us all, that you do the same.

  • JTK December 27, 2010

    Congratulations on making the same mistake as the other guy. Heat weakens steel. Period. Proven, established fact. Add heat and you get weaker steel. Google it. The steel does not need to melt in order to weaken. I am certain you realize this, everyone who has real world experience knows this. You don’t need to melt a steel bar in order to make a horseshoe. You heat it and you pound it, by adding heat you need to pound less.

    And it goes further. Structural steel is high carbon. That carbon is released when the steel is heated. You can google graphs of that too, if you choose. The result is that when the steel cools down it has lost a portion of its carbon content, making it no longer high-carbon steel. If it gets hot enough, long before the melting point, it is no longer steel at all, merely iron. Please get an education. You spout off about materials science when you don’t understand high school physics. Do you know how people learned to make iron? By burning wood. Do you know what paper is made of? What office desks are made of?

    To make the kinds of claims you do shows clearly that you don’t understand the most basic aspects of the iron age. You are 3000 years behind the times and yet you spout off about how this all has to be a conspiracy.

    Once a steel frame structure is heated to the temperature of burning office furnishings and carpet, the steel loses a portion of its carbon content as well as increasing in length. As some elements were heated more than others, some portions of those structural elements got longer than others. Then the structure begins to cool, those elements that got longer and bent under the strain are now weaker and bent. All of this is proven science. The bent structural members are visible in photos of the building pre-collapse. This is not open to argument, it is established fact. Once several floors of weakened and bent structural steel were supporting the weight of the floors above a collapse was inevitable. Don’t claim steel frame structures haven’t collapsed before, you are obviously getting your information from liars with paranoia websites. Google it. Challenge your beliefs. You can and WILL find other steel frame structures with bent and twisted steel due to fire.

    But then, people like you don’t care about the truth. They only care about defending their twisted version of reality. One where steel doesn’t weaken in a wood fire (how the hell did we invent steel without wood then?) and where metal doesn’t get longer when heated (so thermocouples aren’t real?) and one where people like you can claim the building was taken down by explosives which the thousands of employees of the building didn’t notice and not a single demolitions expert agrees, whew.. the list goes on and on.

    I can and would prove to you how fire weakens steel, but you already know it. You know about horseshoes. You have seen wrought iron staircases. You can watch metals manufacturing on television, so you definitely know all of this. Yet when it comes to 9/11, you have to pretend not to.

    That should be a clue.

    PS. Before you speak about materials science you should try to understand the basics. Like high school for a start.

  • researchALLwars December 27, 2010

    .

    “Please get an education”

    “You spout off…”

    “..you don’t understand high school physics.”

    “…clearly that you don’t understand the most basic aspects..”

    ” You are 3000 years behind the times..”

    “..and yet you spout off…”

    ” All of this is proven science.”

    ” This is not open to argument”

    ” Don’t claim this…”

    ” Google that…..” google what?

    “…people like you don’t care about the truth.”

    “..try to understand the basics. Like high school for a start”

    LOL !! ..Is that condescension I smell? Pretty stinky!

    Great arguments to my points though. Spot on.

    {facepalm}

  • JTK December 27, 2010

    I notice that you don’t respond to any of the points I raised. You speak, but don’t address anything. If you had an honest response I must assume you would have brought it out, so that makes your response a dishonest one. Why speak at all if you can’t address the points? Only in a vain attempt to save face or deceive I guess.

    Lets see some integrity from you. Admit that heat makes steel more malleable well before the melting point, well within the temperature range of burning wood and paper. Admit that heat also makes the carbon leave steel well before the melting point. Admit that when steel is heated it gets longer. Admit that when that steel cools it will be more fragile and brittle due to the lower carbon content. This is all established fact that you can verify from anyone who does a craft remotely related to smithing. Try a body shop, there should be many people within a few miles of your home that can prove these things to you directly and in person.

    A little honesty couldn’t hurt, could it? At least, assuming your conspiracy theory would hold together without your ignorance of materials science. But then you know it won’t, which is why you prefer deception.

    Honest people can concede points, dishonest ones will do anything not to admit an error. Don’t play dumb when I tell you to google things, you know exactly what I was referring to. Your unwillingness to be honest is blatantly apparent. If you could refute what I said about steel you would have.

    Tell your conspiracy theorist friends about this topic. Lets see them all join in and try to refute established scientific fact. Or would you be ashamed of your inability to do it on your own? Your behavior reeks of shame as it is so lets up the ante. Lets see you be honest about the properties of steel. If you can’t tell the truth when it is staring you in the face then you never will and that means those who read this thread in the future will know how incompetent and deceptive the so-called truthers are.

    Bring it on. My guess is you will come back with more buffoonery rather than admit that steel gets weaker when heated. After all if you are right it should be easy to prove, no? Just heat a piece of metal over a wood fire and see if it gets easier to bend. In your world it won’t, in the real world it will. How simple could it be? So simple that you won’t do it because you already know what would happen, you already know I am speaking the truth, and you already know that you are caught in a trap where you either admit I am right or continue to play games and try to change the subject.

    At the heart of the truther movement is ignorance and lies. I have exposed your ignorance and your behavior makes you look like a liar.

    Once again, get an education. Your friends would probably be ashamed of you for not knowing what people in the desert learned 3000 years ago.

  • TruthStorm December 28, 2010

    Here they come… JTK, Brad, and Fidel – Welcome, Sunsteins “infiltrators”… Been seeing this on many forums lately. At least the “debunkers” / “infiltrators” seem to be sounding a little more intelligent these days, but they keep bringing up the same old parroted lines from MSM. They are only trying to get you to waste your energy. How did you find this thread in the first place, and what prompted you to read the whole thing, then come to the bottom and start arguing with other posters? You are too obvious, the jig is up. You are not going to convert a so called “9/11 Truther” back to a “9/11 Liar” (or whatever), while new people are waking up to 9/11 truth daily. I’m wasting my time right now… *sigh* Anyway, keep up the good work, Project Censored… “you are the resistance.” (As well as those of you patriots who continue to push for justice by any means possible.) Love and peace.

  • JTK December 28, 2010

    I have no idea who Sunstein is, but paranoia from a truther is nothing new. The psychological problems of truthers have been discussed in several interesting papers. Check out this link, if you have the guts (you won’t, you are too afraid of the truth) : http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/06/the_psychology_of_crankery.php

    MSM? My information comes from knowledge of metallurgy. If you dispute any of my claims about the behavior of steel please say so. To attack the credibility of a poster and yet not mention a single thing they are wrong about is another of the standard tactics of deception. Honest people who disagree with the points I raised would be capable of explaining just where how and why they disagree. The immediate attempt to criticize the source of information rather than the information itself is a classic. It amounts to an admission that I am right and you are too afraid to admit it because it would challenge your belief system.

    Truthers are like whack-a-mole. You can hit them with the truth and they get smacked down only to pop their heads up again when they think that nobody who is watching is smart enough to detect their fallacies and sloppy thinking. You are no different, TruthStorm. Lets see you deal with the issues honestly and openly, without trying to pretend I am part of some vast conspiracy. That just makes me think you stopped taking your meds.

    Here are a few links that make truthers run and hide:
    http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
    http://layscience.net/node/124?page=1
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
    http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2010/01/29/rebutting-again-the-911-truthers/

    Honest people can have honest discussions. Liars are the ones who need to attack the messenger and avoid the topics that force them to tell lies. If what I said about the behavior of steel is a problem for you that is a sign. If your beliefs are true you won’t need to lie or change the subject or play any other games, you would simply be able to refute what I said.

    So, in short, truthers have been shown in scientific studies to have paranoid tendencies. When challenged with verifiable science on the subject of structural steel they disappear or lie or change the subject, like you TruthStorm.

    I know you feel shame when you read this. You know that you can’t respond honestly and openly because to do so would be to admit that all of your lunatic conspiracy theory is based on ignorance, and that would hurt to admit. That is why you lie. You lie in order to hide your shame.

  • TruthStorm December 28, 2010

    Crap – JTK’s tactics worked! I just have to respond, I can’t help myself! :)

    1.) Massive fireballs consumed most of the jet fuel on impact.
    2.) Photo of woman standing where the plane entered the building (no massive hot fire there…)
    3.) Audio of firefighters reaching the area and saying the fire can be controlled with a couple of lines and they can “knock it out”.
    4.) Testimony of survivor who made it down from above the impact site. (Evidence the entire floor was not engulfed)
    5.) Dozens of witnesses reporting explosions, many caught on camera and audio, some on siesmic graphs BEFORE the collapse
    6.) Demolition experts testimony – WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition (compare footage to other controlled demolitions)
    7.) Larry Silverstein says to “Just Pull It”
    8.) Video footage of “squibs” and molten metal pouring from the tower (as some of the incindiary ignited prematurely)
    9.) News agencies reporting the collapse of WTC7 before it happened
    10.) Security shut down the weekend prior to 9/11 (opportunity) – Security run by a relative in the Bush family
    11.) Many other buildings throughout history burned much hotter and much longer and did not collapse
    12.) Original WTC designers claim building can withstand multiple jet-liner impacts

    Yes, fire does weaken steel. But to assume that all of the steel on an entire floor (or several floors) is going to be weak enough at the exact same time to cause the entire top section to fall straight down, does not make logical sense. If there was going to be a “natural” collapse, then at most, the top portion would have fell to one side, maybe damged some of the floors directly beneath it, (up to a few dozen) but the resistance of all of the existing building materials would have diverted most of the falling debris to one side or another, through the path of least resistance. The duration / speed of the collpases are impossible without the aids of something to move the existing structure out of the way.

    Even if you can somehow debunk this information, you cannot debunk the hundreds of other “coincidences” about that day that just don’t add up. (Insider trading, CIA asset Tim Osman aka Osama bin Laden, NORAD stand-down, Pentagon testimony, deliberate coverups and lies, Commission members admitting a whitewash, Dancing Israeli’s who filmed the first plane crash, Obvious planted evidence, Impossible phone calls from planes, etc, etc, etc…) It goes on and on. You can’t win. The official story falls to peices pretty quickly for anyone who looks. Come to the bright side, we’re not so bad over here.

  • JTK December 28, 2010

    Massive fireballs consumed most of the fuel quickly, yes. And as I mentioned above (how did you miss it, or are you pretending to have missed it?) burning wood and paper and carpet etc are hot enough to severely weaken structural steel. I have made this point before and I am sure you read it. Avoiding that issue is a typical approach for someone who seeks to deceive.

    Photo of a woman: sure. No problems there. Why, do you think that the fire had to be there in that spot continually from impact to collapse? That isn’t necessary for the collapse. If you are claiming it is necessary you will have to be more clear.

    Audio of firefighters: Cite your sources including what floor they were on and what stairwell at what time. Again, the fire did not have to be in all places at all times on any given floor in order to cause significant weakening of steel. Audio from one particular moment in a single spot says very little about where all of the fires were on al floors. I’m sure you agree, although you won’t admit it.

    Testimony of a survivor: see above.

    Dozens of witnesses reporting explosions: Not a single explosion is visible on the countless videos of the event. Websites have made that claim but demolitions companies have gone over many hours of video from many angles and they say that there are absolutely no explosions and that those explosions would have left clear signs in the dust cloud during the collapse as well as in the seismic readings. There were none. Your claims that those records exist are just stories from truther websites. If they exist then surely you will be able to cite your sources.

    Demolition expert: Cite your sources. Time after time conspiracy theorists have tried to get a demolitions expert to agree with them, yet to my knowledge no reputable person ever has. Demolitions, by the way, occur from the bottom up. The twin towers did not collapse in that way. The amount of det cord and explosives required would have been visible to the workers. The effort to put it there would have taken days and required drilling into support beams. Those explosives would then have to go off with the exactly correct timing on multiple floors below the collision point, and how could they know the collision point and exact angle of the aircraft impact in order to put their det cord in an area then knew would be undamaged by the plane? The amount of things that would have to be accomplished under the eyes of employees on multiple floors is staggering. If you know of a demolitions expert who agrees with the truther story, name him and cite the source.

    Silverstein: Demolitions experts from around the world state that “pull it” is not a phrase they use in their industry meaning to destroy a building. The building had an active fire and people trying to put it out. Cables were attached to the building. Those cables are visible in photos. Couldn’t “pull it” have meant to pull the firefighters out? Do you really believe that all of the demolitions people involved and all of the firefighters who were listening on their radios are part of this conspiracy? If not, why are they remaining silent for 9+ years?

    Squibs: Demolitions experts state that those are not squibs but pressure releases. On the many videos the behavior of these so-called squibs is that they spurt out and then increase with time, which is the opposite of an explosive. Here is a link which I expect you will ignore: http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

    Molten metal: Aluminum is a metal. It melts at a much lower point than steel too! See how easy that was? Note also that not a single person in the recovery effort reports seeing molten metal, despite the claims of truther websites.

    News agencies reporting the collapse before it happened: So, now the conspiracy has to include not just all of the demolitions experts in the world and a whole lot of firefighters and policemen on the scene at the time and countless bureaucrats but also the BBC! Somehow they knew in advance, so that means that the number of people keeping this secret must be measured well into the thousands. How likely is it that every one of them kept it secret all these years? Is it even remotely as likely as their mention being a simple mistake? Just how paranoid do you have to be in order to expect a global conspiracy involving thousands or tens of thousands of people to maintain perfect secrecy for nearly a decade? Quite paranoid, I would say.

    Security shutdown: Those were quite common in the twin towers. What about it? Are you saying that those security personnel were involved in installing explosives? How many more people are you going to add to this crazy conspiracy theory and how can you justify implying that all of those people are sociopaths? They would have to be, since some of them lost friends and relatives in the following days. Do you often see sociopathy in the behavior of others? That, oddly enough, is a sign of sociopathic personality disorder.

    Other buildings burned hotter and longer and didn’t collapse: Cite your sources. Building 7 burned for nearly 7 hours. In the history of high-rise fires, none has ever been left for 7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. The claims that no other steel frame high rise collapse due to fire are false. Here is another of those links that you won’t read because it would correct you: http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm Please notice that other smaller steel frame structures have collapsed due to fire. If a smaller one could, why not a larger one? How many flaws with this conspiracy theory do I have to point out before you start to question just how reliable your truther website sources are?

    Original designed claim it can withstand multiple jet-liner attacks: True.. back in an era when aircraft were far far smaller. Are you saying that those designers had a time machine and knew how large aircraft would be decades into the future? In case you are afraid to read those links, here is a quote from one of them:

    “It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707′s fuel load was not even considered at the time. ”

    Now, to the rest of your comments. The steel on an entire floor would not need to be weakened in order for the building to collapse. That is a classic straw man. Were you aware of that, or was that little piece of deception an accident? An airliner had just taken out a significant portion of the outer structer on multiple floors. I have no idea where you think you got the expertise to determine what a “natural” collapse of a building is, so perhaps you can cite your sources. To someone with an engineering background that just sounds like nonsense. Have you never heard of momentum? What would give that upper portion sideways momentum in order to make it move to one side? Is it magic?

    Speed of collapse: The freefall myth is a myth. You can verify the claims below by watching a video and timing it. http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

    The insider trading issue has been dealt with also. Do you really think that the entirety of the investigators and media are in on it? Wouldn’t the have to be part of the conspiracy in order to lie about the insider trading? And what pentagon testimony? I can’t figure out what that refers to. Do you mean the eyewitness testimony I linked to earlier, where people mention the plane flying over their heads? I take it that means you won’t come back later and claim that was a drone or something. Obvious planted evidence? It can’t be too obvious, unless you are claiming that every single police officer and lawyer in New York is part of it. If it was obvious then anyone could have filed a lawsuit. Why haven’t they? Maybe its not so obvious. Impossible phone calls? Find a reputable source that says they were impossible. It is remarkably easy to find people who have made cell phone calls from airplanes before. Isn’t that clear evidence that you are wrong on this point? Remember, honest people can admit when they are wrong.

    I have debunked your claims quite easily. All of my claims can be properly sourced. I bet you wish yours were as easy to back up. The magnitude of the conspiracy you are implying must be measured in the hundreds of thousands, all of whom have kept their mouths shut despite the deaths of friends and family.

    As with most truthers you seem to hold your beliefs in a very religious way. Contradictory evidence gets ignored or those who criticize your beliefs must be part of the conspiracy (who is Sunstein anyway?) in order to preserve your crazy beliefs. The same can be said of the way creationists think. The similarities are remarkable.

  • TruthStorm December 28, 2010

    I can source everything, but frankly it’s already been done and I’m not going to do it again. Watch “Core Of Corruption”, “Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11″, “Fabled Enemies”, Michael Ruppert’s “Denial Stops Here” , “Press for Truth”, “Loose Change: An American Coup”, “National Security Alert”, “Zeitgeist”, “Reflections and Warnings from Aaron Russo” and Webster Tarpleys presentation on the war games going on that day. (You can Google or Youtube all of those)

    Read “Crossing the Rubicon” by Michael Ruppert, “New Pearl Harbor” or “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” by David Ray Griffin, “9/11 The Ultimate Truth” by Laura Knight, “9/11 Synthetic Terror” by Webster Tarpley. Read all of the information presented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. (ae911truth.org) Also Bollyn’s online book on “Solving 9/11″

    All of your sources can be found in there… (A lot of footage in these videos will also show that some of your claims above are false.)

    If you watch all of those films and read all of those books and you still feel the same way… Then most likely it is you who holds on to your beliefs too tightly. I actually hate the word “belief”, because it restricts true learning. I constantly read, discern, learn, reflect, and change with whatever information is presented to me. I too, was once like you and couldn’t believe what this information was concluding. But eventually the scales tipped, the truth became glaringly obvious, and there was no turning back.

    I have to go now to my real job and family, I don’t get paid to do this… I probably won’t be back on this thread. (Not out of defeat, only that I don’t have time!)

    (I like the diversionary tactic of throwing the “creationist” comment in there at the end… you guys are getting better! Although you’re still trying to belittle me, at least your not doing too much name calling…) :)

    Have fun in all your debunkery, you already seem well versed in a lot of the information the “truthers” spit out. (How convenient, although maybe you only watched Loose Change or something cause your information seems a little dated.) You can debunk and debunk all day, but at some point don’t you have to ask yourself, “Why do I have to debunk so many things to prove a story that should be true?”

  • JTK December 29, 2010

    Riiiiiight… you can cite sources but you won’t? Rather than giving links to text files you expect me to watch unsourced video after unsourced video as if they were a substitute for sources? You can’t be that stupid. And then you expect me to buy books from truthers? All so you can pretend you have sources but just don’t feel like showing them? Why would anyone who could back up claims like yours refuse? It is unbelievable. Only someone who was trying to deceive would behave like you are behaving.

    You can’t respond to my points because you know I am right. You know your conspiracy theory sounds crazy. You know your beliefs contradict the video evidence and materials science. After all, if they were supported by science then countless scientists would be proclaiming it.

    You failed to defend your beliefs and now you run away. All of your blathering is just an attempt to save face. Another standard tactic, both for truthers and for creationists.

    I dare you to come back. I dare you to back up your claims with sources. No videos, no buying books from conspiracy theorists. Back them up or admit that you cannot. Everyone on the internet has seen the “I don’t have time to respond” lie. Nobody will believe you, but just using that lie might help some of the more rational truthers to realize how foolish their beliefs are.

    I enjoyed our interaction. By speaking up you have made all truthers look bad.

  • JTK December 29, 2010

    Any other truthers willing to take up the torch? Honesty can deal with all comers, only liars and fools have anything to fear.

  • researchALLwars December 29, 2010

    Sir, our sources are all over the internet- JUST like yours. Ha! Your comments are less-sourced than ours. Unless you count “get an education” as a valid source.

    Watch the films. You calling them “unsourced” is about as laughable as the time you have invested in commenting on here.

    Cass Sunstien is a power player from high academic/government levels who has vocalized designs of sending persistent misinformation agents like you OUT into the interwebs to do exactly what you are doing. If you’re not one of his trolls- then I suggest you contact him at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. You could be getting PAID for it!

    The conspiracy is not vast. It takes a small handful of intelligent coaches- and an untold, large number of players who are as ignorant and trusting of the powers as you. Look up “Operation Gladio” to get a small idea of what these guys can do. We understand that it will shake your whole world view to the point that even the core breaks down – it happened to us. It’s not easy to accept. It’s certainly not pretty- but it IS directly in line with the history of absolute slaughter that our past is comprised of.

    Again. Watch the critically important documentaries listed by my man Truthstorm. At the end of these documentaries will be a library of sources which you can triple-check. You know…. just google it.

  • TruthStorm December 29, 2010

    “Show me the proof!”, says the blind man with his head buried in the sand. It’s all there, sourced and re-sourced, don’t get mad because you refuse to look. Trying to label the people or information as “truther” or “conspiracy theorist”, does not alter the facts and sources they present.

    Thank you for pointing that out ResearchAllWars, that it doesn’t take too many people to pull this off. Dozens, maybe a hundred at most, with other little workers running around not knowing the entire big picture. Standard opererating procedure. (Compartmentalization) However even if it did take more people than that, you have to remember the Manhattan Project, thousands working to build the atomic bomb, and Congress (or the public) had no idea about it until afterwards.

    The bumbling idiodic Congress / Government they show you on TV did not pull this off. Most of them were decieved just like you and I, and those that started putting it all together, were silenced with the threat of Anthrax mailings. The Democratic system in the US is broken, and the politicians you see on television, (including the Office of the President) do not have much power any more. This becomes more and more obvious, when analyzing the long list of Obama’s broken promises. (No offense to him, he is doing his job, to placate the masses. Other people “run the country”)

    There is a group of individuals who have positioned themselves in our system that have enormous control over the Military Industrial Complex and the large financial instutions.

    “There is a government inside the government, and I don’t control it.” – Bill Clinton

    “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” – Theodore Roosevelt

    “But, you know, there’s another group that really runs the show. It’s very shadowy, just as you’ve described… Those of us in the Congress of the United States are window dressing.” – Congressman Virgil Goode

    “A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President June 27, 1836

    “A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.” – Woodrow Wilson

    “The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business. These international bankers and Rockefeller Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country.” – John F. Hylan, New York City Mayor 1922

    “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt

    “The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.” – Woodrow Wilson

    “There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.” – Senator Daniel Inouye

    “The real rulers of Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.” – Felix Frankfurter – Supreme Court Justice

    “Great nations are simply the operating fronts of behind-the-scenes, vastly ambitious individuals who had become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery.” – Buckminster Fuller

    “You know, by the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions. … You may find you can get away with virtual presidents, virtual prime ministers, virtual everything.” – Bill Clinton

    “I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.” – General Douglas MacArthur

    “The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight.” – John F. Kennedy

    This network of powerful individuals is not tied to a particular state or country, so I don’t like to say, “9/11 was an inside job”, or “Israel did it.” I do know that it required help from the US Intelligence agencies, a handful of private corporations, the intelligence services of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and possibly Pakistan. I don’t have all of the answers, but one thing is clear… there is no possible way that the official story that was told to us can be true. THAT ALONE is why many people around the world are requesting a new investigation.

  • researchALLwars December 29, 2010

    JTK’s obvious goal: To smear.

    The collective goal of EVERYONE ELSE: To inform.

    : )

  • researchALLwars December 29, 2010

    TruthStorm, that was an unbelievable set of quotes from our great “leaders” of the recent past. Excellent compilation my friend. If THAT doesn’t give you an idea of what’s up- then nothing will, really.

    If you want to know about the ancient roots of this sprawling death tree- the lectures of a man named Jordan Maxwell will get you started.

    To the youtubes!!

  • JTK December 29, 2010

    @researchALLwars

    You aren’t making sense. Why should anyone have to watch hours of video and pay money for books and go through the endless hours of trying to find the sources of information in both books and video in order to confirm something someone else is claiming? The burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim. Everyone knows this, don’t bother trying to put the responsibility on me. If you can cite a source, cite it. If you can’t then you should just admit it. No shifting the responsibility.

    The conspiracy MUST be vast, why else would every firefighter who was in or near building 7 and lost friends and family that day be hiding the fact that the buildings were destroyed by explosives? Your claims don’t make any sense.

    I won’t be watching any of your unsourced and unreliable videos. That is not my responsibility. If you want to back up your crazy claims then do so. No more games, no cowardly shifting of responsibility. If you really believe these conspiracy theories then you must be capable of citing some sources for at least a few of your beliefs. If you can’t then that says a great deal about how poorly thought out your beliefs are.

    The ball is in your court. Back up your claims or admit that you cannot.

    PS. The truth is not misinformation. If you can give an example of things I have said that are untrue then please do so. The fact that you haven’t is a likely sign that you cannot and are merely trying to hide that fact.

  • JTK December 29, 2010

    @TruthStorm

    I have asked you for sources, you refuse and put the responsibility on me to look up your sources and prove your claims. I hate to be the one to break it to you but that just ain’t how it works. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You make a claim, you back it up. By refusing you show that you can’t prove your claims and probably can’t even justify them rationally. Children in grade school could see through your bull.

    Cite your sources, or run away again. Anyone who has spent time having discussions on the internet has seen people who play the game your way. Be they creationists or trolls, they always refuse to back up their story. You are just another liar. If you were telling the truth, even the truth as you see it, then you could surely have provided a source. HTML? Text file? A hyperlink? An honest person would have provided something. Only a liar would act like you are acting. Show some integrity. Back up your claims or back away from them.

    Welcome to the real world, the battleground of ideas. The winner is the person who can prove their claims, the loser is the one who gets caught out like you.

    Prove me wrong. Cite your sources.

    I think you are a liar. You lie about being able to back up your claims. Prove me wrong, use actual sources, provide the links. If you can’t, I win by default.

  • JTK December 29, 2010

    Let’s see if I can give you truthers a hypothetical so you can get a better grip on reality.

    Imagine are two truthers. Both believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. One believes in science, determines that the structural steel was weakened by fire and the buildings collapsed due to the collision and the subsequent fire, but still could believe there was a conspiracy to cause or allow the planes to impace the buildings. No laws of physics have to be violated to believe that. That person is a rational conspiracy theorist. Evidence would sway him. His opinions fit reality as well as he understand it.

    The other believes in the conspiracy, regardless of facts. No amount of information on the realities of structural steel would change his mind because he did not arrive at his opinions through rational thought but by faith. It becomes a religion for that kind of irrational truther. He finds himself having to deny scientific fact in order to defend his conspiracy theory. That is a sign of insanity, in case you aren’t aware.

    Believe in a conspiracy if you wish, but don’t make claims that contradict scientific fact. Don’t claim steel doesn’t get weakened by heat when you can and have been proven wrong on that point. Once someone goes from thinking their conspiracy theory through rationally to just taking things on faith they have lost touch with reality.

    If there was a conspiracy to bring down the twin towers then the evidence will support that. If the evidence contradicts one or more of the claims in any given conspiracy theory then that theory must be altered. A rational person would simply withdraw that claim from their theory while an irrational one would have to attack the messenger that informed them of the realities of structural steel.

    Like you two, TruthStorm and whatsisface. Both of you are irrational and take your conspiracy theory on faith. Evidence does not sway you, scientific fact does not change your opinion. To you, being a truther is exactly like religious faith.

    Both of you need to smarten up. Either make your conspiracy theory into something that fits the laws of physics etc or give up any chance of convincing rational people of anything. If you take a conspiracy theory on religious faith then you are just a like street corner preacher, standing on a soap box muttering about the end of days.

    I hope at least one of you has the guts to admit I am right. I can’t imagine anyone ready this comment and not getting the message. Lets see you admit it.

  • Chris December 30, 2010

    JTK, the same holds true for any people who believe in the official conspiracy theory (that Al Qaeda alone planned and carried out the attacks on Sept. 11 and the building were brought down by the impact and fire of the airplanes). If you are confronted with multiple scientific facts that discount your official theory then, “that theory must be altered. A rational person would simply withdraw that claim from their theory while an irrational one would have to attack the messenger that informed them of the realities of structural steel.”

    Well to start you off you should take a look at this peer reviewed chemistry journal here is the link: http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

    TFK, if you hold yourself to your own standards then I think you might find the, “insane…street corner preacher,” you are so vehemently opposed to.

  • JTK December 31, 2010

    Your lies are tired and old. Repeating them won’t change anything. You aren’t rational, you think like a creationist.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/why_i_dont_debate_creationists.php

    There is no point trying to have a rational discussion with someone who is irrational. Please take your meds.

  • JTK December 31, 2010

    @Chris

    You don’t have actual scientific facts. The report on ‘active thermitic material’ is widely disregarded in the scientific community. The editor of the journal resigned in disgrace for allowing that horribly flawed article to be published on her watch. It was not peer reviewed despite Jones’ claims to the contrary. I hope you understand that what you have is in no way a scientific fact because it is unnaccepted by the scientific community. The experiment has not been replicated. The experiment contradicts accepted science. The experiment refers to something (active thermitic material) that science does not acknowledge the existence of. The author has been caught using flawed science in the past and reprimanded for it, even losing his job. Jones does have one thing going for him. Of those involved in the creation of Scholars for 9/11 Truth he stood up to those in charge who insisted that exotic weaponry was used to bring down the towers. AKA laser beams.

    Those are the people at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Laser beams brought down the twin towers!

    Also, if it the thermitic material article was true then why aren’t the families of the victims using it in court? You know why… because it won’t stand up in court. It isn’t replicable, it isn’t accepted science. If true it would be a constant news item involving courts worldwide suing the government or the owners of the building. Is that happening? How do you explain that lack of action? Do you have to resort to claiming that all of the worlds lawyers are part of a conspiracy? Now that you have been made aware of problems with that article I hope you look deeper.

    If you agree with the properties of structural steel Chris, please say so. Rational people have no trouble admitting that physics is real. I don’t see you taking any firm position so it is difficult to know if you are one of the crazy preacher kind like the other two or if you accept actual science.

    The amount of science around the properties of steel is immense. If you disagree with that science Chris you will have to say so. Take a position so that we can have an actual discussion. Like creationists, truthers are slippery. It is hard to nail them down to a firm claim. Some here have made claims about steel and I shot them down firmly and convincingly with science. Can you accept that fire can and has destroyed steel frame structures? Truther websites deny this, actual fact supports it.

    No religious thinking. No games, no changing the subject, no refusing to concede a point as firmly proven as the properties of structural steel.

    I hold myself to very high standards, Chris. Lets see you do the same.

  • JTK December 31, 2010

    PS. Jones tried to use archeology to prove the book of Mormon.

    Do you really want him to be a key source in your conspiracy theory?

  • Mojo January 1, 2011

    JTK wrote “Those are the people at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Laser beams brought down the twin towers!”

    That’s why Jones left Scholars for 911 Truth, because it became infected with people (probably govt. agents) who adhered to wingnut theories rather than using the scientific method.

    Having only been on this forum 15 minutes it is clear to me that you, one “JTK,” are only about smearing. How much is the CIA paying you? How much did you sell your soul for?

  • JTK January 1, 2011

    Yet another example of how mentally deranged truthers are. Anyone who disagrees, even if they bring actual science, must be part of the conspiracy!

    Please find a psychiatrist, Mojo. Or do you think they are part of the conspiracy too?

    People like that do an even better job of making truthers look bad than I do. Please come back and make a fool of yourself again.

  • Alan January 3, 2011

    As an outside observer who does not accept the O.C.T. but also has a very hard time accepting most Alternative C.T.s simply because of the number of people that it would need to involve combined with the human inability to keep secrets, I haven’t seen either JTK or Chris post anything that either supports a complete A.C.T. or anything that can explain Building 7s collapse or the numerous aerodynamic anomalies involved with Hanjour flying a Boeing 757 at approx 450 M.P.H.[which is over a 100 MPH past its Maximum Operating Capacity for that near sea-level altitude] straight into the Pentagon, just maybe 10 feet above the ground, and without causing any ground damage [though his pilot instructors say he couldn't properly control a little Cessna] to impact leaving such a small entrance “wound” while leaving a perfectly round all the way to the C-ring, supposedly caused by the aircraft’s landing gear. I do agree with JTK assertion that the one who is posing the hypothesis is the one who must provide the evidence. Well, the government gave us this Official Story concerning The Pentagon, yet they won’t release anything to back up their story about the Pentagon. If it was the landing gear that made that hole, why wasn’t there a photograph of the landing gear in-sit-u? Or why won’t the government release the numerous videos they have? What possible reasons could they really have for not showing us those videos ten years later, except that they have something to hide? Any answers to that, JTK?

    Recently, the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth discovered, upon analysis of the Flight Data Recorder [aka Black Box] they received via a FOIA request from the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] that the sensor on the Pilot’s Cabin-door–which updated every 4 seconds–shows that the Cabin door was in the “closed” position the entire flight. Some have asked why it didn’t show “open” for when the Pilot’s entered, but the FDR doesn’t start recording until the engines are started, and they do not take off if the FDR is not operating correctly. This is a simple binary based system, ie., 0=closed 1=open and unlikely to have malfunctioned, and if it did, the FDR would have shown this. None of the “Official Agencies” have cared to comment on this. But it’s hard to believe Hanjour could have gotten the Cabin door open, subdued the two pilots, who were big guys, gotten them out of their seats and out the door, while managing to get himself inside and close the door behind him, in under 4 seconds. But I do remain open-minded, and that’s essential for all of us! Hell, I want them to prove me wrong when I believe they are lying their a**es off, as they have proven to have done over and over, time and again, as recently revealed with all the documents proving corruption Wiki-leaks has made public. No wonder they want to illegally kill him, or try him under the Espionage Act–but if they do that, are they going to also prosecute the people at The Times and The Guardian and Der Speigal (sic?) who helped him release these papers? I doubt it seriously. But then we’ve proven to be the world’s biggest hypocrites, who prosecute others for War Crimes but have made all U.S. Officials immune to prosecution by anyone. Of course, this won’t last. It would be unconstitutional, of course, but that doesn’t seem to matter. Sometimes I think that what was really destroyed on 9/11 wasn’t 4 buildings, but the Bill of Rights, and, by our reactions, America’s moral “image”, which turned out to be quite “imaginary!” It’s sad, because if it was Islamic Terrorists, then surely they have already won, because they caused us to, as Benjamin Franklin said, “give up essential liberties for temporary safety [or at least the illusion of safety].” Franklin believed those cowardly enough to commit this grave error deserved neither safety nor freedom. But what we should really be worried about is peak-oil, over-population, and the corporatism which has replaced our democratic Republic. But I don’t think anyone actually wants to believe 9/11 was in any way made or even just allowed to happen due to the directions of our government, no matter that our government has a very bad record of doing this; so, I would personally welcome any evidence that conclusively proved what the government told us happened was actually what happened.

  • JTK January 4, 2011

    @Alan

    The Maximum Operating Capacity (are you sure the right word is capacity?) is another myth that truthers like to repeat. The is a maximum safe operating speed but that has no connection to the actual maximum speed. It isn’t a physical limit, its like a sign on the side of the road saying not to go faster. The plane does not just stop going faster or fall apart. Now that you are aware of that please don’t repeat the standard truther lie.

    Don’t claim nothing has been released if you haven’t actually looked. I have. Would you like to see some links? Here is the photo of the landing gear. http://layscience.net/node/124?page=1
    Now ask yourself a question… it took me seconds to find this photo. Seconds, not minutes. How is it even remotely possible that all the truther websites haven’t found it? Why weren’t you aware of it? Personally I would take that as a sign that the websites you go to aren’t interested in the truth. How could anyone running such a website, claiming to be interested in the truth, writing books and making videos, not have found that photo? Incompetence or… are they lying in order to make their conspiracy theory look more believable? The videos you mention have been released but you haven’t actually looked for them. I just googled them and look what I found. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a64559be87

    If you want more please search. You won’t have any problem at all finding them. Again, ask yourself why truther websites need to avoid those photos and videos.

    How about some eyewitness testimony?
    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Crash_Evidence
    http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.html

    How hard was that? Why do the truther websites claim that videos haven’t been released when they have and I can provide sources? They are lying to you. I proved it. What possible reason could they have to lie to their readers while still claiming to be interested in the truth? Do they maybe have books and videos to sell? Any answers to that, Alan? Please be honest. If my few seconds of googling things has shown you that your sources are leaving out critical information then please say so.

    As for the flight door not being opened, I have heard that the data port wasn’t reading properly. Apparently the same flight data recorder showed that the cockpit door wasn’t opened on a long trans-oceanic flight shortly before 9/11. A flight that long with no food for the pilots, nobody needing to take a leak? Considering that there are recordings of telephone calls from people on the plane at the time I find the data port issue to be in contradiction to the other facts. Were all of those passengers lying as part of a massive spontaneous conspiracy to allow themselves to be killed? You can’t actually believe that can you?

    I’m not sure what you mean about me saying nothing that supports an alternative collapse theory. I have spoken about physics and structural steel and shown that the claims truthers spew are in direct contradiction with science and with the video evidence of the collapse. Countless photos of the Pentagon crash are available on the internet but if you only go to truther websites they won’t show you the ones that don’t support their so-called theory.

    In short, your sources leave out critical information in an attempt to deceive you. You have been fooled by liars who often seem to have books and videos they want to pump. Please make an attempt to verify their claims on your own.

  • JTK January 4, 2011

    Often when challenged on matters of fact truthers will go from discussing the things that occured on 9/11 and switch to discussing motives. If this was an episode of a cop drama on television someone would probably use a phrase like “means, motive, and opportunity.” When people are discussing the facts of the collapse it usually revolves around the means. Sometimes they discuss opportunity. When challenged however they tend to retreat from discussing the facts and change the subject to motives, like Alan and others have done above.

    Let me give you a hypothetical example of how disengenuous that is. Lets say that my father died and I inherited his house. That means I had motive to kill my father as I stood to profit from his death. Naturaly that motive would be completely irrelevant if I was across the continent at the time and had neither means nor opportunity. I am sure that even truthers can see that motives are meaningless if there is neither means nor opportunity.

    In the future when discussing the facts of 9/11 do not change the subject to motives. Without means and opportunity, motive is virtually meaningless.

  • Mark January 4, 2011

    There’s good claims and bad claims about 9/11 complicity. Neither the “truth movement” nor the “debunkers” seem interested in that.

    The “debunkers” ignore extremely well documented evidence that at least 15 countries provided warnings, some of them very specific, to the Bush administration. FBI agents tried to stop 9/11. The Defense Intelligence Agency was tracking some of the hijackers before 9/11 (see “Able Danger”). A good place to start on these facts is the amazing compilation at historycommons.org, formerly the Center for Cooperative Research.

    Neither the 9/11 Commission Report nor most of the “Truth Movement” has been interested in the fact the CIA was conducting a “plane into building” exercise at the National Reconnaissance office (in charge of the spy satellites) at the moment 9/11 started. The CIA itself leaked this to the Associated Press in 2002, it was even covered by the SF Chronicle, but there was no followup.

    Mr. Sunstein’s notorious proposal for “cognitive infiltration” has been a reality for a very long time. The perpetrators of these Crimes of State seed false claims into the discussion to discredit citizen concerns — this was done to successfully sabotage public inquiries into the coup against President Kennedy and was done against the 9/11 Truth Movement. Sunstein’s article even mentions how some of us say the “no plane hit Pentagon” claim was government sponsored disinformation but neglected to mention that it was Donald Rumsfeld who was behind it.

    The demolition theories are also an enormous distraction (or worse). The firefighters watched the towers and WTC 7 buckle before they fell down. The collapses of the towers initiated at the points the planes hit the buildings. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, but it did have a twenty story gash in the south side caused by parts of the collapsing towers smashing into it. By 2 pm that afternoon the fire department reported the building was creaking and would probably fall down.

    It would help if the 9/11 truth movement focused on best evidence such as suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames, but there are too many egos invested in the false claims for that sort of fact checking to happen.

    The three letter agencies will be teaching “no planes” and “demolition” in their propaganda training courses for decades to come as an example of how to get away with monstrous crimes.

  • JTK January 5, 2011

    Mark, the debunkers ignore no such things. The awareness of possible attacks at the time is well known and no rational person hides it. If you can find a citation of a debunker denying those published facts, cite your sources. I have yet to hear of anyone denying those facts, truther or debunker. You should at least try to back up those claims, or change your opinions if the facts don’t match. The debunkers are very interested in the good claims since they are only determined to be good claims after rational analysis, which is performed by debunkers and not truthers.

    Truthers lie. Truthers make ridiculous claims about scientific fact and then change the subject when they get challenged. Truthers display clear evidence of a paranoid mindset. Those few truthers who focus on actual evidence get little to no attention because even their claims fall flat when analyzed.

    Many of your other points however sound like more paranoia. The paranoid mindset often results in strange claims. There are people who think that Wikileaks is a government conspiracy to leak its own secrets in order to justify a crackdown. Once people go that far down the rabbit hole there is very little chance that rational thought will ever get them out.

  • Jay January 6, 2011

    Be nice to JTK, he’s just earning his pay spreading disinformation and wasting people’s time that might otherwise be spent in activism.

  • JTK January 6, 2011

    Congratulations on having the guts to speak up, Jay, while not having the guts to cite any disinformation or any factual error at all.

    Classic! This is what is so great about talking to truthers. They are outstanding at revealing their paranoiad and lying nature.

    Give an example of this disinformation. I know you can’t, I know you either lie or never return. I’ve been through this before with other truthers, birthers, creationists.. they are functionally the same in arguments. When challenged with the facts they are unwilling to admit anything at all and have no choice but to deceive.

    Please come back, Jay. You have such potential to make all truthers look bad.

  • Mark January 7, 2011

    The “no plane hit Pentagon” nonsense was disinformation first disseminated by War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on October 12, 2001. There shouldn’t be any question about his lack of sincerity.

    This sort of fake evidence is similar to false claims inserted into efforts to investigate the removal of President Kennedy from office. A resource that is especially recommended for that is Gaeton Fonzi’s memoire “The Last Investigation. Fonzi was on the staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations and writes about how the three letter agencies fed the committee disinformation to soak up their time, it had kernels of truth in it but the bits of fact went nowhere and kept them from more productive inquiries. This summary does not do his book the justice it deserves, it’s one of the most important books on the Kennedy assassination, almost as important as James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters.

    Meanwhile, the fact that numerous US allies gave specific warnings about 9/11, who, what, where, when – is sourced to many mainstream articles but few are interested in connecting the dots to show that the attacks were not a surprise to the White House. That’s a different argument than the Thermite Theory (which I do not believe in) but it has the advantage of solid documentation.

    I’ve love to see a real investigation into why the CIA was conducting a “plane into building” exercise at the National Reconnaissance Office next to Dulles Airport as 9/11 unfolded. Sorry that my “coincidence meter” overloads on this one. This is another fact that got mainstream press coverage yet no mention in the 9/11 Commission Report. It’s much more fun to debunk the “no plane” BS than to demand democratic accountability for suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames.

  • Grant January 7, 2011

    Lol, JTK is definately a government stooge. Check out the link to the you tube video with the CGI inserted that he tries to pass of as “evidence”. Hilarious. So completely duped.

    For every 911myths , there is a dozen other interpretations. How about this from your ratical link?

    “# Conclusive proof of what hit the Pentagon is not available due to parking lot videos and materials similar being held secret by the government. Documents need to be released. Similar types of documents are in the hands of the public in New York regarding the WTC towers. We need full disclosure from the FBI.”

    Feel free to release the actual video from various cameras anytime you want, but alas, you know you cant & you know they wont. I dont doubt it was a plane that hit the pentagon, but how it did it, which way it came from & who set it up, you cant prove.

    Most people can believe the possibility of 1 WTC tower collapsing, but not 3. 3 buildings designed to withstand that very type of event. WTC7 not even being directly hit, but a little bit of debris hits it (with less structural damage than say the oklahoma bombing) & a bit of a fire & the whole thing implodes into its footprint? When other buildings can be on fire for days & not collapse? With most of the people from the FBI & IRS just happening to not be there that day? A military excercise on that even the very same day, simulating that very event? Just like the london bombings?

    Hundreds of dodgy trading transactions that day. Missing ( whoops) important records from the FBI & IRS. Passports from the “terrorists” plane survives & is found on the ground when not even a fart from the building is left intact? Why the urge to destroy the evidence of the building so quick? Ive read the 911 myths & the JREF government responses…puhhleeease.

    The NIST report was just a government sham designed to fool people.

    “The conspiracy MUST be vast, why else would every firefighter who was in or near building 7 and lost friends and family that day be hiding the fact that the buildings were destroyed by explosives?”

    What the? How would they even see any explosives? They were concentrating on fighting fires, but many heard explosions & most believe it looked like a CD.

    You already said you wont look at any evidence, so why pretend you would? I know your probably trying to be all patriotic & defend the world against those evil ‘terroists” & provide some sort of reason why the hell you should invade iraq or afghanistan. Oh yeah, I know its the (oil, opium) WMD’s & terroists? Sheeesh there’s a fox news lover born every day isnt there?

  • JTK January 8, 2011

    Mark, I believe you are wrong with your claims re who started the no plane hitting the pentagon conspiracy theory. Cite your sources, actual sources (no internet video.)

  • JTK January 8, 2011

    Grant! Congratulations on being yet another paranoiac who can’t accept that people with rational and honest questions aren’t part of the massive conspiracy. You reveal a great deal about how screwed up your thinking is. Honest people can accept honest questioning, only those who are aware of how flawed their claims are need to pretend that people who question them are all government tools. CGI inserted? What planet are you from? You don’t think a plane hit the pentagon despite the eyewitness testimony of people who saw it fly overhead? I like your kind of truther because of how ashamed the rational kind of truthers are of you. Please don’t stop with your nuttiness.

    You quoted something but didn’t say who. You say the video from various cameras wasn’t released but I provided a link to it. In other words the evidence contradicts your opinion. You are wrong, I proved you wrong before you spoke. Please smarten up.

    Your claims about wtc7 are also false. I linked photos of how damaged wtc7 was, please do not make claims that disagree with the photographic evidence. Psychologists could tell you a great deal about what kind of mentality would disagree with photographic evidence.

    Your questions about other buildings on fire I have responded too earlier as well. Please try to keep up.

    Who destroyed evidence of the building? Didn’t one of my links go to a direct transcript of a company involved in the recovery and didn’t that transcript completely contradict your opinion?

    You exhibit the classic signs of a sloppy thinker. How would the firefighters NOT have seen huge lines of det cord strung across the floors, as the demolitions experts state would have been the case?

    And here’s the kicker: I did not say I would not look at the evidence. That is a lie. Youtube videos with no citations are not evidence. If you could back up your idiotic claims with actual citations you would have. All truthers run into this problem. Why would anyone who can provide actual citations refuse and require me to watch hours of videos and buy several books? You cannot honestly expect people to do that. Only dishonest people or complete and total fools would believe what you believe. Are you a fool, a liar, or both? I vote fool.

    Your opinions on how I would be ‘all patriotic’ are absolute trash. You know absolutely nothing about me other than that I ask questions that you can’t answer honestly. I don’t watch Fox.

    As usual the truthers come out all guns blazing and wind up getting shot down in flames.

    Have some guts. If you can back up any truther claims with actual citations (once again, that means that youtube videos don’t cut it.) You know that you wouldn’t watch hours of footage if I asked you to yet you expect me to do that if you ask? That makes you not just a fool but also a hypocrite.

    Smarten up. Be more rational. Be more skeptical. Look up the difference between skepticism and cynicism. Your words make it clear that you are paranoid. Either deal with the questions I raise or admit that you can’t.

    Bring it on, truthers. The more of you speak the more nuts all of you appear. Congratulations on that.

  • Grant January 9, 2011

    Woooah, ease up killer. Cmon, your getting paid for this sort of crap so lighten up captain red neck.

    Honest people can accept honest questioning? Well why cant you accept any questioning without your rants, rhetoric, CGI, ad hom or lies? If the whole 911 event was so straight forward & easy to explain, then people wouldnt be discussing it by the thousands 10 years later would they? If the NIST report & other bits of evidence were so convincing, then there wouldnt be so much resistance would there? But to scientists, engineers, pilots & other experts as well as on the ground witnesses its not all so plausible the explanation you so willingly accept. Are they all just paranoic people?

    Answer me this, since you are so open to honest questioning. Why are you so determined to defend the official theory? What’s in it for you? What is gained by you converting me to your belief? What is so wrong with another independent enquiry?

    ” CGI inserted? What planet are you from?” . Are you so conned that you think that video is real & then you get worked up because I wont accept it as evidence? The first 2 comments on that video summed up exactly how I felt when i saw it.

    “OMG where have I seen that explosion before….i remember, that looks like the exact same ones i see when I play Twisted Metal 2 for my Playstation” &

    “OMG!

    “A poor video editing job is what hit the Pentagon !!!!!!!!!!!!”

    It’s sad if you really want adults to believe that crap, because even kids dont believe that 1980′s CGI.

    ” You don’t think a plane hit the pentagon despite the eyewitness testimony of people who saw it fly overhead?”

    In all your government spin fervour, you didnt bother to actually read what I said & instead, decided to build a stawman. Its still there for everyone including you to scroll up & see. Here it is again copied & pasted from above capt strawman.

    ” I dont doubt it was a plane that hit the pentagon, but how it did it, which way it came from & who set it up, you cant prove.”

    Care to revise? Or maybe build another strawman or create another red herring?You see, there it is, I believe a plane hit the pentagon. I just dont accept the official story. I accept this version:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

    “You say the video from various cameras wasn’t released but I provided a link to it”

    No, what you have done is been duped & then tried to convince me of your 1980′s CGI.

    “Your claims about wtc7 are also false. I linked photos of how damaged wtc7 was”

    Please point to where. I couldn’t see it & please dont ask me to read through dozens of links. Just the one photo or link that proves it, WT7 on its own thanks.

    “Your questions about other buildings on fire I have responded too earlier as well. Please try to keep up.”

    No you didnt, unless of course I should accept rhetoric as evidence, in which case, I’m sure you will accept mine as evidence.

    ” How would the firefighters NOT have seen huge lines of det cord strung across the floors”

    Building dont have false ceilings anymore? Amazing. Any other red herrings?

    ” If you could back up your idiotic claims with actual citations you would have”

    Wait a sec…you back you claims up with rhetoric, strawmans, red herrings, links that dont work, you tube & blogs & you want me to produce citations? Can you guess what idiot wrote this? : ” (once again, that means that youtube videos don’t cut it.) ” Scroll up & check the name next to the only person that has posted a you tube clip, as I know your memory isn’t good.

    How about we have a fist fight. You fight with your hands & legs tied behind your back & I will use MMA, sound fair?

    “As usual the truthers come out all guns blazing and wind up getting shot down in flames.”

    If that was the case, then the debates would have stopped years ago wouldn’t they? Not good at logic are you? Why are you still trying to defend it after all these years? Can you pass me to your supervisor & we will continue the discussion? Cos son, you fail.

  • JTK January 10, 2011

    Again, you are being paranoid. I don’t get paid to say anything. I just happen to know how crazy truther claims are. You haven’t cited a single thing I said that was untrue. You rant and rave and look wacko. You can’t cite any sources for any claims and you know it and instead you just spew off junk. You deny a video is real with a classic “photoshop! I’ve seen a few shops in my day” line of bunk. I can prove where the plane came from and what angle it struck the building at, and my links have shown that. Including eyewitness testimony from people on the street, employees of gas stations, cab drivers… all of that is available. Well, it is for honest people. Here’s that link by the way, the one you will find some childish excuse to pretend are fakes or something. http://www.dalimunthe.com/2010/03/top-ten-photos-911-conspiracy-nuts-hate.html

    You have made it clear that you aren’t a rational person. You don’t accept evidence, you believe those who confront your idiocy are in the pay of some vast conspiracy aka ‘the gubmint.’ You exhibit many signs of paranoia and delusion. Anyone who disagrees must be a plant, any evidence that disagrees with your nuttiness must be fake, and not a single thing will ever change your mind. You are immune to reason. Your beliefs are not based on reason, they are religious in character. No evidence will ever be enough. Trutherism is your god.

    All you have is rants and ravings, the same kind of denial that creationists and birthers trot out.

    Once again, I am glad you spoke up. As usual truthers who try to defend their claims look utterly insane.

  • JTK January 10, 2011

    Bring it on truthers. None of you can hide your craziness when you have to deal with open discussion.

  • Mark January 11, 2011

    Cite your sources, actual sources …

    Donald Rumsfeld first floated the “missile” nonsense re: the Pentagon attack in Parade Magazine, in an October 12, 2001 interview. I have links to the source material at

    http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html

    The “no plane” and its variations are 100% BS. Doesn’t mean that those who believe them are not sincere, but it was a slick hoax. Tons of plane debris were picked from the rubble, the passenger bodies were all identified, even the luggage was extracted from the ruins. There is zero doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

    There is also zero doubt that the top echelons of the administration knew about 9/11 in advance, they were provided enormous amounts of specific warnings from allied countries, even from within the federal government. Now it’s extremely unlikely every claim for this is true, but it’s even less likely that every claim for foreknowledge is untrue.

    A good place to start about the warnings is the Complete 9/11 Timeline at http://www.historycommons.org

    Most of the people focused on the alleged demolition of the towers and WTC 7 go out of their way to ignore the actual evidence about suppressed warnings. And few of the debunkers ever mention the warnings or the “plane into building” exercise during 9/11. Divide and conquer works well in a polarized society.

  • JTK January 11, 2011

    Your source has some issues, and not just that they also discuss JFK and world war 4. They speculate that Rumsfeld was the source of the no-plane hoax, but they provide no evidence. Then later on they state that the no-plane hoax started a week before with a french guy. Have you read your sources? How is it that Rumsfeld started it a week after a french guy did? Overall that source is a good example of a relatively rational trutherism however. The paranoia is still there but at least they accept a great deal of the science.

    Yes, members of the administration were made aware of the possibility of an attack. Enormous amounts? No. Some, yes. But do you really think that those ‘upper echelons’ would allow this to happen? Thousands dead? Do you really think they are sociopaths? How could all of those data analysts who knew those pieces of information not have come forward in the years since? If it was truly known that it would occur, someone well below President would have been the one to know it first. Where is he? Is he a sociopath, did he want thousands to die?
    You think conspiracy is more likely than incompetence or lack of concern? You think that even with people who were there at the time having left politics and written books critical of Bush, those people who allowed thousands to die, those sociopaths are all still working together to keep it secret that it was a nefarious plot? Are you so absolute in your convictions that it could not have been anything other than a conspiracy, allowing zero chance of any other possibility such as incompetence? All of the people involved over all those years, capable of allowing thousands of deaths on 9/11, all sociopaths by necessity. Isn’t it unreasonable, very like religious thinking, to deny even the slightest possibility anything other than their being part of a vast conspiracy?

    I am assuming you have no concerns with what I have said about the properties of steel. It looks like you don’t believe that explosives were used.

    Your willingness to see sociopathy in the behavior of others is a concern however. Often people fear in others what they secretly fear in themselves.

  • JTK January 11, 2011

    Truthers, when challenged, often wind up avoiding the topic of what kind of mindset those they are accusing would have had in order to allow this to go ahead.

    By ignoring the fact that they expect countless strangers to be sociopaths they reveal that they see others as sociopaths, which implies that they see sociopathy in themselves. I have enjoyable conversations with Psych professors on that subject now and then.

  • JTK January 11, 2011

    Truthers who want to defend their claims in a rigorous manner may be interested in this site:
    http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/the-911-untruth-challenge?id=2684079%3ATopic%3A836585&page=1#comments

    Be prepared to make positive claims and back them up. They don`t tolerate the standard truther evasions.

  • Mike January 11, 2011

    This JTK guy’s a nutcase. O.o He believes the 911 Commission. Not evn the 911 Commission themselves believe the offical conspiracy theory they published.

  • rpdiplock January 12, 2011

    My Dear … JTK

    Who suggests that only irrational people believe in ‘conspiracies: I would like to preface your suggestions with …

    There are none so blind as those who will not see …

    I’m afraid that you appear to conform with your very own definition of an ‘irrational advocate,’ for the indefensible.

    It might not have occurred to you that most mug-punters, out in the wide world, are only asking for simple evidence, to explain something which is tremendously complex. Samples of such ‘simple’ evidence, could be in the form of … black boxes, fragmentary material of actual aircraft, etc. Simple, plausible evidence.

  • JTK January 12, 2011

    Welcome to the fray, rpd. Baseless accusations have no merit. Back up your accusations. If I am conforming to whatever, back it up. Rants and ravings by the deluded are common on conspiracy theorist websites, I’m calling people out when I see irrationality and explaining where it is. If you can justify your words please do. Otherwise you are just a ranting loonie in the wilderness, a streetcorner preacher with no attachment to reality.

    Back up what you say if you think its worth speaking at all.

    I hope you turn out to be as much of a nutcase as the rest of them have. The level of nuttery is just what I expected.

  • JTK January 12, 2011

    I refuted your claim Mike. Are you ignoring that? Are you changing the subject? Why would you change the subject unless you felt like I had gotten the better of you?

    You answer none of my questions and respond to none of my points. You only come back with evasions. Once again you have shown how you are incapable of defending your beliefs in a rational way. They are not reasonable, they are religious in nature. You are a true believer, might as well be a creationist.

    Keep it coming, but please have the guts to answer the questions and admit when your claims are refuted. If you perform this badly all the time your self esteem wiill suffer and who knows what the result would be in a person with such a paranoid disposition.

  • Grant January 13, 2011

    “Again, you are being paranoid. I don’t get paid to say anything.”

    Ok, well, since you have so conveniently dodged my earlier question & moved onto others like you have derided others for doing, please go back & answer it for me. You seem to be insulting towards people when they dont believe what they are told to believe. Again, I’ll repeat:

    Why are you so determined to defend the official theory? What’s in it for you? What is gained by you converting me to your belief? What is so wrong with another independent enquiry? Why do you desire to supress this?

    “I can prove where the plane came from and what angle it struck the building at, and my links have shown that. Including eyewitness testimony from people on the street, employees of gas stations, cab drivers”

    And I can do the same in reverse,with qualified experts witnessing the plane coming in via a different path & including the cab driver saying it was set up.

    You havn’t proved anything. All you have done is asked us to do what you refused yourself. To click on links & read through volumes of links. You even provided a you tube link, when you yourself said you tube clips dont cut it….when we want to use them. You rant & rave & throw around insults to everyone who wont accept your belief, which shows you are more interested in intimidation & rhetoric than anything else.

    “No. Some, yes. But do you really think that those ‘upper echelons’ would allow this to happen? Thousands dead?”

    Wow, you really are duped. You have a trillion dollar a year military, which employs millions of people, which has flow on effects to millions more. If you stop waging war, you stop the businesses & factories & employment & finaly votes. You needed oil & needed heroin after the Taliban destroyed 90% of the poppy fields, hence, why you invaded iraq & afghanistan & needed an excuse. Funny that. No WMD’s & No Osama & the poppy fields are producing more than they ever have, despite satelittes that can pin point them.

    “those sociopaths are all still working together to keep it secret that it was a nefarious plot?”

    There didn’t need to be that many people in control of the events. 99% of the government including Bush could be entirely left out of the loop & so, when it happened, they all just followed the motions & believed what they were told. So there is no need to lay around in hope that one of these 1000′s of government officials involved will somehow reveal the big one. It only needed to take 10-20 people to set it up. Like the entrance builders to the pyramids, they were probably all killed off.

    “Are you so absolute in your convictions that it could not have been anything other than a conspiracy, allowing zero chance of any other possibility such as incompetence?”

    No, I am open to the posibility that you are right & you very well might be. But after all the years of reading & participating in forums & seeing dozens of cases for evidence put forward, it still doesn’t sit right & there is so many coincidences for that day that makes the whole thing smell fishy.

    “I am assuming you have no concerns with what I have said about the properties of steel”

    Amazingly, all other buildings that have been nearly entirely on fire for days , or planes that have hit buildings or buildings that have had half of them destroyed like oklahoma have not collapsed like 3 in one day on 911.

    “Truthers who want to defend their claims in a rigorous manner may be interested in this site:”

    Would you like me to direct you to several 911 conspiracy sites, where you can contribute & see if they will all come around to your belief with your charm & people skills?

    “They are not reasonable, they are religious in nature. You are a true believer, might as well be a creationist.”

    I’m an atheist & a member of a few skeptic forums, so good luck with that. I debate the creationists also. There is a large amount of faith based belief in your writings, so it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Grant January 13, 2011

    By the way, your 10 ten link shows next to nothing about WT7, just some back shots & distance shots. Whoopee. Sooooo excited & defeated.

  • JTK January 13, 2011

    Grant! Don’t be ridiculous. What is in it for you defending the truther story? Are you getting paid? Can you see how those questions are an evasion, a way of changing the subject from matters of fact to paranoid accusations?

    Do not claim you can prove the pentagon plane travelled a path other than that which the witnesses agree on. You make that claim and you will not back it up.

    You are utterly and hopelessly paranoid. You believe that a group of people had complete and total control of the truth and killed themselves off in order to keep themselves from revealing themselves.

    Face facts. You make bizarre claims and I am absolutely certain you will never back them up. You will never provide any information showing the pentagon attack occurred in a way that disagrees with the eyewitnesses. I believe that you are lying about having that information.

    Your claims that all other buildings on fire for that duration did not collapse is blatantly false. I have already provided evidence to the contrary. You either ignore it or you are making your lies up as you go along. Check those links. You are wrong on that and it is proven with inescapable facts. Please smarten up.

    Call my bluff. Bring it or be known as a liar. I’ve been through these conversations with liars before and I think its great. By exposing you as paranoid and delusional I expose the truther movement as fueled by delusions and paranoia.

    You may be a member of skeptic forums but you are in no way a skeptic. You are paranoid and your beliefs contradict the facts which I have shown you. A true skeptic will alter his opinions to fit the facts. A cynic will deny those facts in order to keep his opinions.

    No more evasions, no more games. No more lies. My links showed the building 7 itself. Do not lie when anyone reading can click on the link and see your lie for what it is.

    So, to sum up, you are a deluded paranoid lying cynic. Please seek medical attention. If you can back up your lies, please try. I will enjoy seeing you dig yourself deeper into a web of deceit.

    Keep it coming.

  • JTK January 13, 2011

    As for truther websites, the pattern is the same there. When challenged to debate the facts they turn to evasions and deception. When challenged on their evasions they, like Grant and the others here, make claims that they cannot back up and then they lie in order to avoid having to back up those claims. I have been to those sites and you know what? They delete these kinds of conversations. They know where they money comes from. They sell ads to other truther sites, they sell books, they sell videos, they push their authors as speakers. When someone comes along and shows the errors of the truther story the sites have a monetary interest in blocking them. I have seen many debunker topics deleted when the truth got inconvenient for truthers. Perhaps you have too? If you care so much about defending trutherism (which, by your own reasoning, implies that you get paid to do so) you must have noticed the disappearance of threads.

    Bring it on, paranoiacs!

    Oh, and I am calling you a liar again Grant. You claim there is a large amount of faith based belief in my writings. I know you are making that up as an evasion and I know you will never back it up no matter how often I challenge you to. I know you are scrambling for any evasion that might make you look lie you haven’t completely failed to defend your truther religion. You will fail at that too.

    Reason doesn’t need lies to defend it, Grant. If you believe in trutherism so strongly you will naturally be able to back up your lies, right?

    Or will you avoid that challenge? I am guessing that most readers here can see right through you. I’m even guessing that if you read your own comments you will see how evasive and deceitful you are. Naturally you won’t admit it due to your cognitive dissonance issues.

  • Grant January 14, 2011

    “What is in it for you defending the truther story?”
    The USA has gone to war killing thousands of innocent people on a false flag. Even if the 911 events are as you say, the resulting wars were unjust, unsactioned, has cost & continues to cost thousands of lives. Ok, Ive laid my cards on the table, now please stop avoiding the question, answer now .Why?

    “Do not claim you can prove the pentagon plane travelled a path other than that which the witnesses agree on. You make that claim and you will not back it up.”

    The official flight path does not match the data, it’s only 1 minute long, I’m sure you can bear that.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Q8nSEeUec&feature=player_embedded

    “You will never provide any information showing the pentagon attack occurred in a way that disagrees with the eyewitnesses”

    This whole video is witnesses who don’t agree with the official flight path to the pentagon. Police, workers in the cemetery, navy annex etc.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

    If you can’t be bothered looking at any of it, at least look at 1:11:40, where the cab driver from the magic cab , hit by a light pole that was hit by a 400mph plane punches a neat hole through his windscreen & leaves no scratches on his bonnet. Where he admits it was set up.

    “Your claims that all other buildings on fire for that duration did not collapse is blatantly false.”

    Really?

    http://wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

    “My links showed the building 7 itself.”

    From the back. Please show pictures from the front, where it was hit.

    “Or will you avoid that challenge? I am guessing that most readers here can see right through you. I’m even guessing that if you read your own comments you will see how evasive and deceitful you are”

    I’m willing to lay my bets that they think precisely that of you & your hypocrisy.

    Got any more 1980′s CGI? That stuff was cool.

    Yes viewers stay tuned & get your bingo sheets out ready for how many times JTK can say a word featuring the “paranoid” or variations. We had to throw away the ad hom bingo sheet, as too many people were winning.

  • Grant January 14, 2011

    The Oklahoma bombing had more structural damage than WT7, yet it remained standing.

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/murrah.jpg

    Show me WT7 with more damage than that.

    The news reporter announcing WT7 had collapsed………………before it had actually collapsed was gold too.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aTig6QfQ1iI/R3b1vfpt6uI/AAAAAAAABlM/haGlLh9_7IU/s320/wtc%2B7%2B-jane_standley_wtc-7.jpg

    More buildings that have burned for hours & not collapsed.

    http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

    The FBI & IRS have their offices in a building they decided was so strong & indestructible, that a small chunk out of the fascade & a fire collapsed it….righht.

  • JTK January 14, 2011

    Once again Grant you act the hypocrite. I show a video and you make a baseless claim that it was CGI and then you bring out an unsourced video? You expect me to watch and hour and twenty minutes worth of video? No. Bring out your sources. No unsourced junk. If the eyewitnesses supposedly disagree with the flight path, where are they and why aren’t they mentioning it? They would have to be part of the conspiracy, which means you think they are sociopaths as well. Wow, you really are revealing a great deal about your own psychology.

    If you thought this was actual evidence then you would take it to court. The fact that you and the other truthers have not taken this issue to court implies that you don’t actually think it is evidence. Your actions do not match your words. You suspect people of killing thousands and you have evidence to destroy the ‘official’ story and you don’t press charges? You truly are a sociopath.

    Don’t lie about my links either. I gave you a link to top ten photos truthers hate and you ignore it. Do not make claims that contradict the evidence. Once again that makes you appear truly insane. Did you click on the link?

    Here are pentagon eyewitness accounts. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

    Try this one: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home

    You, who has no knowledge of structural steel, are going to argue about whether other buildings have collapsed? I already provided a link refuting your crazy claim, but here it is again. I assume you will click it this time? Or are you afraid? There is no need to watch hours of video, just text and links to actual sources. http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

    You are truly nuts. I bring video evidence, you claim CGI and respond with unsourced video… wow.

    The Oklahoma building was a vastly different structure. Why are you comparing apples to oranges? The twin towers were of an unusual design. If you can’t deal with the reality, if you can’t accept that the people who actually build buildings have proof that you are wrong, then please seek psychological help. They would have to all be part of the conspiracy too, which means you are accusing millions of people of being sociopaths.

    Again and again you use evasion and deception. You imply that countless people are sociopaths and that they have all managed to spontaneously join a conspiracy to hide the truth and somehow kept that secret for nine years.

    You are truly insane. No sane person would believe in so many sociopaths.

    No more lies Grant. If you can’t admit that I have shown you photos, if you need to pretend any evidence that contradicts your unsourced videos is CGI or faked in some way, then you are done. You have already lost the argument. Even other truthers would be ashamed of your need to avoid reality.

    Every single point you raised I have dealt with earlier in this very thread. Do your homework.

    So, truthers.. why aren’t you taking this to court? Why aren’t you looking for a district attorney somewhere who happens to be a truther? They must exist. If the evidence is really evidence then you will have no trouble taking it to court. Nobody is stopping you. I provided a link to a web forum where people are discussing this issue with legal rigor. If you have information that is truly convincing, why aren’t people convinced?

    The sloppy thinking and delusions that Grant exhibits are par for the course in truther circles. Lets see you take your accusations to court if you are so convinced that you have important new information implicating a conspiracy.

    Congratulations, truthers. Yet again one of your own has been exposed as a paranoid nutcase who thinks hundreds of thousands to millions of people are sociopaths.

  • JTK January 14, 2011

    Grant! In case you feel the need to repeat your lie about a small amount missing from the facade of building 7, I will remind you that I linked to a photo that disproves your claim. Please click on the link and look at the image. Now that you know that you are wrong, admit it. Admit that building 7 took a lot of damage as shown in that photo and others. When nutcases like you make claims that contradict the evidence so obviously, even your fellow truthers will start to question your lies.

  • JTK January 14, 2011

    By the way, I have a thought on why truthers don’t take these things to court while still claiming to have vital evidence. They aren’t just liars and hypocrites, they are cowards. They are deathly afraid that looking openly and honestly at the actual evidence will destroy their precious conspiracy theory and take their self esteem along with it.

    Welcome to cognitive dissonance, truthers. Once you start to admit to yourself that you have been lied to by truther websites, that vital information such as the actual photos of the damage to building 7 have been held back by the websites you use as sources, then you will have begun the process of shedding your craziness.

  • Grant January 15, 2011

    Again JTK, you evaded the question, despite me answering yours. You are continuously evasive of this & many other questions, but demand yours to be answered & if they arent answered in accordnace to your special filters, then I’m a conspiracy nut, an idiot, paranoic, lies, bizarre. How are people going with JTK’s bingo sheet so far?

    Again, for the 4th time.

    Why are you so determined to defend the official theory? What’s in it for you? What is gained by you converting me to your belief? What is so wrong with another independent enquiry? Why do you desire to supress this 10 years after the event? You really are showing yourself to be a hysterical desperate stooge.

    “Once again Grant you act the hypocrite. I show a video and you make a baseless claim that it was CGI”

    Look, you can believe what ever you want. I’m not stopping you. Santa & the fairies are real too.

    “and then you bring out an unsourced video? ”

    Who cares if it’s unsourced? Who cares if it was grandma or the worlds best investigator? The witnesses & evidence is on there & you choose to ignore it & rant on & create red herrings with the only few things you can argue on.

    “You expect me to watch and hour and twenty minutes worth of video? No”

    JTK, you need to take a breath, wipe the foam & froth from your manic mouth & read precisely what I said & not build strawmans. Scroll up & check what I said….ahh heck, I know you don’t have that ability, so i will paste it here for you again.

    Quote from Grant: “If you can’t be bothered looking at any of it, at least look at 1:11:40, where the cab driver from the magic cab , hit by a light pole that was hit by a 400mph plane punches a neat hole through his windscreen & leaves no scratches on his bonnet. Where he admits it was set up.”

    Quick red herring time & time for you to post on your buddies forums asking for help. In the mean time red herring. Look over there!

    “Bring out your sources. No unsourced junk.”

    Seriously, can you hear yourself? Hypocrite.

    “Don’t lie about my links either. I gave you a link to top ten photos truthers hate and you ignore it. ”

    I havn’t. I’ve commented on them 3 times & will again here. There is NO frontal pictures of WT7 in your links! Am I supposed to wish them there?

    “Here are pentagon eyewitness accounts. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

    I have provided you with an hours worth of video, full back to back with witnesses who counter your story & you said you refused to look. What does that say?

    “Try this one: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home

    Oh goodie, a site that not only says no other building has been hit before , but there was no concrete cores, no cross trusses & is no better than your CGI….AND is unsourced, ye gods.

    It’s a bit like FEMA asking us to wish the cores away:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/whatcores.html

    JTK, did you like that reporter announcing WT7′ collapse….before it happened? Tee he he.

    “The Oklahoma building was a vastly different structure”

    I agree. It lost half of its supporting columns & stayed up. Quick look over there!

    “You imply that countless people are sociopaths and that they have all managed to spontaneously join a conspiracy to hide the truth”

    No I didnt, you did. Again, you have built another strawman. I’m seeing a pattern in your methods of argument. Strawmans, red herrings & ridicule.

    “Every single point you raised I have dealt with earlier in this very thread.”

    No you didn’t. You must see yourself as some luke skywalker being approached by the storm troopers & waving your hand. “Nothing to see here…move along”.

    “I provided a link to a web forum where people are discussing this issue with legal rigor. If you have information that is truly convincing, why aren’t people convinced?”

    And I can provide you many forums that disagree with you, are convinced & are still talking about it 10 years after the event, much to your dislike.

    “The sloppy thinking and delusions that Grant exhibits”

    Virtually every paragraph, you attempt to use ridicule as your form of defence & appeal to the viewer to consider mental illness. Is your case so weak that you need to continuously employ this method?

    “Grant! In case you feel the need to repeat your lie about a small amount missing from the facade of building 7, I will remind you that I linked to a photo that disproves your claim.”

    Please provide either the individual photo or the description of which photo you mean. I couldn’t see one there. But hey, it wouldn’t surprise me. Your sucked in by CGI…soooo. Or want me to be.

    “By the way, I have a thought on why truthers don’t take these things to court while still claiming to have vital evidence.”

    An enquiry of this nature would have to be sanctioned by the government, as many governnment departments files & personnel would need to be accessed. You can’t simply march up to court & say I want an enquiry. This is why, people are asking for another INDEPENDENT review. Because only the government can set such a thing up & cut the red tape.

    Now again, I will repeat the question you have so artfully dodged all this time:

    Why are you so determined to defend the official theory? What’s in it for you? What is gained by you converting me to your belief? What is so wrong with another independent enquiry? Why do you desire to supress this 10 years after the event?

  • Grant January 15, 2011

    Apologies to all those star war fans, it was Ben Kenobi waving hi hand & using Jedi mind tricks, not luke.

  • JTK January 15, 2011

    Oh, the insanity. Why do I need a reason to defend the truth other than the fact that it is the truth? I argue against the lies and sloppy thinking and irrationality of truthers, birthers, and creationists. I do it because they make false claims, like you have.

    Who cares if something is unsourced? You have got to be kidding me. That is like asking who cares if someone is lying to you. You haven’t asked me for a source on anything that I haven’t provided, which makes your hypocrisy accusations humorous. You looked at a photo of massive damage to building seven and now you are lying about what that photo shows. WTClies does not say what you claim. Why do you need to lie? Do you want the names of steel frame buildings that collapsed through fire? Here is a quote from http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

    “The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn’t collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.”

    It is ridiculous to claim it hasn’t happened before when I can name the buildings that collapsed due to fire. It ought to make you think.

    If you believe that the reporters knew building 7 was going to collapse, then they must be part of the conspiracy. That means even more sociopaths! You are seeing them everywhere.

    I have provided links to these things already and you claim I have not. Yet there they are, ready and waiting for you to click on. When you lie like that it will help me convince other truthers how off base they are. The rational ones can read your words and they will ask themselves why you lie, why you have to make bizarre CGI claims, why you insist on relying on unreliable unsourced materials. That isn’t how honest people discuss things, that is how nuts and cranks and liars discuss things. Your behavior does as much or more to convince the other nutters as the actual science does.

    I provided you the link to the photo you asked for. Don’t lie about that too, it won’t fly.

    Why would an inquiry into the slaughter of thousands of Americans need government participation? You obviously don’t understand the legal system. Even nutty truthers can take their case to court. Any of you who had the courage of their convictions would do the same if it was even remotely possible. Do you really believe that birthers have government sanction to bring an issue before the courts? I doubt it, but now you will have to claim that in order to not be taking another position that makes you look like a hypocrite. Smarten up. What red tape is there to press murder charges? Why not charge the reporter that announced that building 7 was going to collapse, which by the way was readily apparent to anyone watching television at the time. Were you old enough to watch television?

    Your paranoid insistence I have some kind of reason for attacking lies and misrepresentations is amazingly nuts. As usual the few truthers that still exist are crazy.

    Thanks for playing, wacko. Please never stop taking your meds. You might wind up shooting politicians.

    Going around and around with a liar like you serves little purpose if you won’t accept that the photos that prove you wrong exist. Anything I give you as evidence you will claim is CGI or fake or a massive government plot. You are completely nuts and off your rocker just like a creationist. You are not and have never been a skeptic, not with that kind of attitude toward evidence.

    Seek help.

  • Grant January 15, 2011

    “Why do I need a reason to defend the truth other than the fact that it is the truth?”

    Sounds like a creationist to me. What is your issue with another independent enquiry? So you see yourself as a defender of the truth? How do you feel about the resulting war in Iraq & Afghanistan?

    “You haven’t asked me for a source on anything that I haven’t provided”

    No, you have just provided links that are by no one in particular, same thing.

    “You looked at a photo of massive damage to building seven and now you are lying about what that photo shows”

    Photo’s 1 & 3 ( is it that hard to name them?) clearly shows THE BACK of WT7, not the side that has been hit, are living on planet delusion? This is the “truth” you wish to convey?

    “It is ridiculous to claim it hasn’t happened before when I can name the buildings that collapsed due to fire”

    No you havn’t. None are skyscrapers. Please provide evidence of a pancake collapse of a sky scraper that has caught on fire.

    “If you believe that the reporters knew building 7 was going to collapse, then they must be part of the conspiracy.”

    Again, your appeal to ridicule. Do you agree she said it had collapsed BEFORE it collapsed? I never said she was involved, you attempt a strawman yet again.

    “That isn’t how honest people discuss things, that is how nuts and cranks and liars discuss things.”

    Man, your attempts to discredit through ad hom & ridicule is getting a little disturbing.

    “You obviously don’t understand the legal system”

    Please provide evidence of where a legal case has been able to ask for all the email transactions for instance from that time from say, CIA, IRS, Senate & House members, NSA, FBI, Military, Airports, etc etc.

    Please give me the address to planet delusion, sounds like a nice place.

    JTK’s new word of the day….”nuts” & variations.

    “Going around and around with a liar like you serves little purpose if you won’t accept that the photos that prove you wrong exist”

    Dude, help me see this amazing frontal shot of WT7 that you can somehow see.

    “Anything I give you as evidence you will claim is CGI”

    You provided me with an unsourced you tube link, from some right wing plankton & cry when i don’t accept it & I provide you with actual flight data & you are accusing me? Get over yourself.

  • Grant January 15, 2011

    Let’s have a look at some of the comments from Larfilms ( your mate), where the you tube video of the pentagon you are demanding we accept comes from. Lets have a look at the other comments on his channel.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/larfilms

    1) your video of a plane hitting the pentagon is the most fake piece of shit video i have seen on youtube. Bitch!
    2) REMOVE the pentagon fake or you will burn in hell forever — – - THIS IS SERIOUS
    3) oh yeah and from seeing all of the comments people leave on your page really tells me how ignorant u are
    4) that video u have of the 911 pentagon crash does not prove flight 77 hit the pentagon
    5) Stupid 9/11 video
    6) ur a fuckin retard for 911 video take it off youtube u stupid jackass
    7) Nice fake Pentagon video, narc.
    We won’t buy into your bullshit. It’s an obvious fake, just like you.
    8) that is the fakest shit i’ve seen in my life….SNES quality graphics there
    9) My point, exactly, and this was a response to Larfilm or should it be Lairsfilm comments “this should put to rest all the conspiracy theorists and fake mongerers.” The image is fake.
    10) Oh my God, the plane was actually a Phillips CDi!

    There is pages & pages of pretty much the same thing. In fact there is NO ONE who is taking your position. The one you are getting so outraged about, that we are not accepting some C grade video editing job.

    Propaganda is hard to sell these days eh JTK?

    Wait a sec………. this is rather personal isnt it? This is your channel isnt it? It’s your “I learned at home ” video editing skills isnt it, that you are a little sensitive about, lol.

  • Grant January 15, 2011

    JTK, that video is the laughing stock of the internet. Here is more comments from a site who tries like you to pass it off as reality.

    http://911footage.org/videos-pentagon-plane-crash-september-th-new-%5B8Vnu_yiUzls%5D.cfm

    1) this video is s**t. that’s fake and since i knew someone there i hope you die in a f**king fire ass!
    2) Strange how there’s an edit and then the picture suddenly breaks up just before the missle comes into frame!!
    3) This is an animation, and you are a dips**t. Why do people think this is real?
    4) The explosion was bad I have to agree, but what was worse is that the mouse is in the center…
    5) lol nice 1980 video explosions !
    6) CGI!
    7) Why would these tapes have to be classified anyway ?, other than to keep the sheep from seeing the truth. Total inside job.
    8) As fake as this video is. Whatever that was in the video was still WAY smaller than a commercial jet airline.

    So the questions about your video that I’d like to ask are:

    1) Why is the video edited at 22 seconds? Why not one continuous shot?
    2) Why was the guy on his editing suite so dumb as to leave his mouse on the center of the screen?
    3) You have tried several times now to con people into believing that APPALING video edit job & CGI…why? Why so desperate?

  • Grant January 15, 2011

    An extensive collection of witnesses who disagree with your version of events.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

    Since you cant be bothered to provide a frontal photo of WT7 just before the collapse, I will.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7northface.html

    Regarding your top 10 photo’s conspiracy nuts hate. They seem to validate my claims more than yours.

    Photo 1: I’m not yet part of the “a missile hit the pentagon” crowd as yet, but really, one wheel validates the whole thing?
    Photo 2: Shows no damage
    Photo 3: Despite WTC5 & 6 having huge holes punched through the middle of them, much of their exterior destroyed & on fire, they both were left standing. Goes to show, the chances of a collapse increase with the value of the of the buildings & their contents. WT7 collapsed after a bit of shrapnel damage & a minute fire in comparison to WTC 5 & 6.
    Photo 4: Shows the 9 story WTC 5 in the center with a massive chunk out of it & completely on fire, with the 47 story WTC7 completely intact on the right of the shot.

    They help your cause how?

    WTC6 did not collapse depsite this: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/gz_aerial_wtc6.jpg

    WTC5&6 damage & no collapase:
    http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/sep1109_09_11/s04_00000001.jpg

    You are truly kidding yourself regarding WTC7, the dupe is complete.

  • Grant January 15, 2011

    Wow, someone has complained or asked to intervene, as this post is now under moderation.

  • Shelnutt January 15, 2011

    So…um…you guys okay? Let me start by saying this; Building 7 was intentionally collapsed (as the owner of the building stated in an interview), 1300 Engineers have reservations about the “official” findings. Many of the “alternative” sites that maybe at one time had good evidence have been hi-jacked (no pun intended) so the whole thing is corrupted. All I have is my evidence, and since I drove past the Pentagon everyday for quite some time, I can assure anyone that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for that size of craft to be flown into that building at that speed and angle…the objects in the path would have been destroyed, yet they were not. All video tapes were indeed confiscated, as told to me by the manager of the Gas Station that was not even 300 yards away. This is not a defense of either of you as much as it is plain fact. Most of the Commission still believes that the Official reasoning behind 9/11 is not entirely true. We can all sit here and argue over who did or didn’t do it…it was done, and we can’t change that. THE LAST THING WE NEED TO DO IS SIT HERE AND RIP EACH OTHER’S HEADS OFF! Is there not enough violence and hatred in the world? Why continue? Find something in this mess you two can agree on and start from there. Try working together (you’ll get more done). Be Well my friends.

  • Grant January 16, 2011

    Errr Shelnutt, try working together? We are from two opposing viewpoints. I’m sure JTK will at least agree with me on this one thing & that’s the events of 911.

    I’m sure we can both agree that:

    1) WTC 1 & 2 were hit by planes & collpased. Who controlled the planes & how the towers collapsed, we wont agree on.
    2) WTC 7 wasn’t hit by a plane, but collpased. We wont agree on how that happened.
    3) The Pentagon was hit by something. We wont agree on what & how it happened, or who manned what hit the pentagon.
    4) Why the events happened & the wars that followed after the event, we wont agree on.

    I’m not advocating violence towards JTK or trying to rip his head off. In fact, he is the only one that has consistently used ad hominem attacks. I believe I used very few.

  • JTK January 16, 2011

    Grant, you truly need medical help. You are a complete paranoiac that believes I must have some reason to speak about these things, presumably because you want me to be part of some massive conspiracy. The reason that I speak to idiots like you means very little, you just want to change the subject. You go to the comment thread on youtube and expect rational dialogue? WTF planet do you come from?

    You are also a hypocrite. You think any evidence I provide must have been CGI or just plane fake while also requiring that I take every single unsourced thing you have on faith. There it is again, you are like a creationist. Your trutherism is a religion and I am not allowed to disagree with your religion. You are completely and totally off your rocker.

    It is impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who is as irrational as you. You ask for examples of skyscrapers collapsing from fire as if a far smaller structure with far less weight above it isn’t much less likely to colapse? No, sorry, that is insane. You are scrambling around for some way out of your nuttiness but it isn’t working. Keep it up. Each time a complete nutjob like you shows how screwed up their brains are you make the rest of the truthers look like what they are…. screwed up paranoid nuts.

    You should take a critical thinking course, assuming you graduate.

    Just be aware that your words do a far better job of destroying the truther movement than mine do. I can’t make you look like a lying hypocritical paranoiac all by myself. Keep up the lies, keep scrambling, keep showing everyone how insane you are. Just don’t buy a gun, OK?

  • JTK January 16, 2011

    Shellnut, the owner did not state those things. Cite your sources. When you find that your sources lied, come back and admit it. That would be the honest thing to do. 1300 engineers? Well, not really. Google that. You will find that hardly any of them are structural engineers. There are some architects, there are some electrical engineers, but hardly any people who have knowledge of steel. Ask yourself why all the hundreds of thousands of structural engineers think you are wrong. After you google that to find out I am telling the truth, ask yourself why whatever website you got that ‘fact’ from was lying to you.

    I linked to photos of the pentagon earlier. Please check them out. You will see plane fragments, you will be able to watch interviews with eyewitnesses. Ask yourself why truther websites ignore those eyewitnes accounts. Ask yourself why they ignore the knocked over light poles. Ask yourself why anyone who cares as much as you apparently do could be so wrong on so many issues that could be resolved just by using a search engine. The video tapes were released under freedom of information. You can google that too and watch the video from the gas station if you want. Once you do, will you come back and admit that you were lied to?

    I can’t stand liars. You are misinformed, but not yet a liar. Once you do some basic research you will find those supposedly missing videos and find evidence of the supposedly non-existent plane and then where will you be? You, like the utterly insane paranoiac Grant, the one who sees sociopaths behind every bush, would have to lie in order to pretend those videos and photographs don’t exist.

    But its not your fault. You got lied to by truther websites, websites that virtually always have ads for truther videos and truther books. Gage, the guy from the architects group, makes 75-100k per year from this trash. All of that is publicly available information. Do yourself a favor and look into all of the facts, not just nonsensical truther quote mining and misrepresentations.

    I am hoping you turn out to be one of the rational ones, the kind that changes their opinion when confronted with evidence that contradicts their opinions. Grant is not, however. For him this is a religion. All contradictory facts get called blasphemy and ignored. All who ask uncomfortable questions get accused of being payed agents of teh big bad gubmint.

    Don’t wind up as crazy as him and the rest of the truther movement. Do some actual research.

  • Grant January 16, 2011

    JTK, you still have provided jack information & your posts have now degraded into a hilarious comedy tragedy. Comedy because you can barely get through a sentence without a personal attack & tragedy that you expect people to believe such weak links & sources.

    Let’s see.

    1) You provide 1980′s CGI, that has been edited at 22 secs as proof, when 9 out of 10 people say its a fake….& I provide actual flight data that counters the official flight path. Result…no answer & abuse for not believing it.
    2) You provide a top 10 list of photo’s that “twoofers” hate to see. Yet the WTC7 we are discussing shows in all your pictures NO DAMAGE. Instead it shows how WTC5&6 still stood despite being more than half crushed & totaly on fire….I provide evidence of WTC7 & the firres, plus comparisons of WTC5 &6….Instead you try out the tried & tested abuse.
    3) You have nothing to say about the reporter announcing WTC7 had fallen…before it had actually fallen, besides calling me a conspiracy theorist & abusing more.
    4) You have nothing to say about the cab driver admitting at 1:11:40 that he assisted to set it up….except abuse.
    5) You have nothing to say about the dozens of witnesses I have provided that saw something entirely different than your evidence…..except abuse.

    Oops, I just scrolled back & noticed one of my comments is still held up in moderation. I will post its contents in additional posts, as they must have an issue with link limits.

    JTK, I can already guess what you will say in the next comment. We only need to mix & match your assortment of professional debating top 10 ad homs.

    1) Paranoic
    2) Nutty
    3) Liar
    4) Medical help
    5) Idiot
    6) Truther
    7) Creationist
    8) Insane
    9) Nutjob
    10) Screwed up

    That’s hot JT, your a treasure trove of ……..”evidence” .

  • Grant January 16, 2011

    From previous post that is held up in moderation. Must be no mods?

    Part 1:

    An extensive collection of witnesses who disagree with your version of events.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

    Since you cant be bothered to provide a frontal photo of WT7 just before the collapse, I will.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7northface.html

  • Grant January 16, 2011

    Photo 1: I’m not yet part of the “a missile hit the pentagon” crowd as yet, but really, one wheel validates the whole thing?
    Photo 2: Shows no damage
    Photo 3: Despite WTC5 & 6 having huge holes punched through the middle of them, much of their exterior destroyed & on fire, they both were left standing. Goes to show, the chances of a collapse increase with the value of the of the buildings & their contents. WT7 collapsed after a bit of shrapnel damage & a minute fire in comparison to WTC 5 & 6.
    Photo 4: Shows the 9 story WTC 5 in the center with a massive chunk out of it & completely on fire, with the 47 story WTC7 completely intact on the right of the shot.

    They help your cause how?

    WTC6 did not collapse depsite this: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/gz_aerial_wtc6.jpg

    WTC5&6 damage & no collapase:
    http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/sep1109_09_11/s04_00000001.jpg

    You are truly kidding yourself regarding WTC7, the dupe is complete.

  • Grant January 16, 2011

    “You go to the comment thread on youtube and expect rational dialogue?”

    It was to illustrate to you that there & every other site that hosts that photo has 9 out of 10 people saying its a fake….yet you are all too willing, as it feeds your confirmation bias.

    “You are also a hypocrite. You think any evidence I provide must have been CGI or just plane fake while also requiring that I take every single unsourced thing you have on faith. There it is again, you are like a creationist. Your trutherism is a religion and I am not allowed to disagree with your religion. You are completely and totally off your rocker.”

    Translation: ……..ya got nuttingggggggg!!

    “You ask for examples of skyscrapers collapsing from fire as if a far smaller structure with far less weight above it isn’t much less likely to colapse?”

    Because a garden shed is built differently than a sckyscraper…you might not have known that.

    “No, sorry, that is insane” = You have got not proof.

    The last 3 paragraphs you dedicated entirely to just ad hominem attacks & abuse, because lets face it, your good at that at least.

  • Charles February 7, 2011

    Does anyone else see a correlation between what Cass Sunstein says and the Jared Lee Loughner “Tea party conspiracy theorist”-Shootings?

    Sunstein’s call to discredit groups includes those who challenge the official views of the 9/11 attacks, the so-called 9/11 ‘truthers.’ Sunstein acknowledges that the US government has been involved in conspiracies in the past, but he confidently believes that this is no longer a problem. (See the Truth Emergency section of this volume for more on this issue, especially chapter 6.) He claims that groups that question the events of 9/11 are dangerous and could lead some people to violence (while presenting no concrete evidence to prove this).

    I sure as hell do.

  • marvin nubwaxer March 2, 2011

    quack quack quack

  • Eric Marks May 27, 2011

    This goes out to JTK. Do you know the first sign that indicates someone hasn’t the slightest clue what they’re talking about? It is when they start acting belligerent and insulting those whose viewpoints differ. You want evidence tough guy? Go to wanttoknow.info and check out their 9/11 section, and check out the SIXTY PAGE TIMELINE of facts and events backed up by at least two well-known, reputable sources. Then take a look at the list of 50 top ranking officials who attest that the 9/11 commission report is a joke and then take a look at what over a 100 scientists, professorrs and engineers have to say on the matter.

    I have two words for you and anyone who thinks our government wouldn’t murder its own citizens. Operation Northwoods! It is an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT procured via a freedom of information act request, that details a 1963 state-department requested/approved plan to murder inncoent Americans and make it appear as though Communist Cubans were responsible. The plan even goes as far as suggesting that a southern florida terrorist campaign comitted by Americans, against Americans would be appropriate. Aww heck since you seem like you hate the truth, I’ll be happy to paste the core section of Operation Northwoods and you can then begin insulting me too.

    13 March 1962
    MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
    Subject: Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba

    The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which could provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.

    It is assumed that a single agency will be given the primary responsibility for developing military and para-military aspects of the basic plan. It is recommended that this responsibility for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Page 5 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 2 of Pentagon report)
    Page 5 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 2 of Pentagon report)

    The suggested courses of action … are based on the premise that US military intervention will result from a period of heightened US-Cuban tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances. World opinion, and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.

    Page 8 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 5 of Pentagon report)

    This plan … should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate objective which would provide adequate justification for US military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective.

    Pages 10-11 of 15-page GWU file on Northwoods (page 7-8 of Joint Chiefs report)

    A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
    So, what kind of “pretexts” did the CIA come up with? The answer may shock you.
    A. Incidents to establish a credible attack:

    (1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
    (2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
    (3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
    (4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
    (5) Blow up ammunition inside the base: start fires.
    (6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
    (7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.
    (8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
    (9) Capture militia group which storms base.
    (10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – naphthalene.
    (11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.
    It does not end there.
    Page 12 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 9 of Pentagon report)
    Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. Reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.
    Page 13 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 10 of Pentagon report)
    Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.
    It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.
    An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.
    The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

    The government has a website where this document can be accessed. However, because our government wants to make it so as few people find out about Operation Northwoods as possible, the web address changes ever 30 minutes. SO go to wanttoknow.info, and look for item number one on any of the three timelines. There is a 2 page, 10 page and sixty page version and provides explicit instructions about how to get ahold of the original. But if you’re too lazy and judging by the fact you seem driven by everything BUT the facts, that may be you; there is an abbreviated version of the original document at wanttoknow.info. Did you know our government had military training excersizes that involved hijacked airliners being flown into buildings including the WTC and Pentagon, MONTHS before 9/11? How about the memorandum bush was given that was titled, Bin Ladin deterimed to strike U.S.? It specifically mentioned the WTC, yet Bush lied and said it had nothing to do with terrorism! Why did attorney general ashcroft cancel is flight on 9/11 due to a threat assesment? Why are 9/11 survivers, some of whom have been honored as hero’s being silenced when they say that they heard an explosion several seconds before the planes hit? Why was 9/11 the first time in history that the black box flight recorders were never recovered? Why did clean-up workers at the WTC say they saw two of the black boxes being removed from the rubble? Why did these people get threatened when the gov. found out what they knew? After you are finished eating your words, make sure you find the documentary, “Zero,” afterwords so you can see what a French Nobel prize winner, scores of ignored witnesses, professors across the country and other American Physicists have to say based on a REAL SCIENTIFIC AND FORENSIC INVESTIGATION! Regardless of your misinformed opinions, vicious insults and complete inability to present anything that resembles evidence which cannot be readily refuted, that still gives you no right to insult other people. Face it, you’re driven by your beliefs, not by the facts. People like you don’t even want to consider the ramifications of our government perpetrating the worst humanitarian crime in U.S. history, but now you know about Operation Northwoods. So you can no longer bask in the fallacious claim that our government would never murder its own people. They would, they have and they will do it again. President Kennedy was all that stopped Operation Northwoods and the inevitable nuclear hollacoust that would have followed, He was murdered less than six months later. If you want to keep impersonating an ostrich, be my guest. Not everyone is that naieve. I never had a position on 9/11 until I did my own thorough investigation. I’m working on my PHD or I will be starting to this fall, and being a history major its good form to learn about what truly goes on and how similar current events are to past ones. Have fun getting your belief system shattered…Next time though, if you don’t want to come off as an uneducated reject, try sticking to the facts insterad of focusing on useless insults that only make it appear as though you have no clue what your babbling about.

  • Eric Marks May 27, 2011

    Btw JTk, answer this for me. Just about the most restricted airspace in the U.S. is over the Pentagon, and DC has an automated missel defense system protecting that airspace. Now there are two kinds of aiviation transponders in this country. Military and Civilian. Civilian airliners have only a civilian transponder, WHICH was shut off during the so-called descent into the Pentagon. Can you guess what happens to an airliner that turns its one and only transponder off? You guessed it! It’s supposed to be shot out of the sky! Why didn’t that happen? Either a stand-down order allowed the so-called jet to hit the Pentagon, OR the jet was flying low enough(as in under a 100 feet) that it was able to slip detection. The second option is the “official” explanation. Yet, high-up FAA airtraffic controllers and airline pilots have said over and over that even the BEST pilot would have to try the supposed manuver multiple times before getting it right! As for the “plane debris” can you explain why photographs taken JUST AFTER the supposed attack show no such debris and only after a couple days did that so-called debris magically appear in places it was not on 9/11. Furthermore, if the 9/11 comission is so authorative, how come it has not changed its list of supposed hijackers even after those same “terrorists” were tracked down by the BBC and found to be alive and well and missing various forms of identification. Their documentary the power of nightmares explains in detail about this and how Al Quada is a phantom organization that never even existed. Do you know what the name Al Quada means? It means data base! Do you know where the identies of the Al Quada terrorists were plucked from? They were taken from the data base for Afghan freeom fighters trained by the U.S. to oust the soviets from Afghanistan! Speaking of identification, how is it that passports of the so-called hijackers survived the same inferno that steel beams collpased because of? Can you explain why weapons grade thermite was found not just in WTC dust, but from collected steel beam debris? No, of course you can’t. Furthermore, why did General Albert Stubblebine, former head for army image interpretations and in charge oif identifying soviet nuclear weapons facilities from sattelite photographs gone on record to say that the hole in the Pentagon does not match the whole of a Jumbo 757? Can you even explain the physics behind the “official” explanation as to why the jet appears to not fit the hole? The governments scientists claim that the planes wings folded up against the fuselage like a bird of prey does when spotting its next meal? It is physically impossible for that to happen! Check out what these people have to say about 9/11,
    Senator Max Cleland. Former member of the 9/11 Commission. Resigned December 2003. U.S. Senator from Georgia 1996 2002. Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-import Bank of the United States. Administrator of U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 1981. Awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for U.S. Army bravery in Viet Nam. Triple amputee from war injuries.

    * Boston Globe Article 11/13/03: “If this decision stands [to limit 9/11 Commission access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised.”

    http://www.boston.com/… Link to Boston Globe article

    * Article 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission: “It is a national scandal.” http://dir.salon.com/story/

    * Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03

    * Transcript of audio interview 3/23/04: “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.” http://www.democracynow.org/

    * Bio: http://memory.loc.gov/… Library of Congress

    Louis Freeh Director of FBI, 1993 2001. Former U.S. District Court Judge for Southern District of New York, appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Former Deputy United States Attorney in New York. Former FBI agent. Former officer in United States Army.

    * Wall Street Journal 11/17/05: “Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of [lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed] Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it ‘was not historically significant.’ This astounding conclusion in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings raises serious challenges to the commission’s credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a ‘new’ commission.”

    http://www.op… Link to Wall Street Journal article

    * Bio: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/directors/… FBI Website

    General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) Commanding General of Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), 1981 1984. Also commanded U.S. Army’s Intelligence Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32 year Army career. Inducted into the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame in 1990.
    * Video: “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”
    Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.
    • Essay: “The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden.

    With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged.

    As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.” http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson….
    Rep. Curt Weldon – Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. House Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman. Homeland Security Committee Vice Chairman.
    • U.S. House of Representatives Speech 10/19/05:
    “Intelligence officers … identified [lead 9/11 hijacker] Mohammed Atta and three terrorists a year before 9/11, tried to transfer that information to the FBI, were denied, and the FBI Director has now said … the FBI could have used it to perhaps prevent the hijackings. The 9/11 Commission totally ignored this entire story.

    I am a strong supporter of our military. I am a strong supporter of President Bush. I say all of that, Mr. Speaker, because … there is something desperately wrong here. I have met with at least 10 people who fully corroborate what [intelligence officer] Tony Shaffer says. This is not [about] Republicans or Democrats. It is about what is fundamental to this country.”

    http://curtweld… – Link to speech on Weldon’s website

    • Fox News 8/28/05: “‘There’s something very sinister going on here that really troubles me,’ Weldon told Fox News on Thursday, blasting the 9/11 commission for not taking the claims more seriously. He said some panel members were trying to smear Shaffer and Able Danger. ‘What’s the 9/11 commission got to hide?’”

    http://www.foxnews…. – Fox News webpage with quote

    • Bio: http://curtweldon.house.gov/Biography/

    Did you notice what Max Cleland, former 9/11 comission member said and did? He said the commission was purposely fed bogus information and littered with members complicit to covering up the truth. He resigned because of it! He is not the only commission member who has gone on record to say the 9/11 commission was deliberately manipulative, and yet here you are speaking as if only moronic, uneducated fools would support a 9/11 cover-up. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. My suggestion is to look at both sides of the issue, instead of only learning one side and then dismissing everything else as lies or misinformation without ever taking the time to see whether or not that’s correct. I’ve looked extensive at both sides of the issue and I am utterly appalled by the lengths that naysayers will go to decieve others about the truth and then doing everything possible to ensure that proponents are thoroughly ostricized. Your comments are pretty hilarious, actually. They’re indicative of everything that is wrong with America. Most of us are so lazy and so fearful of the truth, that we are not willing to find things out on our own. What I take exception to, is when people like you suggest that supporters of a 9/11 cover-up somehow WANT the government to be involved! Oh sure, that’s what I want! I want my leaders to be plotting ways to kill us and serve their warmongering objectives in the process! Sure that’s the reality I wanna live in! Righhhhhhht. It is actually the other way around. It seems that more people DON’T want to believe and avoid information sources that would shatter their obliviousness to the harsh realities we are faced with. I wish more than anything that the government had nothing to do with perpetrating 9/11. But I cannot deny what the evidence tells me, though I wish like hell that somehow I’m wrong….In this case I really would rather be wrong….but darnit I’m not! It really sucks, but for me the truth is always more preferable than revling in fantasy.

  • Johannes Johannes August 16, 2011

    Is Sunstein a Zionist ?

  • Johannes Johannes August 16, 2011

    Is Sunstein a Zionist ?

    • bfdl August 14, 2013

      One can poke holes on both sides of these arguments, and the only conclusion one can make with any confidence is that we still have many more questions than answers. Argue all day about structural steel and the paranoia of “truthers”, and what do you end up with?
      Mostly a long ass argument that resolves nothing.
      I can agree with some of what is argued from both sides, but neither, at least in this exhaustive thread, can claim to have furnished anything indisputable. You heat steel and it weakens, but a blacksmith’s forge doesn’t produce I-beams for building skyscrapers. When Jet airplanes crash, they leave debris all over the place. The NTSB collects the pieces, and they reassemble the parts in warehouses to determine what happened.
      Four Jets crash, but not one incident is given this standard procedure? “The plane that hit the pentagon vaporized.” That would be a first. If you have questions about one thing, that brings everything into question. I’m not a “truther”, but I’m not buying into the official story either.
      But those who argue against the “truthers” immediately pounce on,deride and belittle, anyone who just questions the official story. Tout your credentials as an expert in whatever you wish, but don’t call anyone an idiot because they still have questions. Anyone who claims to have all the answers, backed by science and peer-review, has yet to appear.
      JTK, you may be an engineer, but you don’t know much about the rules of argument (not against the law for engineers, btw.) Neither does the other side. But it is the rational engineering camp that says I’m a fool for just raising my hand and daring to ask a question. Talk about the scientific method all you want and tell me how much I don’t know about physics and science until you run out of air. None of what you bring to the debate has yet satisfy my unease with what I have been told about the events of that day. Skepticism is the cornerstone of scientific inquiry, yet those who profess to be rational and scientific bristle when anyone is skeptical of their opinions. I’m not an architect or an engineer, but I have worked with structural steel and have experience welding and casting metal. I know how things go together, and I even know how things fall apart. I know that when I’m told not to question something or someone, that’s when I need to double my efforts. I know that there is not one single example of any steel beam structure over ten stories tall that has ever collapsed due to fire. Except for the three on 9-11. No scientist or engineer or architect has ever been able to give me a single example of this, before or after 9-11. This is a fact. Modern buildings don’t collapse into themselves accidentally. Even when the experts come in to demolish them, they will occasionally screw it up. No buildings in the history of buildings have ever failed the way that three of them did that day.
      It doesn’t add up. Until it does, I’ll still be seeking answers. Isn’t that what a rational mind would do?

%d bloggers like this: